General Election, June 8th

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Hazard a guess,......ziltch.  Much easier to moan about those will the balls for enterprise, with a nice collective comment that "most" are nasty bastards paying peanuts.

 

Chip removal from shoulder needed. 

 

toddybad......no balls......no small businesses.......less jobs. Do you have the balls?

 

The word "most" was not in my comment. Read it again, I went to great pains to ensure it said "SOME".

No chip here my friend. Just explaining that businesses need to pay their staff enough to live on. What is contentious about that?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, breadandcheese said:

So if businesses put up prices to cover the cost of the wage increase, where's the benefit to the economy and more importantly, the workers? The workers are no better off. If anything, our low tech exporting businesses are at an economic disadvantage as their cost base is higher than their global competitors.

So we have businesses exporting goods around the world but think its okay that they don't pay their staff enough to live on? This is the route towards a Chinese economy. 

[breadandcheese]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The word "most" was not in my comment. Read it again, I went to great pains to ensure it said "SOME".

No chip here my friend. Just explaining that businesses need to pay their staff enough to live on. What is contentious about that?

The living wage according to living wage.org.UK is £8.45/hour not £10/hour

[Nick]

52 minutes ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

 just like saying all those who are not lefty's like you are Daily Mail readers. Now jog on.... 

Show me where I wrote that - now you jog on internet warrior.

[breadandcheese]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So we have businesses exporting goods around the world but think its okay that they don't pay their staff enough to live on? This is the route towards a Chinese economy. 

No. We have businesses competing with European and US competitors who will have a lower cost base.  

 

The result of Corbyn's business policies (especially in a post brexit Britain) will be the encouragement of businesses to move production abroad. It will result in job losses and will not result in the tax revenues needed to pay for his spending splurge.

 

You can dislike the reality of that but this is the situation we find ourselves in.

[Captain...]

The Strawmen are out in force today!

 

I was staying out of this thread earlier as I didn't want to get embroiled in rhetoric but it all seemed quite pleasant earlier this week.

 

The issue with NMW is a nuanced one and like all policies it is about balance. It may well negatively impact some small businesses and probably push up prices of consumer goods, but it should bring more people out of poverty and help stimulate economic growth. Whether it is too high a jump and the damage to small businesses leads to short term unemployment and bankruptcy or it stimulates the economy and vastly reduces poverty in this country we may never know. There are points to be made on both sides but just arguing specifics is redundant none of us are qualified to give a definitive answer as to what is best for the country.

 

The same can be said for the corporation tax rise, it may put off some companies setting up here, but we are still a massive economy and we will always have corporations here paying tax, a little squeeze on the big corporations could swell the coffers and help support the NHS, national security education and all the other things that are being cut.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Just thought I'd mention that the policy is to raise the minimum wage by the end of the parliament and not in the first budget so no business will face a 25% increase in their expenditure straight away. Will try to avoid the debate with the old men because I have never run a business so I'm apparently an ignoramus along with most of the population.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

No. We have businesses competing with European and US competitors who will have a lower cost base.  

 

The result of Corbyn's business policies (especially in a post brexit Britain) will be the encouragement of businesses to move production abroad. It will result in job losses and will not result in the tax revenues needed to pay for his spending splurge.

 

You can dislike the reality of that but this is the situation we find ourselves in.

This is complete nonsense. Business people don't like the idea of paying their staff more SHOCKER! Because we all know that business people have what's best for the country at heart. 

[Captain...]

Also @MattP is partially right about Corbyn being a Lefty Trump, he did come to lead the party on a wave of populism and his radical views gained him a lot of support from those disaffected with the established elite. 

 

The difference is he is leading a party campaign and not a presidential campaign and his more extreme ideas have been filtered out, scrapping trident, abolishing the monarchy, nationalising banks etc and compromises have been made for the good of the party to create a manifesto that appeals to many people. Trumps increasingly over the top rhetoric won him many votes whereas Corbyn has had to tone it down because people are not voting for the individual but the party.

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This is complete nonsense. Business people don't like the idea of paying their staff more SHOCKER! Because we all know that business people have what's best for the country at heart. 

The more expensive you make it to employ people the less people will be employed. This isn't rocket science surely?

 

People don't go I to business so they can pay strangers a good wage, they go into business to make themselves money.

[breadandcheese]

13 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This is complete nonsense. Business people don't like the idea of paying their staff more SHOCKER! Because we all know that business people have what's best for the country at heart. 

Yes. A them and us attitude. Very good. 

 

Most business owners I know are not against increasing wages as long as there are the revenue increases to back it up. 

 

I don't think Corbyn's business policies will work.

[Captain...]

17 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

No. We have businesses competing with European and US competitors who will have a lower cost base.  

 

The result of Corbyn's business policies (especially in a post brexit Britain) will be the encouragement of businesses to move production abroad. It will result in job losses and will not result in the tax revenues needed to pay for his spending splurge.

 

You can dislike the reality of that but this is the situation we find ourselves in.

 

That is only true if businesses purely thought in terms of tax and wages, but they don't. We will still be a cheaper prospect than Germany and we will still be more expensive than tax havens like Switzerland. If it was purely about money then your argument holds water but it isn't, it is about access to the UK markets, access to the skilled work force. London is one of the biggest financial centres in the world, it is also a huge centre for fashion and media. We have thousands of skilled IT professionals. It is not all about the bottom line. A lot of companies that do think like that have already set up their manufacturing centres in Asia and their financial service centres in Switzerland. The UK market, like the German and French markets are desirable and always will be. An extra 10% tax on profit is not going dissuade them because there is a huge amount of profit to be made here.

[Guest Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The more expensive you make it to employ people the less people will be employed. This isn't rocket science surely?

 

People don't go I to business so they can pay strangers a good wage, they go into business to make themselves money.

 

There's plenty of studies out there that suggest raising the minimum wage doesn't actually cause unemployment, most of which are from America where employment laws are more relaxed. There are some, but less, that still suggest it increases unemployment. We've increased NMW to £7.50 and still unemployment is falling and is at its lowest level. Of course it depends on how drastic the change is and many other factors.

So actually with Corbyn wishing to increase costs, and with inflation creeping up anyway, I would suspect that it will have some effect on employment levels but I would suggest it might be more to do with employment growth

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Also @MattP is partially right about Corbyn being a Lefty Trump, he did come to lead the party on a wave of populism and his radical views gained him a lot of support from those disaffected with the established elite. 

To be honest, I think the vast majority can see it.

 

Nothing wrong with it either, populism has become a dirty word but it's supposed to mean representing the interest of ordinary folk.

[Captain...]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The more expensive you make it to employ people the less people will be employed. This isn't rocket science surely?

 

People don't go I to business so they can pay strangers a good wage, they go into business to make themselves money.

The more money in the pockets of consumers the stronger the economy and greater chance of a successful business.

 

I would rather pay my workers a decent wage in a prosperous country with plenty of opportunity to make more money, than pay less than the living wage and create an impoverished society that can't afford to support my business.

 

It's about balance and a couple of under performing business going under to bring thousands out of poverty and stimulate economic growth is a sacrifice that is worth making.

[Bobby Hundreds]

The alternative is caps on costs like rent, energy (which the Tories have in their manifesto but yet slated Miliband for a similar policy), food, and transport.

[Guest MattP]

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

He was simply pointing out a fact.  Venezuela is in a mess and deep Socialism doesn't work because it spends too much money.   

 

Labour is now Momentum and not even Labour anymore and despite all the double bluffing, would inflict a deep form of Socialism on the UK. Thus eventually through time in office, spending more money than ever before.  Before you throw back the Tories can;t get the deficit down, forgetting the pile of crap they inherited the only.....only argument is borrowing more to grow is good when interest rates are extremely low, as they currently are.  All that argument goes down the plug hole when the interest rates go up and the debt interest rogers our economy further..I'll tell you what then, we'll be double ****ed. Too much debt, too much going on interest payments, borrowing new bonds for capital at the same higher rate and the death spiral really begins.  These are just facts, the reality.

 

Listen the Tories are hardly running thing well, but sometimes you just weigh up which one gives you the best hope for the future.  Labour's gift list of spending needs money, lots of money, it will eventually stifle the economy and all this Utopia you all want on here becomes the impossible dream.

 

As Sir Winston once said:

 

“If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.”

 

I am 45

 

 

Which proves that there is an exception to every rule.

[Sharpe's Fox]

In my view people maybe in a middle management position deplore "the politics of envy" but resent if someone under them is brought near to their level in pay terms. Personally I try not to obsess with what others are doing and concentrate on myself in all aspects of life because the opposite isn't a healthy frame of mind. If people with not very much are getting on in life I think that's great.

[Rincewind]

A happy workforce makes for a happy work environment and successful business. Of course there are exceptions but usually if the worker has a good reason to get up in the morning they will be more willing to give that bit extra. At my sisters place they all muck in with whatever needs doing whether its loading a van cutting material or serving customers and she can rely on any of them to do any locking up. She paysthem a decent wage as she knows what it is like to struggle. There is any will leave for another job.

[Buce]

47 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

No. We have businesses competing with European and US competitors who will have a lower cost base.  

 

The result of Corbyn's business policies (especially in a post brexit Britain) will be the encouragement of businesses to move production abroad. It will result in job losses and will not result in the tax revenues needed to pay for his spending splurge.

 

You can dislike the reality of that but this is the situation we find ourselves in.

 

This was all said when the minimum wage was first introduced, but it didn't happen then.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

This was all said when the minimum wage was first introduced, but it didn't happen then.

That was gradual rise. 

 

This is £7.05 to £10 in just over two years, which is bordering on insanity.

 

OK for Tesco/Amazon etc who can take a hit and just increase prices because of the mass market they hold, but devastating for individuals and small business owners, not to mentire the four days of trade already lost to the bank holiday policy.

[Nick]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

To be honest, I think the vast majority can see it.

 

Nothing wrong with it either, populism has become a dirty word but it's supposed to mean representing the interest of ordinary folk.

 

Well any party governing or otherwise attempt to align themselves with 'ordinary folk' or at the very least ordinary folk who vote... any party that doesn't do that won't win an election... popular and populist ideology are not necessarily the same thing. Populist ideology is about challenging the corrupt elite not the 'undeserving rich' as Webbo's paper puts it.

 

You also compared supporters and crowd behaviours of demographics in a negative way, associating them with Trump supporters. This wasn't about policy it was about trying to manipulate an instance by associating it with something or groups of people at polar opposites in order to discredit them. 

 

You also then went in to offensively label supporters of Corbyn likening them to a cult and calling them morons. You also then don't answer any questions on your support for Trump and similarity in policy to Tories, instead deflecting with your dislike for Hilary Clinton. Using Trump as a dirty word to demonise one group of people but quietly supporting other Trump policy with a sly satisfaction is a tad dishonest.

 

Passing things of as fact that are your opinion is what I do take issue with. Perhaps it's just your writing style. Saying things like 'I don't expect you to be able to see it' and 'I think the vast majority can see it' is a really cheap rhetoric at positioning your argument and adds bugger all substance to your arguments. 

 

[Webbo]

18 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

In my view people maybe in a middle management position deplore "the politics of envy" but resent if someone under them is brought near to their level in pay terms. Personally I try not to obsess with what others are doing and concentrate on myself in all aspects of life because the opposite isn't a healthy frame of mind. If people with not very much are getting on in life I think that's great.

So do I.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

Well any party governing or otherwise attempt to align themselves with 'ordinary folk' or at the very least ordinary folk who vote... any party that doesn't do that won't win an election... popular and populist ideology are not necessarily the same thing. Populist ideology is about challenging the corrupt elite not the 'undeserving rich' as Webbo's paper puts it.

 

You also compared supporters and crowd behaviours of demographics in a negative way, associating them with Trump supporters. This wasn't about policy it was about trying to manipulate an instance by associating it with something or groups of people at polar opposites in order to discredit them. 

 

You also then went in to offensively label supporters of Corbyn likening them to a cult and calling them morons. You also then don't answer any questions on your support for Trump and similarity in policy to Tories, instead deflecting with your dislike for Hilary Clinton. Using Trump as a dirty word to demonise one group of people but quietly supporting other Trump policy with a sly satisfaction is a tad dishonest.

 

Passing things of as fact that are your opinion is what I do take issue with. Perhaps it's just your writing style. Saying things like 'I don't expect you to be able to see it' and 'I think the vast majority can see it' is a really cheap rhetoric at positioning your argument and adds bugger all substance to your arguments. 

 

You see the main problem with accusing me of holding support for Trump is that I'm on record as saying I couldn't and wouldn't vote for Trump, so it's just not true. You have fell into that trap a lot have by assuming anyone who disliked Clinton wanted the Donald, which again, simply isn't true and isn't backed up by any evidence. 

 

It's fair to compare crowds at Trump and Corbyn rallies because they do behave similar, reasons I've already mentioned from jeering the press to attacking bankers etc - policy isn't the same, behaviour often is.

 

I realise it's uncomfortable for you, but when even people on your own side can see it it just might be worth considering the point, rather than just getting upset because they are being compared with a figure you don't like.