I think that was the whole point from @TheGame no? that the Tories are raising non issues or creating new ones when there's far bigger things to solve
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
I think that was the whole point from @TheGame no? that the Tories are raising non issues or creating new ones when there's far bigger things to solve
So what you're saying is that it's OK for a politican to deliberately misinform things because it's a "mundane" topic
Bingo.
Yup, and there was misinformation implying some blanket ban on AC alongside this stuff came in under them and now they want to come to the rescue when doing feck all whilst in Government. It’s an absolute parody.
Absolutely. Tories yet again putting their energy into the irrelevant.
Restore is a far-right party. That’s not even remotely up for debate. It’s not “common sense”, it’s a party that wants to deport every non-white person.Nazis assemble.
Restore Britain reinstates sacked member who posed doing Nazi salute after furious backlash from hard-Right supporters
https://www.dailymail.com/news/arti...tates-sacked-member-Nazi-salute-backlash.html
Top rated comment
They're just taking a leaf out of the tobacco industry book (followed up by the fossil fuel industry) - out and out denial. It's actually a tried and tested tactic that (sadly) still works. It makes arguing with someone very difficult when they start from a position that the thing you're against doesn't even exist.
If you want at least it’s misinformation about something mundane, than misinformation about anything important
Minister insists Labour not committed by manifesto to applying national living wage to all over-18s before next election
Good morning. Last night Alan Milburn suggested that he would like the government to drop its commitment to pay all people over the age of 18 the national living wage. The former Labour health secretary was speaking after he published a major report on the rise in the number of young people not in education, employment or training (Neet) and he implied that when the final report is published in the autumn, with policy recommendations, it will propose changes to the national living wage/minimum wage system to encourage more firms to hire young people. A change to the “discriminatory age bands” policy seems to be quite high up his list of demands.For the record, this is what Labour said in its manifesto.
The TUC said yesterday that cutting the minimum wage for young workers would be a mistake – setting the scene for a fierce Labour internal battle over the manifesto pledge.
This morning, in an interview on the Today programme, Torsten Bell, the pensions minister, hinted that Milburn may get his way. Milburn, the TUC, and everyone else who has read the manifesto, probably assume that, when Labour said it would “remove discriminatory age bands”, it meant by the end of this parliament.
But it didn’t, Bell claimed. He said:
When the presenter, Justin Webb, said put it to Bell that people understood that as meaning by the end of this parliament, Bell replied:
Webb asked him to confirm that Labour is not committed to equalising the rates by the end of this parliament. Bell replied:
Asked again if the government was committed to the pledge, Bell said:
Milburn is likely to be more happy about this answer than the trade union movement.
---
"It's a long document".
The Milburn report looks like it will be a cause to reduce the wages of the young and also to cut benefits for younger people to in order to get them into work.
The discussion around "NEET" is infuriating and is being lead by people who have simply no experience of what it's actually like.
First of all, the argument about living/minimum wage is daft. Most employers, especially in the hospitality and retail sectors, would happily pay young people nothing if they could get away with it and just claim "work experience is important". It also assumes that all 16-21 year old still live with their parents. Some towards the end of that age range are paying the same bills as everyone else but not getting paid as much and then relying on UC to survive. Reducing it is also only really a short term fix as if these people stay with the company, employers will eventually see a massive wage increase when these people reach a wage where they're entities to a "proper" wage.
As for the wider debate with the unemployment figures, there's still a weird assumption that young people are all going to Uni in their millions to study media studies at a former poly them leaving uni at 21 with no skills. An increasing number of people aren't going to Uni at 18 and are increasingly looking at more "technical" pathways. The problem is there just enough companies willing to take on apprentices even when they get a fairly substantial amount of funding.
If the job is real then the wage should be real, there is no way around this.
However:
A real job will need the person to be competent (skills and performance levels) to undertake the work.
If a new entrant needs to learn the skills and competences necessary 'on-the-job' then it is realistic to expect a training rate applies during this period.
If the new entrant has never been in paid employment before, the time scale for acquiring both skills competences and adapting to employment patterns; e.g.arriving on time, ready to start work (includes for use of PPE etc.) will need to reflect this.
A defined standard of performance achieved on a regular basis defines when the real wage should be paid.
The above elements use to apply when jobs were clearly defined as real jobs, usually only two classifications existed Full time or Part time. employment
Since the growth of 'flexible-working' or working from home, or zero hours contracts etc. although all these had their uses and their supporters; for those seeking full time employment these developments have been nothing more than 'a trap-door' to becoming part of the 'working poor'... a disgrace in a country like Britain.
Last edited:
A training rate is fair enough. But, it still needs to be something reasonable and have a clear pathway to earning a living wage.
Regards to "learning skills" if its a "basic" admin/hospitality/retail job, you do what companies do when they hire any staff. Train them. Give them clear targets etc. With less going to Uni, those part-time entry level staff could stay for years if you treat them well.
I've been a line manager in previous jobs and we always had more of an issue with people joining us in their 30s or 40s compared to those who joined between 18 and 25. We also spent as much time training both age ranges.
The working from home point is so pointless. People did that for years before it became an extra argument in the culture war bullshit.
The biggest issue with all this is the disconnect between what employers think they want and what they actually need. If you give staff a decent wage, allow them a bit of flexibility to work around families etc and offer a pathway to progression, people will stick around.
I've also seen job adverts that are live for months on LinkedIn despite clearly having hundreds of applicants. They're advertising entry level jobs but want people with years of experience. I've seen digital marketing jobs that list requirements as things like "being an expert in AI search" (nobody is yet) whilst also essentially being a videographer that can create "trending content".
My cousin is having a year away from education after doing her A Levels this summer and went for a job in Next working on the counter. There was a three stage interview. She needed three personal references and was also asked to record herself on camera talking about why she would be a good fit and needed to include info about the history of the company. The final stage was some team building exercises. In reality, the skills she needs are: are you confident to speak with customers and will you turn up on time. Everything else is just utterly pointless and turns a quick hire, trial shift, offer job process that should take a fortnight into something that has already lasted five weeks.
I started my current job in 1997, the company I worked for were taken over by a gloabl entity, a few months later they synced up the job titles and descriptions to line up with their existing teams and employees, at that point I didn't meet the job description though I had already proved I could do the job, 29 years later, I'm still there, doing essentially the same job ina different location and I still don't meet those original requirements!!
This can betraced back to when the 'Personnel Office' became.....'Human Resources Division'.
A direct correlation!!!
This article does a great job of illuminating you as to just how thick the general public are: https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...-boats-immigrants-every-conversation-34021994
Choice quote:
Choice quote:
That's weird cuz usually if you start a new party no one is interested. Now, hey, you haven't had a shot, let's get you in, regardless of your policies!
The thing is, a lot of people are voting for Farage not Reform if that makes sense. He's developed a Trump like following and people are voting for him even if they disagree with the actual politics of the party.
Last edited:
Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic comes to mind.
Jesus. Mahmood is possibly the only thicker plank in the cabinet than Reeves, would be some feat to manage to over promote her to Chancellor.
Kind of seems more like trying to find another iceberg
That would give all those Reform councils the responsibility of housing asylum seekers? Can't see any possible issues with that.
David Lammy is at the heed of that queue, and by quite some margin. Followed by Ed Miliband.
Based on...?
Lammy - everything he’s ever said. Just watch Mastermind to see what a mastermind we have as our deputy PM.
Millaband for his suicidal and illiterate energy policies.
Do you rate David Lammy? Do you think he’s a quality operator? Better than the very low bar that Reeves has set? What do you base that on?
No I think Lammy is a knobhead. Unlike Reeves I don't think he was ever fired from a real job for buying handbags on expenses but that is indeed a low bar.
Milliband though, do tell of his suicidal energy policies.
Lammy is an empty suite. Miliband is pushing through necessary changes to our energy infrastructure that will ultimately give us energy independence. Remove the necessity for government to constantly adjust budgets and policies to align with the whims of mad men trying to play Command and Conquer in the oil fields. And ultimately, reduce the cost of energy consumption in the UK long term.
Won't happen instantly though, so Telegraph/Sun/Mail/Express/GB News will take the opportunity do all they can to discredit it on instruction of their owners, and tell everyone reading or watching that its a failure and should be abandoned.
Green energy is probably our last chance to boom.
So we agree Lammy is even more useless than Reeves? Thats the point. You disagree about Miliband, fine - no need for debate, and going down that rabbit hole as a distraction.
Wes Streeting calls for national insurance cut and North Sea drilling
Labour leadership hopeful says NI reduction for firms could ‘incentivise’ hiring, particularly of younger peoplehttps://www.theguardian.com/politic...ing-ni-tax-cuts-businesses-incentivise-hiring
I can only assume this is a plan to influence future policy, as there is no way this will endear him to the membership.
These form of tax cuts should be conditional. You can have it if you hire and train younger people.
We know how this goes though. Businesses/people in general are not altruistic.
NI is literally a tax on employing people though, it's obvious that raising it discourages job creation. A most foolish thing to have done in the first place really, particularly when its implications are so tricky to actually calculate in your head.
North sea drilling can feck off though.
There is NI relief on hiring under 21s or apprentices under 25:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...r-apprentices-under-25-and-employees-under-21
Whether that is as effective as it should be is another question.
We should be pushing and expanding this.
Bless you for assuming something so innocent.
He takes a massive amount of money from a hedge fund manager. A hedge fund manager who happens to have significant holdings in Shell, one the main beneficiaries of north sea oil. Shell have spent the last few weeks pushing new licenses so this chain of events isn't surprising.
This is how the world works sadly.
Streeting is an odious Tory rodent.
Nah. We don’t want him. He’s always been yours.
Mine? I don’t like the Labour Party. I only voted for Labour once, in 2019. Never again.
Not exactly inspiring
The levy system in the late 60's operated through ITB's up to and including Maggies YTS. It did promote recruitment and training of young people at a preferential rate, I.e. where companies could claim back the levy each year, if they met their targets or could show exemptions.
It wasn't perfect and larger companies were not at ease with the schemes; but for many SMEs, they were effective and the costs were upfront and levies could be recovered quickly. It was not a tax on employment.
It started to become less popular when MSC became interim operators on behalf of government and was finally withdrawn after the ITB's started to decline and the TEC'S took over.
Not a panacea, but suspect it's worth another look.
Last edited:
He's running to retain a Labour seat with the slogan 'Change Labour'?
Someone needs to Lionel Hutz that sign fast.
Burham seems to want to run both a local election campaign and a party leadership campaign all at the same time. Have no idea if it will work but it's very strange.
