The Politics Thread 2019

[maxjam]

1 minute ago, reverendo de duivel said:

I do work in a factory, and have seen and benefitted from a machine that can condense 40 hours work into much less than, depending on the person operating it.

I'm a lucky beneficiary, as are my colleagues, as indeed are my employers.

Everyone's a winner.

So I'm missing something here... you work in a factory and a machine has condensed 40 hours work into much less - therefore you now either work a lot less than 40hr/week and earn significantly less or your employer has got used to your new rates of output? 

Whatever, the original question I was replying to was the 4 day week will reduce our carbon footprint to achieve that businesses will have to shut 1 day a week.  Not sure thats gonna happen, a lot of places won't take a 20% hit in output and a lot of places can't (NHS etc)

[Stagtime]

43 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Even better result from a four-day week. More employment. These policies that the Labour Party want to introduce sounding better and better.

Personally, the best thing i did was go to a 4 day week 2 years ago. Even better was a 8 day fortnight i worked over there in 2014.    

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

The very same banks that had their regulation slashed by Gordon Brown you mean?

Now you're on my turf and I need to point out a couple of factual inaccuracies in this.

Labour did set up the Financial Services Authority but did not "slash" banking regulations. Gordon Brown admitted later that the real regulatory failure was not to fully understand the systemic risk building throughout the system.  Neither did any other regulator. 

The genesis of the 2007-2009 financial crash was City deregulation under Margaret Thatcher in 1985. Nigel Lawson analysed3it as an unintended consequence of investment banks merging with retail banks.

Labour was not to blame for the financial crash. The impact on tax receipts was sudden, unprecedented and very material. The deficit which is still with us even after so many years austerity is not fully recovered 

[1of4]

36 minutes ago, cstand said:

In the 40s ???

The 40's the decade the NHS was born.

[Rev]

17 minutes ago, maxjam said:

So I'm missing something here... you work in a factory and a machine has condensed 40 hours work into much less - therefore you now either work a lot less than 40hr/week and earn significantly less or your employer has got used to your new rates of output? 

Whatever, the original question I was replying to was the 4 day week will reduce our carbon footprint to achieve that businesses will have to shut 1 day a week.  Not sure thats gonna happen, a lot of places won't take a 20% hit in output and a lot of places can't (NHS etc)

I earn more per week than I used to, for less hours.

Overtime is a thing of the past, and everyone is better off financially and time wise. 

Maybe I work for an outlier employer, and my experience isn't the norm, but in our case increased productivity has led to tangible improvement in quality of life from the top to bottom of the employees of the company I work for.

 

 

 

[maxjam]

5 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

I earn more per week than I used to, for less hours.

Overtime is a thing of the past, and everyone is better off financially and time wise. 

Maybe I work for an outlier employer, and my experience isn't the norm, but in our case increased productivity has led to tangible improvement in quality of life from the top to bottom of the employees of the company I work for.

Thats great, and I'm sure there will always be exceptions to the norm and some companies that can afford it will step up and 'do the right thing'.  My guess however is that most won't and/or can't. 

[maxjam]

This is savage...

 

 

[cstand]

7 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Now you're on my turf and I need to point out a couple of factual inaccuracies in this.

Labour did set up the Financial Services Authority but did not "slash" banking regulations. Gordon Brown admitted later that the real regulatory failure was not to fully understand the systemic risk building throughout the system.  Neither did any other regulator. 

The genesis of the 2007-2009 financial crash was City deregulation under Margaret Thatcher in 1985. Nigel Lawson analysed3it as an unintended consequence of investment banks merging with retail banks.

Labour was not to blame for the financial crash. The impact on tax receipts was sudden, unprecedented and very material. The deficit which is still with us even after so many years austerity is not fully recovered 

Very good point Labour was not at fault Thatcher freed up the banks to lend more which was very good for the economy though crucially did not put the safe guards in place as you pointed out when investment banks merging with retail banks it was a crash waiting to happen which no regulator saw coming. 

Although some amatuer investors who left school with only two GSEs made a very good profit out of the 2007-2009 crash Warren Buffet style.

 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

29 minutes ago, cstand said:

Very good point Labour was not at fault Thatcher freed up the banks to lend more which was very good for the economy though crucially did not put the safe guards in place as you pointed out when investment banks merging with retail banks it was a crash waiting to happen which no regulator saw coming. 

Although some amatuer investors who left school with only two GSEs made a very good profit out of the 2007-2009 crash Warren Buffet style.

 

It bothers me when lack of formal qualification is used to back up an argument. I know people do, but it grates probably due to personal experience

I left school with diddly, not one . Six D's   This wasn't because I was dense in anyway.  It was more a combination of leaving in 1989 where systems were not in place to assist those struggling to reach potential and a decision to not bother as no one believed I could.  Kids don't achieve at school for many reasons - peer pressure, bullying , shyness. I also think that being one of the youngest in the year doesn't help. A few years later I decided I was capable of learning, found I was pretty good at it and got a lot of credentials.

A common term of phrase amongst the younger generation is using the word BTEC as a term for inferiority. I've pulled people up on it before.  If you're out there and doing a HND DON'T LISTEN.  I've done that and a degree . The HND is more generic and harder.

Some people may not have gone down the formal education route . I know two who are very successful as they having very engaging personalities and sometimes that's enough. They could do it, as one adds up figures in his head for jobs that I could never do - they just have no requirement to .

 

 

[rammieib]

9 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I'm closer to the left than I am to the right, and I'm going to vote Labour in this election. That's mainly because their general principles align closest with my personal moral view of the world. 

However, as a student, I can confidently say that the pledge to abolish tuition fees is an absolute joke. The current system is good, as everyone essentially gets free education until they earn enough (£25,725 salary) to start paying it off. All unpaid debt is wiped off after 30 years if it hasn't been paid during that time.

I'm not attacking the concept of free tuition in itself. It's just that there are far more pressing issues for aspiring university students from poorer backgrounds. Tuition fees don't prevent anyone from attending uni, for the reasons outlined above. What does prevent those from poorer backgrounds from going into higher education is the cost of living. Whilst maintenance loans are given, they sometimes don't cover all of rent, food, textbooks, some socialising, etc. The money spent on abolishing tuition fees would be far better directed at increasing maintenance loans or subsidising student housing. 

If the Labour Party want to make a genuine difference to the lives of poor people aspiring to better themselves, they should stop with the eye-catching policies and direct the money where it truly matters.

My issue with this is in about 15-20 years time, we are going to start writing off billions of debt. It's going to set the country back enormously.

If you earn £30k, you would pay back 10% of £4,275 so £423 a year. if your debt is £40k from uni on a 2.5% interest rate, that is £1000 a year. You'd need to be earning £37k to be paying just the interest off.

It's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous but I don't know what the answer is.

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, rammieib said:

My issue with this is in about 15-20 years time, we are going to start writing off billions of debt. It's going to set the country back enormously.

If you earn £30k, you would pay back 10% of £4,275 so £423 a year. if your debt is £40k from uni on a 2.5% interest rate, that is £1000 a year. You'd need to be earning £37k to be paying just the interest off.

It's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous but I don't know what the answer is.

I don't know how the system currently works but maybe some sort of scheme where the employers who are benefiting from university graduates pay towards the fees in some way?

[Anag Ram]

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

This is savage...

 

 

Yes, if I was Jeremy, Jo or Boris I would not be looking forward to my interview with Mr Neil.

[ketteringram]

26 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

Yes, if I was Jeremy, Jo or Boris I would not be looking forward to my interview with Mr Neil.

Indeed. I watched that last night. He'll destroy all of them , and rightly so to be honest.

Carrying a bit of timber for a 70 year old though ?

[Van der MoodHoover]

9 hours ago, cstand said:

Very good point Labour was not at fault Thatcher freed up the banks to lend more which was very good for the economy though crucially did not put the safe guards in place as you pointed out when investment banks merging with retail banks it was a crash waiting to happen which no regulator saw coming. 

Although some amatuer investors who left school with only two GSEs made a very good profit out of the 2007-2009 crash Warren Buffet style.

 

Spot on there. It's pure gambling. Now if Labour really wanted to fix a "rigged" market, investment banking would be a place to start.

Far too many people extracting cash out of a system that builds and delivers very little of lasting value. 

Not easy but worthwhile. 

[Anag Ram]

8 minutes ago, ketteringram said:

Indeed. I watched that last night. He'll destroy all of them , and rightly so to be honest.

Carrying a bit of timber for a 70 year old  ?

Yes, I think that's what the enormous tie was supposed to cover up. 

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

8 hours ago, rammieib said:

My issue with this is in about 15-20 years time, we are going to start writing off billions of debt. It's going to set the country back enormously.

If you earn £30k, you would pay back 10% of £4,275 so £423 a year. if your debt is £40k from uni on a 2.5% interest rate, that is £1000 a year. You'd need to be earning £37k to be paying just the interest off.

It's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous but I don't know what the answer is.

But are they ? As I understand it the student debt is not recognized on the government books/debt. It stands at around £125bn and is planned to reach £450bn by the middle of this century. to put in context, the NHS budget is around £130bn.

Generation rent/snowflakes/millenials call them what you like have been sold down the river but because it does not affect the books and they don't really vote en masse, the politicians mention it to get a few votes but in the whole ignore them. 

Rent/Loans/Brexit mess for years to come/Environment/Pensions at the age of 70/etc...kids deserve a lot better.

 

 

[RamNut]

6 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I don't know how the system currently works but maybe some sort of scheme where the employers who are benefiting from university graduates pay towards the fees in some way?

Why not use the apprenticeship levy which able to fund degree courses for existing employees. Not many employers are able to spend it fully.

[AndyinLiverpool]

12 hours ago, GboroRam said:

I don't suppose you lived through the Clement Attlee days, with mass nationalisation and the creation of the NHS? 

Honestly if we didn't have these things today the right would be telling us that it's impossible and asking who's going to pay for it, then rubbishing the replies. 

Stop letting rich people tell you the country can't afford it. 

All of that in a country economically crippled by war and the US calling in Lend-Lease.

[Stive Pesley]

26 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

But are they ? As I understand it the student debt is not recognized on the government books/debt.

Correct - the whole issue is a con. The loans come out of government funds - but as they won't be paid back for years, or in a lot of cases ever -the government sell the debt to a private company. That sale takes place at a figure way lower than the book cost (because who would by a debt that wouldn't make them any profit?). The private company is gambling that the amount paid back+interest is more than the figure they paid to but the debt

So you see how student loans start as taxpayer money, get partially written off, then sold to private firms to make profit out of the repayments. 

Another neoliberal scheme to siphon money from the public purse into the pockets of the corporations

 

 

 

[Stive Pesley]

11 hours ago, maxjam said:

Thats great, and I'm sure there will always be exceptions to the norm and some companies that can afford it will step up and 'do the right thing'.  My guess however is that most won't and/or can't. 

There are plenty at my place who work 4 day weeks and it works fine. But I think it's obvious that there are numerous examples of industries and sectors where moving to a 4 day week would be a much bigger challenge. I guess where we differ is that I don't think that's a reason to NOT aspire to it.

I'm not sure the Labour Party have got the PR right on the policy, because making it sound mandatory leaves them wide open to the naysayers, but if they'd painted it as an aspiration then who could complain?

For me we should be looking at all the reasons it would be a good thing, and ways that we could make it work - rather than just grimly and cynically coming up with reasons why it won't work. After all "it wouldn't work for companies A, B & C" is no reason to not do it at companies D, E & F