General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

How do you intend to vote in the 2017 General Election if eligible?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 80 14.5%
  • Labour

    Votes: 322 58.4%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 57 10.3%
  • Green

    Votes: 20 3.6%
  • SNP

    Votes: 13 2.4%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 29 5.3%
  • Independent

    Votes: 3 0.5%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 2 0.4%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 11 2.0%
  • Other (UUP, DUP, BNP, and anyone else I have forgotten)

    Votes: 14 2.5%

  • Total voters
    551
  • Poll closed .
MZuF2DH.jpg

:lol:
 
While i am a labour voter, am i the only one who thinks that the £10 an hour minimal wage might leave people worse off, granted it would get me a pay rise, but at a time when we want company's to employ more people, not move abroad and have a serious issue with the amount of companies abusing the zero contract, its got the potential to cause a lot of problems.

This is the kind of thing that a) should be modelled and b) should not be chosen by politicians. The mere act of increasing wages doesn't cause job losses - the minimum wage proved that. However clearly if you put it up to say, £100 an hour, all hell would break loose.

The minimum wage was previously set based on recommendations by the low pay commission, which included advisors from business, academia and the unions. The Government normally then agreed to it. I think setting the minimum/living wage based on simply adding one to the other party's number is a bad way to approach it. I doubt £10 is the point at which jobs become threatened, but I'd rather have a bit of evidence to support that. i know evidence based policy is out of vogue at the mo, but it still strikes me as more sensible do that.
 
While i am a labour voter, am i the only one who thinks that the £10 an hour minimal wage might leave people worse off, granted it would get me a pay rise, but at a time when we want company's to employ more people, not move abroad and have a serious issue with the amount of companies abusing the zero contract, its got the potential to cause a lot of problems.
Higher wages are always a good thing, people have more money to buy things, driving the economy, meaning more people employed to facilitate that. The problem is the way the government has approached austerity means the higher minimum wage still leaves you worse off than it did in the past. The price of goods and services is also rising, and austerity means people on minimum wage get less assistance than they did before. And it's not an entirely new trend, the cost of living has been on the rise for a long time, with little political will to do anything about it. The few who try, i.e your Corbyns, are marginalised and derided as communists morons.
 
While i am a labour voter, am i the only one who thinks that the £10 an hour minimal wage might leave people worse off, granted it would get me a pay rise, but at a time when we want company's to employ more people, not move abroad and have a serious issue with the amount of companies abusing the zero contract, its got the potential to cause a lot of problems.
It's due to rise to £9.50 per hour anyway.

If we want some real growth, maybe £10 per hour is right.

£10 per hour, 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year is £23,400. Of which, take home pay is £19,193.48, but maybe even more than that come 2020. If it is a "living" wage, then might as well make it a wage people can live on. This seems to be the route that much of Europe went down.
 
Are people seriously preparing the ground to blame people like Dan Hodges for any shift from Labour to Tory at this election? :lol:
 
Did y'all know that Teresa May is "the most respected world leader in power right now"?

Well, she is according to a national conservative radio host here in the states.
 
Are people seriously preparing the ground to blame people like Dan Hodges for any shift from Labour to Tory at this election? :lol:
No, just pointing out that they'll be the loudest whingers, come a bigger Tory majority, despite having just voted Tory. Something about turkeys and Christmas. Or, to put it another way...
C9tdvRqXcAAU_wW.jpg

Did y'all know that Teresa May is "the most respected world leader in power right now"?

Well, she is according to a national conservative radio host here in the states.
She's as tough as it get on the branding of seasonal confectionery based children's activities.
 
This is the kind of thing that a) should be modelled and b) should not be chosen by politicians. The mere act of increasing wages doesn't cause job losses - the minimum wage proved that. However clearly if you put it up to say, £100 an hour, all hell would break loose.

The minimum wage was previously set based on recommendations by the low pay commission, which included advisors from business, academia and the unions. The Government normally then agreed to it. I think setting the minimum/living wage based on simply adding one to the other party's number is a bad way to approach it. I doubt £10 is the point at which jobs become threatened, but I'd rather have a bit of evidence to support that. i know evidence based policy is out of vogue at the mo, but it still strikes me as more sensible do that.


I believe its the current level the living wage commission suggests is needed to make full time work sustainable.

The concept of minimum wage is quite complicated now, because we have to remember in work benefits, which a massive proportion of minimum wage staff receive, is now second only to pensions in terms of the welfare budget. We currently spend 12 times more on benefits for those in work than we do for the unemployed. At some point we have to re-balance that payment towards the employers. Can't be done all at once, but the calculated living wage seems a good place to start.
 
This is all very entertaining to be fair. Tories quick out the door to accuse Labour of seeking choas and sabotaging Brexit by refusing to rule out a second referendum and creating uncertainty.

Not that calling a general election did any of that :wenger:
 
This is the kind of thing that a) should be modelled and b) should not be chosen by politicians. The mere act of increasing wages doesn't cause job losses - the minimum wage proved that. However clearly if you put it up to say, £100 an hour, all hell would break lose.

The minimum wage was previously set based on recommendations by the low pay commission, which included advisors from business, academia and the unions. The Government normally then agreed to it. I think setting the minimum/living wage based on simply adding one to the other party's number is a bad way to approach it. I doubt £10 is the point at which jobs become threatened, but I'd rather have a bit of evidence to support that. i know evidence based policy is out of vogue at the mo, but it still strikes me as more sensible that.
im not gonna pretend i know the evidence, but where talking about a hell of a lot of people getting a 25% pay rise, and a lot of other people getting a large pay rise, i myself would get a grand extra a year just on my basic wage without over time, which is great, but if we spread it accross the country thats a lot of money, Like you say id like to see some modeling, weve never had a 25% increase on the minimum wage before, and it isnt like where doing it at a time where full time work is easy to come by.
 
I believe its the current level the living wage commission suggests is needed to make full time work sustainable.

The concept of minimum wage is quite complicated now, because we have to remember in work benefits, which a massive proportion of minimum wage staff receive, is now second only to pensions in terms of the welfare budget. We currently spend 12 times more on benefits for those in work than we do for the unemployed. At some point we have to re-balance that payment towards the employers. Can't be done all at once, but the calculated living wage seems a good place to start.

Definetely, personally think it needs to increase further with added support for small business. Its the corporate tax dodgers which cause the issue, if they paid their tax the money would just circulate but we're essentially funding them when they don't.
 
I believe its the current level the living wage commission suggests is needed to make full time work sustainable.

The concept of minimum wage is quite complicated now, because we have to remember in work benefits, which a massive proportion of minimum wage staff receive, is now second only to pensions in terms of the welfare budget. We currently spend 12 times more on benefits for those in work than we do for the unemployed. At some point we have to re-balance that payment towards the employers. Can't be done all at once, but the calculated living wage seems a good place to start.

I think £10 is more than what living wage commission recommends, especially outside London. Anyway, from memory the living wage commission only looks at living costs to get its figure, while the low pay commission also factored in the impact on industry.
 
Higher wages are always a good thing, people have more money to buy things, driving the economy, meaning more people employed to facilitate that. The problem is the way the government has approached austerity means the higher minimum wage still leaves you worse off than it did in the past. The price of goods and services is also rising, and austerity means people on minimum wage get less assistance than they did before. And it's not an entirely new trend, the cost of living has been on the rise for a long time, with little political will to do anything about it. The few who try, i.e your Corbyns, are marginalised and derided as communists morons.
What about businesses that can't afford it?
 
It's due to rise to £9.50 per hour anyway.

If we want some real growth, maybe £10 per hour is right.

£10 per hour, 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year is £23,400. Of which, take home pay is £19,193.48, but maybe even more than that come 2020. If it is a "living" wage, then might as well make it a wage people can live on. This seems to be the route that much of Europe went down.
its currently only at £7.50 though, raisng it by 25% in a few years is massive..... i just think its gonna cause alot more companys to go down the zero hour contract route and look to move alot of thier buisness abroad where the wage is lower.
 
Talking about being affraid of the opposition regarding brexit and then having people like David Davis, Liam Fox or Boris Johnson handling sensitive negotiations with the EU :lol:

That's what I don't get too. These guys are in no way competent to negotiate a favorable Brexit deal. May herself also doesn't impresses me the slightest: She either talks empty bullcrap ('a red, blue and white Brexit that works for everyone') or she breaks promise after promise: A Brexit that works for everyone (feck you, Scotts, I don't care about you), I care for those who just manage (mind you, welfare cuts are good for you), etc. ... no snap elections (here we go).

It's beyond baffling to me at this point. It's as if May saying "The U.K needs a pair of steady hands" magically turned her into a pair of steady hands, while simultaneously erratically grabbing at any opportunity she can get to demonstrate leadership (Don't mention her leather trousers! You'll be banned from Downing street. I've lost count of the amount of times her cabinet members "Don't represent the governments position").

Same story as last year; It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
 
Did y'all know that Teresa May is "the most respected world leader in power right now"?

Well, she is according to a national conservative radio host here in the states.
National conservative radio host. That's all the info you need right there. Liars lying about liars, it's lies.
 
What about businesses that can't afford it?

If that higher minimum wage can remove some of the in work benefit bill, the saved money could be used to fund a taper on employer's NI contributions for small businesses perhaps to make it more affordable.

There are a lot of ways you can balance the increases with the cost of in work benefit we already have.
 
What about businesses that can't afford it?
They raise their prices.

If that higher minimum wage can remove some of the in work benefit bill, the saved money could be used to fund a taper on employer's NI contributions for small businesses perhaps to make it more affordable.

There are a lot of ways you can balance the increases with the cost of in work benefit we already have.
He means small businesses, they don't get tax cuts or much help in general.
 
its currently only at £7.50 though, raisng it by 25% in a few years is massive..... i just think its gonna cause alot more companys to go down the zero hour contract route and look to move alot of thier buisness abroad where the wage is lower.
Well, the Living Wage foundation recommends £8.45

8DDYGTr.png
http://www.livingwage.org.uk/

If we increase that by 5% three years running, that does increase to £9.78

The current living wage has been going up by 5% a year. £6.50 -> £6.70 -> £7.20 -> £7.50

6.5*(1.05^3) = £7.53

So, although it is a big increase, it's just Labour reaffirming the commitment to the "Real Living Wage"
 
This is all very entertaining to be fair. Tories quick out the door to accuse Labour of seeking choas and sabotaging Brexit by refusing to rule out a second referendum and creating uncertainty.

Not that calling a general election did any of that :wenger:

I agree with you on that point. The Tories have presided over total political chaos since 2015.
 
Did y'all know that Teresa May is "the most respected world leader in power right now"?

Well, she is according to a national conservative radio host here in the states.

Ha. She might very well be considered the worst British PM in history before too long, just pipping David Cameron (who is comfortably the worst in my lifetime).

Then again she probably seems brilliant to a good % in the states - given how right-wing all U.S. policies lean and a repeated desire to elect imbeciles.

Those of us in the real world can't see her being respected much when she can barely deliver a speech and looks uncomfortable as feck in any meetings with foreign heads of state.
 
Well, the Living Wage foundation recommends £8.45

8DDYGTr.png
http://www.livingwage.org.uk/

If we increase that by 5% three years running, that does increase to £9.78

The current living wage has been going up by 5% a year. £6.50 -> £6.70 -> £7.20 -> £7.50

6.5*(1.05^3) = £7.53

So, although it is a big increase, it's just Labour reaffirming the commitment to the "Real Living Wage"
but thats different from the Minimum wage...... don't get me wrong i like the idea of raising the minimum wage, as i my self would get a wage rise,..... i just want to the effects of that kind of massive wage rise to be fully layed out, and what the downsides are gonna be, becuase like ive said i can see a lot companies moving abroad and even more relying even more heavily on zero hour contracts.
 
Surely the goal of any left leaning/center left individual in this election is to weaken the tory mandate. In most realistic terms you're not actually voting for corbyn to win if you vote labour, I think most are resigned to labour losing. Even if by some miracle he wins, he's never going to have a strong enough mandate to push through any policies you are concerned about. But, voting to weakening the tory parliament would still put everyone else in a better position (corbyn will resign after losing the election).

Vote for anyone bar the conservatives that can win the seat in your constituency (exception being UKIP).

Not sure I agree! Part of me is tempted to go against Conservatives at the chance we don't Brexit. But it also feels like we have come this far now and strength of one party will be our best outcome. If Brexit is to go ahead I'd rather May finish off what she has started than someone else getting in the way.

Only way I can really vote someone else is if they stick their neck out and say a vote for me is a vote for reversing the Brexit nonsense and no one seems to have the balls for that.
 
A friend sent me this last night, but I've only just read it as I don't really like facebook much. Anyone thinking its clever to vote tory to get rid of jeremey corbyn, this shite is on you.

https://www.facebook.com/Squiglet?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE

I get why you would jump on this, but bottom line the country is in debt and needs to sort it out. It has to get worse before it gets better. The interest costs requiring this cut in services is down to over spending by Labour.
 
Not sure I agree! Part of me is tempted to go against Conservatives at the chance we don't Brexit. But it also feels like we have come this far now and strength of one party will be our best outcome. If Brexit is to go ahead I'd rather May finish off what she has started than someone else getting in the way.

Only way I can really vote someone else is if they stick their neck out and say a vote for me is a vote for reversing the Brexit nonsense and no one seems to have the balls for that.

She hasn't started anything though? What exactly is she supposed to finish?

The idea that we should let her have sole authority over proceedings is ridiculous as well. Strength of one party? Exactly why do you think we'll get a better deal with her having no opposition?
 
I get why you would jump on this, but bottom line the country is in debt and needs to sort it out. It has to get worse before it gets better. The interest costs requiring this cut in services is down to over spending by Labour.

Oh ffs :wenger:
 
She hasn't started anything though? What exactly is she supposed to finish?

The idea that we should let her have sole authority over proceedings is ridiculous as well. Strength of one party? Exactly why do you think we'll get a better deal with her having no opposition?

Strength in numbers. Negotiation is more credible if more of the country is behind the person negotiating. Exact reason we have this election, although I think it has the potential to be riskier than May realises.
 
The link doesn't work. (Might only not work for non-FB users, if so nvm.).

Sorry, Its a post from a woman about the NHS and her local childrens care unit being taken over by virgin:

My kids have a variety of ongoing health needs. Three days before a consultant appointment we waited 6 months for, we received this letter. I called the hospital who refused to speak to me. They just told me to speak to Virgin Care. You can't speak to Virgin Care. Only leave voice mails to which they don't respond. I wrote a letter to which they responded. I got an initial assessment appointment and again have heard nothing since. I still haven't seen a consultant. In all since seeking a referral from my GP it has been 18 months. This is the new Tory Health care. And it is targeted at your children. If you want this for your babies. Carry on and vote Tory in June. My child is in pain, bleeding and she is ignored because we are poor. We have no NHS to go to anymore. This is your UK if you want to save our NHS. Do something.

She has a picture of the letter as well to prove it.
 
Strength in numbers. Negotiation is more credible if more of the country is behind the person negotiating. Exact reason we have this election, although I think it has the potential to be riskier than May realises.

Oh come on.

How do you think that is possibly true?
 
Do you disagree? We could get into a few trillion of debt and fix every problem in the country this year, but for the next hundred we'd be fried!

Explain to me just how adding an extra layer of organization that, for its own legal existence, must seek profits from its operation, saves money?
 
Lib Dems already have twice the number of overall votes that they got in the 2015 thread among the Caf demographic.