Minimum wage is a joke, how people can survive on that I don't know.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Corbyn wasn't standing at that despatch box last week. The story is also one which evolves by the day, he was more than prepared to address a rally about the matter but shied away from doing so with MPs.
Point scoring? Maybe a little
, i'm just not buying this image of an unimpeachable and visionary figure.Is being pro-Corbyn not itself an agenda, or is such a position now the touchstone of reason and truth in our time?
I believe that he has advanced policies without necessary explanation, that he has promised a hell of a lot in the knowledge that much of it isn't even practical. Corbyn will waste billions on his pet renationalisation when it could be put to better use, particularly at present. Soon enough, those on low-middle incomes would be paying for his decisions. There are numerous policy areas for which i'd be concerned, including schools, housing and energy security.
Last edited:
You forgot Jews @hobbers. I mean, you have Israel in there, so it is kind of implied, but I dont think this properly portrays his pathological loathing of the Jewish people, wherever they may be.
And women. I mean, a bit of window dressing in some Micky Mouse positions, but certainly not in any serious positions. He hates women. There to be married but not heard.
And women. I mean, a bit of window dressing in some Micky Mouse positions, but certainly not in any serious positions. He hates women. There to be married but not heard.
This is a pretty good all-round summation of his first few days from the New Statesman - http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ubled-start-even-fewer-labour-expect-him-last
Bit of an omnishambles all round, needs to get things together quickly or it'll be dead before it even began.
Bit of an omnishambles all round, needs to get things together quickly or it'll be dead before it even began.
Unfortunately I think you're right. There seems to be real relish and glee about people getting their welfare cut.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34074557
Where are all these jobs going to come from if the gov't is hellbent on imposing austerity? We can't rely solely on the private sector, it simply isn't going to happen.
It's not much below nurses pay for a new nurse. Plus nurses have to pay to work. I'd say the min wage isn't that bad. Depends on what your doing for it I suppose.
Last edited:
The IPPR (centre/centre-left think tank currently run by someone associated with the Brown administration) has come out today saying that Ed Miliband didn't lose because he was seen as left-wing.
edit - i feel this, all round, is a decent 2000th post.
edit - i feel this, all round, is a decent 2000th post.
Last edited:
Give the man a bleedin' chance. We need to be a bit more sensible than the press as to be so quick to write him off. We should be more intelligent and fair than that. He's offering an alternative which will no doubt appeal to the masses if we give him time to allow that message to be heard. Let's not give in to the throwaway nature of modern politics (and society in general) in which quick unsubstantiated soundbites are enough to appease.
Eh? What about doing it to live? It's an absolute pittance. With cuts to tax credits incoming its little wonder why they wanted to redefine the term 'poverty'.
Irony.
Innit.
Party founded by Keir Hardie ‘being infiltrated by socialists’
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...eing-infiltrated-by-socialists-20150813101079
It should be a liveable wage over everything else. But 13k a year is way below that, I hate the way big companies take advantage of it, they could easily afford to pay more.
Have you not noticed all these jobs and investment popping up all over the place? I saw figures saying JSA claims fell for 28 months and employment rose by 1.8 million between May 2010 and Jan 2015 so I guess something is going right.
It's pretty bad. For people here in Oxford minimum wage doesn't even pay rent, let alone anything else. People shouldn't have to be in a house share after having worked for a decade in supposedly good jobs, but they do, cos it's bloody expensive. I imagine it's similar in London.
It's a balancing act. That period covers the recovery from an economic depression, a rebound was bound to happen.
No-one can say for certain if the Tories more business-friendly policies have created more jobs than Gordon Brown's moderately less business-friendly government who would have invested more in public services over the same period.
And it covers people who been forced into casual work, 0-hour contracts and such. Once you take one of those, there's no guarantee of the number of hours in a week you'll be given and no chance of getting back on the dole if it turns out to be too little to get by on. It's hardly a wonderful situation that many people are finding themselves in when they take these jobs, especially when you see that they are often doing this work for companies who you know damn well can afford to offer people the security of proper contracts with firm guarantees of earnings.
Plus there's the whole thing about actual levels of unemployment, and who's been shunted onto other forms that aren't quoted by the government. It's quite complex.
https://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/real-level-of-unemployment-2012.pdf
TLDR - Massive levels of hidden unemployment and the north of England has been screwed. Repeatedly.
We had 2.5 million unemployed in 2010 and we are down to 1.85 million unemployed in June of this year. 650,000 jobs created over a 5yrs period is good, but not that good.
And how many of those are proper, full-time, permanent jobs? How many are 8 hours a week positions in retail or cafes etc, ie stuff that people can't live on and need three or four of to scrape by each month?
Aren't unemployment stats based on how many people are claiming unemployment benefit, rather than how many are actually unemployed? Given that benefits are far stricter than they were 5 years ago you'd expect numbers to be lower. That's not to say that jobs haven't been created, but the statistics can't be taken on face value.
edit - at the same time, what counts as being 'employed' in the employment stats?
edit - at the same time, what counts as being 'employed' in the employment stats?
Last edited:
McDonnell is to be on Question Time tonight btw, with Liz Truss representing the Government and Salmond from the SNP.
Corbyn could be putting himself in conflict with the unions here; it seems that the threat of resignations has forced his hand on Europe.
Corbyn could be putting himself in conflict with the unions here; it seems that the threat of resignations has forced his hand on Europe.
Last edited:
During the election Miliband cited them as this homogeneous bloc of discontent, yet the data didn't support his claim. I believe it was something like two-thirds of those on ZHCs were mostly happy with the arrangement.
Not to be blunt, but are they feck! "Yes please, I want a job with no sickness pay, unpredictable earnings and no pensions!"
As someone with three zero hour contract jobs ongoing, I come into contact with literally hundreds of people in the same boat and I've met very few who are happy about their complete absence of job security and related benefits? The fact there's absolutely zero chance of getting a mortgage while living only on zero hour contracts? No, of course they aren't happy!
One local company I work for posted £117m in profits recently - surely they can afford to do right by their employees (which people on a zero hour contract are explicitly told they are not, by the way) and offer proper contracts to their staff - some of whom have been there four or five years working similar numbers of shifts to those few who were lucky enough to get tge jobs before they started using zero hour staff.
As someone with three zero hour contract jobs ongoing, I come into contact with literally hundreds of people in the same boat and I've met very few who are happy about their complete absence of job security and related benefits? The fact there's absolutely zero chance of getting a mortgage while living only on zero hour contracts? No, of course they aren't happy!
One local company I work for posted £117m in profits recently - surely they can afford to do right by their employees (which people on a zero hour contract are explicitly told they are not, by the way) and offer proper contracts to their staff - some of whom have been there four or five years working similar numbers of shifts to those few who were lucky enough to get tge jobs before they started using zero hour staff.
To sum up, these are exactly the type of things that the labour movement have been working to end for the best part of 200 years. It's nothing short of exploitation.
The company I mention, by the way is registered overseas and has paid almost nothing in taxes over the past decade. This increasingly common type of set-up is one reason so many members of the public joined the Labour Party to vote Corbyn in and swing it back to the left. We are being cheated.
The company I mention, by the way is registered overseas and has paid almost nothing in taxes over the past decade. This increasingly common type of set-up is one reason so many members of the public joined the Labour Party to vote Corbyn in and swing it back to the left. We are being cheated.
Last edited:
He will be given time, he's just made a bad first impression and has polling numbers that are far worse than when Miliband started. And they tend not to recover that much from such depths. And there's a fair amount of doubt he'll appeal to the masses regardless of the time given.
Something like that, but it's more complicated. There's another two dimensions to it that mean they grossly understate the actual number. Check out that report I posted from Sheffield uni.
A couple of samples I liked from a recent article I read about Corbyn....
Those who support him see this as politics of hope. Those who don’t see only the politics of delusion. I still feel that he is on a zero-hours contract and knows it.
He is its temporary caretaker. Sorry, but hating the media, the Tories and austerity are not policies. They are feelings. Thinking, actually thinking anew, is the challenge.
Those who support him see this as politics of hope. Those who don’t see only the politics of delusion. I still feel that he is on a zero-hours contract and knows it.
He is its temporary caretaker. Sorry, but hating the media, the Tories and austerity are not policies. They are feelings. Thinking, actually thinking anew, is the challenge.
What on earth are you on about?
You think he lacks policies?
You think he lacks policies?
Not my words as I said. And the writer, a Guardian journalist, doesn't say that either so I'm not sure what you're on about.
Well, we both seem confused...
What in the "Sorry, but hating the media, the Tories and austerity are not policies. They are feelings" part are you agreeing with?
I mean, it's entirely true, but entirely irrelevant given he also has policies.
I agree with it all.
Okay, then explain it to me? Cause I am baffled.
You've managed to come to the conclusion all by yourself that the statement is true so why do you need it explaining?
Can't remember where in the Guardian I read it but Google will find it for you if you're that interested.
Last edited:
It's why you think it is remotely relevant that I'm curious about, as I said. Which, sadly, only you and not the Guardian can inform me of.
Why do you think the statement is true?
Can anyone (preferably someone doesn't utterly despise him as a matter of course) fill me in on how McDonnell is faring on QT? Hearing that he's had to answer the expected questions but was well received on other points. Will watch the whole thing tomorrow
He did well. Salmond was probably the best on the panel, McDonnell maybe second. He got his points across, didn't fold under pressure. Nothing more he can do really.