General Election...June 8

[LostKiwi]

Oh I think she could make a very good fist of it. She can't tell the difference between 250, 2,500 and 250,000... and that's without being totally doolally tap...

Well Theresa had difficulties figuring out that 685,000 (the number of immigrants the last year she was home secretary) was more than 'tens of thousands'(her oft stated promise)!

Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Dianne Abbot, just saying none of them are all that great!

 

[Craiglxviii]

Well Theresa had difficulties figuring out that 685,000 (the number of immigrants the last year she was home secretary) was more than 'tens of thousands'(her oft stated promise)!

Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Dianne Abbot, just saying none of them are all that great!

Definitely the understatement of the year!

 

[triumphstag]

Well she couldn't make much more of a hash of it than Theresa!

Oh she can, she really can.

 

[M80]

Poor Diane, we should all make allowances as she might have had a head ache.

 

[drmw]

Well Theresa had difficulties figuring out that 685,000 (the number of immigrants the last year she was home secretary) was more than 'tens of thousands'(her oft stated promise)!

Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Dianne Abbot, just saying none of them are all that great!

There is a significant difference between these scenarios - on immigration, someone set a target and missed - targets by definition get missed particularly when there are many complex and conflicting criteria not under the direct control of the nominally responsible party.

The other event was a media interview about one specific subject when one of the cast iron guaranteed questions would be the projected cost. To go in unprepared for that is simply irresponsible - there can be no excuse.

 

[LostKiwi]

There is a significant difference between these scenarios - on immigration, someone set a target and missed - targets by definition get missed particularly when there are many complex and conflicting criteria not under the direct control of the nominally responsible party.

The other event was a media interview about one specific subject when one of the cast iron guaranteed questions would be the projected cost. To go in unprepared for that is simply irresponsible - there can be no excuse.

But its not irresponsible to year after year repeat the same 'targets' knowing there is no hope of ever achieving them?
I'd call one irresponsible and the other downright lies!

 

[Yugguy]

On TV recently, One Show I think, can't quite remember. Anyway it was showing work being done to rejuvenate a riverside in the North East - the main pollution has gone from the river itself which is good but now they are looking at the riverside, to try and make it somewhere nice that people would want to go.

The Scouts and Brownies were there. It showed them doing things like painting old boats on the riverside, and using big driftwood logs as planters for flowers and herbs.

They asked one of the little girls, perhaps 7 or 8 years old, how it made her feel doing it. "Proud of myself", she said.

THIS is what I mean when I talk about unemployed doing some form of part time work, like this in their community. Stuff that a) makes the area nicer and b) gives that person a sense of purpose, a sense of self-worth. It has been PROVEN that the so-called "scout effect" works - that when you do stuff like this it improves your mental health. In some cases too someone on a downward path can be turned around - work like this takes your focus off yourself.

Xtractorfan I would love you to explain what is so wrong with this idea?

 

[Craiglxviii]

But its not irresponsible to year after year repeat the same 'targets' knowing there is no hope of ever achieving them?
I'd call one irresponsible and the other downright lies!

Lying is all part of the game, being irresponsible implies one isn't quite... sound.

 

[LostKiwi]

Lying is all part of the game, being irresponsible implies one isn't quite... sound.

Strange isn't it.
The considered and deliberate misleading of the population has a more 'acceptable face' to it than simply not thinking and being 'irresponsible' or incompetent.

 

[M80]

Strange isn't it.
The considered and deliberate misleading of the population has a more 'acceptable face' to it than simply not thinking and being 'irresponsible' or incompetent.

You are right.
The £9 million spent by Cameron to send us his PR stuff really gets me.
The Tories corrupting our democracy by corrupting an election result by their blatant win at any cost over spending.
The honourable Corbyn who walks past mt train seats to make a point that there aren't any.
Buying a house in a town where Nutter hopes to be elected to gain more votes.
The continual lies from most sides that should embarrass any politician that do this just to get votes from the naive, when there is an election due. Otherwise it's just to advance their own political career and stuff the electorate.

Said before, choosing the best of a rotten bunch is very difficult.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Strange isn't it.
The considered and deliberate misleading of the population has a more 'acceptable face' to it than simply not thinking and being 'irresponsible' or incompetent.

What can I say... politics!

Being serious though, did you listen to the Abbott interview on R4 yesterday? For me the really disturbing things weren't the car crash mistakes over numbers, which just made her sound chuffin' thick, but the way she said two things:

Interviewer: "250000 policemen?"
Abbott: "And women".

Straightaway and without thinking, the feminism card was on display for all to see.

End of interview, I forget the words used but in relation to supporting Jeremy Corbyn.

Abbott: "Yes. He's My Leader." (Emphasis mine). That sounded like deep and total indoctrination into a cause. I've heard it before and that depth of indoctrination has no place in a Western political system. It was also said with reverence, total belief in it from her side. It put me in mind of the sort of personality cult surrounding the likes of Hitler or the Kim family in North Korea- and no, not Godwin's Law here either. For a political leader have his frontbenchers refer to him in those tones means that they would do pretty much anything for him- and I'd point to the Bavarian Criminal Police in the early 30s as an example of what deeply indoctrinated frontbenchers can do.

 

[triumphstag]

You are right.
The £9 million spent by Cameron to send us his PR stuff really gets me.
The Tories corrupting our democracy by corrupting an election result by their blatant win at any cost over spending.
The honourable Corbyn who walks past mt train seats to make a point that there aren't any.
Buying a house in a town where Nutter hopes to be elected to gain more votes.
The continual lies from most sides that should embarrass any politician that do this just to get votes from the naive, when there is an election due. Otherwise it's just to advance their own political career and stuff the electorate.

Said before, choosing the best of a rotten bunch is very difficult.

Don't forget Abbott spending £10k plus of taxpayers money on a portrait
Maybe it was a mistake, she thought it was £50

 

[LostKiwi]

What can I say... politics!

Being serious though, did you listen to the Abbott interview on R4 yesterday? For me the really disturbing things weren't the car crash mistakes over numbers, which just made her sound chuffin' thick, but the way she said two things:

Interviewer: "250000 policemen?"
Abbott: "And women".

Straightaway and without thinking, the feminism card was on display for all to see.

End of interview, I forget the words used but in relation to supporting Jeremy Corbyn.

Abbott: "Yes. He's My Leader." (Emphasis mine). That sounded like deep and total indoctrination into a cause. I've heard it before and that depth of indoctrination has no place in a Western political system. It was also said with reverence, total belief in it from her side. It put me in mind of the sort of personality cult surrounding the likes of Hitler or the Kim family in North Korea- and no, not Godwin's Law here either. For a political leader have his frontbenchers refer to him in those tones means that they would do pretty much anything for him- and I'd point to the Bavarian Criminal Police in the early 30s as an example of what deeply indoctrinated frontbenchers can do.

Yeah I did hear it.
Was pretty catastrophic!

Like I said - I'm not defending her (some things are indefensible) - just pointing out none are particularly good.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Yeah I did hear it.
Was pretty catastrophic!

Like I said - I'm not defending her (some things are indefensible) - just pointing out none are particularly good.

I'd question the use of "particularly" too

yes I entirely agree, it's an issue endemic throughout the Western world. Possibly only Mr. Trump can say that he went into politics for more than just self-aggrandizement, and I'm not sure I'd believe that either. I'd draw the line historically at the point at which politicians started getting paid a "real" wage to do their jobs- once they became dependent on the political system for their salaries, all bets came off.

 

[JBell]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other...erviews/ar-BBAFwtP?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

 

[malcolm E53 AMG]

Abbott's defence was that it was the umpteenth interview of the day but it was plain see that she had no idea on numbers, unfortunately this is what happens when you make up policy on the hoof.

The Tories must be splitting their sides with laughing not only have they caught Labour without a credible leader but the policy bureau must have been asleep during the last couple of years

Sad really....this is the main parliamentary opposition we are talking about....I haven't seen things as bad as this for Labour since the days of Michael Foot

 

[Xtractorfan]

[QUOTEnity="Yugguy, post: 1521477, member: 78979"]On TV recently, One Show I think, can't quite remember. Anyway it was showing work being done to rejuvenate a riverside in the North East - the main pollution has gone from the river itself which is good but now they are looking at the riverside, to try and make it somewhere nice that people would want to go.

The Scouts and Brownies were there. It showed them doing things like painting old boats on the riverside, and using big driftwood logs as planters for flowers and herbs.

They asked one of the little girls, perhaps 7 or 8 years old, how it made her feel doing it. "Proud of myself", she said.

THIS is what I mean when I talk about unemployed doing some form of part time work, like this in their community. Stuff that a) makes the area nicer and b) gives that person a sense of purpose, a sense of self-worth. It has been PROVEN that the so-called "scout effect" works - that when you do stuff like this it improves your mental health. In some cases too someone on a downward path can be turned around - work like this takes your focus off yourself.

Xtractorfan I would love you to explain what is so wrong with this idea?[/QUOTE]

Nothing at all wrong with the idea, Im sure an 8 yr old would have been in the frame of mind to know what she was doing was to make her feel good about herself and the community, without prompting.
When guys like yourself come home from work and also on a saturday decide to go out and do some community work by helping in the local community then I'm all for it...
But to have to do it as part of the entitlement to unemployment benefit then it smacks of the most severe form of communism, something which most of you guys seem to be at odds with. But you are most supportive when it involves others who might be deemed lazy or getting something for nothing.
Many of the longer term unemployed are used in this way already as they are drafted onto schemes which do exactly what you are talking about, although many are sent out to schemes which are privately controlled and are basically working for an extra £15 per week to enrich the owners of these privatised schemes.
You will remember a few years that some of the unemployed were packing shelves for Tescos on these schemes, until it became public knowledge.
And then along came Zero hours contracts, that sorted quite a few of the work for benefits problems.
I also agree that work is good for mental wellbeing, but to be put on Zero hours contracts or work schemes is not the way to feel secure and look to a bright future. .

 

[Frontstep]

Foot and Corbyn were/are real Labour leaders.

When reality dawns on the party after long periods on the opposition benches they realise that worthy as those two and others may seem, politics without power is day dreaming on a grand scale.

Dianne Abbot looked clueless when being interviewed by Piers Morgan.
She isn't in her place on merit more likely on a PC ticket, a product of the all women shortlists so popular of the short thinkers her colour additional house points.

Labour hasn't forgiven itself for choosing Tony Blair and flagellate themselves over the Iraq war looking to blame him for leading us wrongly into war, the countless inquiries have found nothing.
I personally think they went in correctly just too late.
The truth for the Labour Luvvies is probably nothing to do with the war more a dislike of his success good old Labour envy.

Gordon Brown, a good Chancellor, and despite the ill thought flak that follows him no he didn't cause the World-wide Banking crisis but Labour can't bring themselves to point out his successes and his International fans.

Still I am more likely to vote Monster Raving Loony than Labour, although methinks they may be one and the same thing.

 

[drmw]

Nothing at all wrong with the idea, Im sure an 8 yr old would have been in the frame of mind to know what she was doing was to make her feel good about herself and the community, without prompting.
When guys like yourself come home from work and also on a saturday decide to go out and do some community work by helping in the local community then I'm all for it...

Spot the difference in circumstances

But to have to do it as part of the entitlement to unemployment benefit then it smacks of the most severe form of communism, something which most of you guys seem to be at odds with. But you are most supportive when it involves others who might be deemed lazy or getting something for nothing.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier

Many of the longer term unemployed are used in this way already as they are drafted onto schemes which do exactly what you are talking about, although many are sent out to schemes which are privately controlled and are basically working for an extra £15 per week to enrich the owners of these privatised schemes.

What is the issue with privatised businesses / schemes? To set up and run a private business takes large ones. Risk and uncertainty are not comforting circumstances.

You will remember a few years that some of the unemployed were packing shelves for Tescos on these schemes, until it became public knowledge.

And then along came Zero hours contracts, that sorted quite a few of the work for benefits problems.
I also agree that work is good for mental wellbeing, but to be put on Zero hours contracts or work schemes is not the way to feel secure and look to a bright future. .

Different things, surely?

 

[Craiglxviii]

Well let's be realistic about it. How many people are there who are claiming lack-of-work-related benefits, who either refuse to work or cannot find a job due to lack of qualifications/ experience? People on jobseekers allowance or whatever it's called nowadays.

Take that element of the population and give it a choice. Here is a list of productive work which we have found for you to do in your immediate local area- supervision and training will be provided on the job:

Repairing/ maintaining public roads.
Cleaning/ clearing public land.
Maintenance of public rights-of-way (green roads etc).
Removing graffiti from town centres.
Maintenance of public buildings.
Groundworks for communications installation.
Waste disposal (bin collection).
Catering support for the above.
Vehicle maintenance support for the above.

Those with any skills and experience in the more skilled jobs get streamed to them, those without get their choice of the rest. Pay them say £1.50/hr over minimum wage, on top of their existing benefits and offer fixed 24 working hour contracts at a time, per person. Included in that are two meals and tea/coffee through the day in morning and afternoon teabreaks- that keeps the standard British worker's formula alive for those who remember it. Then make the payment of their benefits linked to work- benefits will be paid out for working one set contract a week. Working two contracts a week will not result in increased benefits but will result in increased wages.

The costs will not be low- let's explore them.

There are around 1.6 million unemployed people seeking work at present. They're already costing us money. Jobseekers allowance is around £60 a week from memory- or £96m per week. If we assume half of the workforce take a 3 day weekly contract at £1.50/hr over NMW (£8.70/hr) that adds another £167m/wk onto the bill.

What does £167m per week buy us for the country? Some examples:

Potholes cost £120m p.a. to keep at the current levels.
HS2 Phase I is set to cost £56,000m over 10 years, say £5,600m p.a. A rectal extraction gives the labour element of this at 20% so say £1,120m p.a.
£500bn of infrastructure projects awarded for a timeline of 15 years. Again, using the same formula as above that works out to £6,700m p.a.
​

Now the labour rates in the above projects will be much higher than £8.70/hr, likely charged out at £50-60/hr for semi-skilled. So if we assume that productivity of our new workforce is 1/4 that of the semi-skilled workforce, that gives us:

2.4m man-days/week.
£70/ man-day @ 25% of standard productivity, which means
£280/ man-day @ 100% of standard productivity equivalent.
That compares to £400/ man-day @ standard productivity.

So the next question is, how much of the infrastructure work mentioned above could be tackled by low/ semi-skilled workers? There is £7,940m per annum of infrastructure labour spend going around for the next decade or so... Let's assume only 15% of this can be tackled by low/ semi skilled workers. £1191m per annum. That employs our workforce for around 8 weeks out of, say, 44 working weeks of the year. What do we do with the other 36? We have a new workforce, slowly gaining and speaking new skills within it, costing £7,014m per annum. What do we employ it on? House building? Road building? What do we need?

The point is, for £7bn a year we could increase our infrastructure workforce by the equivalent of 200k heads, and the vast majority of that £7bn gets ploughed straight back into the economy via taxes and spending.