An absolute beauty to start the thread-oh the irony. Labour risks staff strike if senior Corbyn aides stay

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-risks-staff-strike-if-senior-corbyn-aides-stay-kbn0hd092

An absolute beauty to start the thread-oh the irony. Labour risks staff strike if senior Corbyn aides stay

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-risks-staff-strike-if-senior-corbyn-aides-stay-kbn0hd092

Rather than trading barbs with you I'm going to try finding if there's any common ground we agree on. I accept the principle that someone like you gets more pay than me because you took risks I didn't. That by itself is fair. But I think there should be a minimum standard of living that every workers gets, regardless. Just enough for them to comfortably live with the basics and maybe a very small amount left over for the odd treat. If you are working hard, even if it's in a minimum wage job, you deserve to be able to afford to eat and live and get by. I think that's what minimum wage laws intended to do, but it hasn't really worked out and that's what the living wage is trying to address. I get the feeling that for all we disagree about capitalism and socialism, if we look into the finer details we might agree on more points than we realize.

Jesus Christ, Kessler. Give it a rest.

I think Kessler failed their exams at school and now its everyone elses reponsibility to make up for that.
Of course, defining standard of living is hard, Sky, Netflix, XBox etc.

I don't necessarily mind what he's got to say, but he's worse than NS at hijacking every thread with the same ole bollocks at the moment.

He's got one hell of a chip on his shoulder

It wouldn't matter how high the minimum wage and/or universal credit limit were raised to, there will always be a percentage of the population who claim they can't manage on what they get, be it not being able to afford the latest IPhone, Sky package or whatever. And, as has been explained on here countless times before, if these are increased it will cause a ripple effect where everybody will (with justification) want more, until the businesses they work for become unviable.
It is this feeling of entitlement that gets me - he/she has that, why shouldn't I.
Maybe dig a bit deeper, and see the sacrifices these people have made, whether it is through education, hard graft, making the right decisions, luck or more likely a combination of these. It is basically about taking responsibility for their futures and not waiting for someone to do it for them.

Of course, defining standard of living is hard, Sky, Netflix, XBox etc.

I agree. Which is why it's important to talk about it and see what everyone else has to say so we can work out what we think is a fair minimum for everyone to have. I know that Laffy supports profit sharing schemes and I think he also said he wants people to get a living wage. Those are both principles that I agree with, I think the only disagreement is in the detail of how to implement them. The problem I have with people saying oh just get a better job, is that it doesn't address the root problem of that job not paying enough. If I can't pay the bills on minimum wage then I can go and get a better job, but then whoever takes my old job is also going to have the same problem. That job needs to be done, someone has to do it. Are we saying that we expect people to do those jobs, but we don't think think they deserve enough money to pay the bills?

It wouldn't matter how high the minimum wage and/or universal credit limit were raised to, there will always be a percentage of the population who claim they can't manage on what they get, be it not being able to afford the latest IPhone, Sky package or whatever. And, as has been explained on here countless times before, if these are increased it will cause a ripple effect where everybody will (with justification) want more, until the businesses they work for become unviable.

The ripple effect wouldn't be as pronounced as that. For example what justification would someone on £30k or more a year have for wanting even more?

It is this feeling of entitlement that gets me - he/she has that, why shouldn't I.

I think that everyone who works hard is entitled to a comfortable standard of living. I just can't understand the mind of anyone who thinks otherwise. How could anyone feel such hatred towards other people that you don't think they deserve to be able to afford even a basic lifestyle?

All this talk about going out and earning it. The way I see it, anyone who works hard in any job has already earned the right to a comfortable standard of living. They aren't expecting something for nothing, they have already earned that. The problem is they are not being given what they have worked for.

The Prime Minister earns £800k a year from Murdoch and the Barclays in addition to his ministerial salary plus expenses. I have a sense of entitlement because my taxes pay the thieving [censored] while he's acting on the orders of others. How can you expect people to behave morally when the Prime Minister is a paid marionette of billionaires? Corbyn wanted to stop extra Parliament earnings, crazy Marxist that he is.

Of course, defining standard of living is hard, Sky, Netflix, XBox etc.

I agree. Which is why it's important to talk about it and see what everyone else has to say so we can work out what we think is a fair minimum for everyone to have. I know that Laffy supports profit sharing schemes and I think he also said he wants people to get a living wage. Those are both principles that I agree with, I think the only disagreement is in the detail of how to implement them. The problem I have with people saying oh just get a better job, is that it doesn't address the root problem of that job not paying enough. If I can't pay the bills on minimum wage then I can go and get a better job, but then whoever takes my old job is also going to have the same problem. That job needs to be done, someone has to do it. Are we saying that we expect people to do those jobs, but we don't think think they deserve enough money to pay the bills?

Unless you are willing to clearly define in numbers what you suggest is ' reasonable standard of living ' and what this includes with costs, could I suggest you drop the whole subject, it is now becoming very boring.

The Prime Minister earns £800k a year from Murdoch and the Barclays in addition to his ministerial salary plus expenses. I have a sense of entitlement because my taxes pay the thieving [censored] while he's acting on the orders of others. How can you expect people to behave morally when the Prime Minister is a paid marionette of billionaires? Corbyn wanted to stop extra Parliament earnings, crazy Marxist that he is.

Well given the rules for quotes, where is you evidence to support this accusation? He did get £275k from the Telegraph, however if this still applies is a question.

https://richest.mp/facts?id=317

Or is it just more Marko BS ?

While scrutinising the list check out Bercow's income and paymasters........

The Prime Minister earns £800k a year from Murdoch and the Barclays in addition to his ministerial salary plus expenses. I have a sense of entitlement because my taxes pay the thieving [censored] while he's acting on the orders of others. How can you expect people to behave morally when the Prime Minister is a paid marionette of billionaires? Corbyn wanted to stop extra Parliament earnings, crazy Marxist that he is.

Can you provide a reference for that claim of 800K?

I have already told Kess that there should be a safety net-call it universal income, which is the minimum anyone should get, whether employed or not.Beyond that,telling employers what to pay and whom is fraught with difficulty.

I would urge all of you to read The Future of Capitalism-I think even Marko would agree with the thrust of it but it goes a long way towards explaining why Labour have totally lost the plot with their disconnected ideology

The issue with concept of a minimum wage has always been that it becomes the maximum wage for millions, even those working in a profitable company.

Oh, just to add, for some reason Corbyn has not listed this years income, I wonder why ?

"Jeremy Corbyn’s income as leader of the opposition isn’t listed on the official documentation for 2019 governmental salaries, so his figure is an estimate based on his last tax returns."

https://richest.mp/facts

The unemployment rate has just been announced at 3.8%. That means an employment rate of 96.2%.

Hard to believe so I went on the Office for National Statistics site.

It says the number of people in employment is 32.78 million.
Broken down that is:
27.67 million in paid employment.
4.73 million self-employed
1.29 million unemployed'

Some interesting statistics on that site:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/employmentintheuk/september2019

Boris Johnson made an extra £800,000 in last parliament

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/02/boris-johnson-made-extra-800000-last-parliament-11253790/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

Boris Johnson's Daily Telegraph salary revealed to be £275,000

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/03/daily-telegraph-rehires-boris-johnson-on-275000-salary

Johnson: £160k tennis match did take place (with Russians)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43448559

That’s why full employment is so attractive/-it gives choice to the employee and rising wages.

I hadn’t heard that Marko had changed sex but there you go.We are a broad church in the Tory party

I have already told Kess that there should be a safety net-call it universal income, which is the minimum anyone should get, whether employed or not.Beyond that,telling employers what to pay and whom is fraught with difficulty.

I would urge all of you to read The Future of Capitalism-I think even Marko would agree with the thrust of it but it goes a long way towards explaining why Labour have totally lost the plot with their disconnected ideology

I'll get a copy and have a read over the Christmas period.

Boris Johnson made an extra £800,000 in last parliament

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/02/boris-johnson-made-extra-800000-last-parliament-11253790/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

Thats true but now he cannot. But don't let that affect your narrative that he is a mendacious, skiving buffoon,

I have already told Kess that there should be a safety net-call it universal income, which is the minimum anyone should get, whether employed or not.Beyond that,telling employers what to pay and whom is fraught with difficulty.

I would urge all of you to read The Future of Capitalism-I think even Marko would agree with the thrust of it but it goes a long way towards explaining why Labour have totally lost the plot with their disconnected ideology

I'll get a copy and have a read over the Christmas period.

But the minimum would become a maximum with no premium to workers

Boris Johnson made an extra £800,000 in last parliament

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/02/boris-johnson-made-extra-800000-last-parliament-11253790/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

I am specifically interested in your accusation "The Prime Minister earns £800k a year from Murdoch and the Barclays" which you have consistently quoted.

If you scrutinise the figures, you will see BoJo made considerably more than the £800k, however please show evidence to support your accusation.

The unemployment rate has just been announced at 3.8%. That means an employment rate of 96.2%.

Hard to believe so I went on the Office for National Statistics site.

It says the number of people in employment is 32.78 million.
Broken down that is:
27.67 million in paid employment.
4.73 million self-employed
1.29 million unemployed'

Some interesting statistics on that site:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/employmentintheuk/september2019

Be careful as the numbers only refer to the economically active. There will be several million plus more who would like to work but do not register. Government plays with the numbers.

I see Emily Thornberry, the wealthy Shadow Cabinet member is suing former Labour backbencher Caroline Flint.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/16/emily-thornberry-threatens-to-sue-over-caroline-flint-stupid-voters-claim

Not a good look to be taking to the courts to sue a former colleague, especially a decent MP like Flint, who did her best to represent the views of her constituents.

Sadly this bitter ex-MP is trying to fuel the racism debate, let's see if her cousins do actually leave the UK, as I'm sure the press will keep an eye on it:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/16/muslim-candidate-says-cousin-thinking-leaving-uk-boris-victory-11915218/

Re NHS, here's an interesting comment from a social media user:

I"m getting so sick of people saying RIP the NHS. For goodness sake the NHS has been in trouble for years, because it simply can't sustain the level of use. You want to save the NHS? Then educate yourselves, stop going to the GP for stupid reasons, stay out of A&E unless its an actual emergency, start taking responsibility for you health and your families, don't drink and take drugs to such an extent that your organs fail, and stop eating so much you become a health hazard. I'm not saying everyone need to become a doctor, just be a little less ignorant. Start paying for medicine like paracetamol and ibuprofen instead of just having it for free because you can".

All very true in my opinion, however the: "I pay my taxes despite the fact I'm on the dole, and why should I pay for it cause it's free?" mob, will still be up in arms, because they will then have to pay for something!!

I have already told Kess that there should be a safety net-call it universal income, which is the minimum anyone should get, whether employed or not.Beyond that,telling employers what to pay and whom is fraught with difficulty.

I would urge all of you to read The Future of Capitalism-I think even Marko would agree with the thrust of it but it goes a long way towards explaining why Labour have totally lost the plot with their disconnected ideology

The future of Capitalism needs to be a debate, as of yet we have not addressed how Climate Change will really affect this. On the one hand we cannot continually transport goods all over the planet, while this in itself is a contributor, while on the other the need to protect jobs and economies.

It is interesting that goods can now be transported directly from China to Germany by rail, someone is ahead of the game.

He/She still got a chip on the shoulder. I don't get involved with gender issues, too complicated for an old sod like me

Of course, defining standard of living is hard, Sky, Netflix, XBox etc.

I agree. Which is why it's important to talk about it and see what everyone else has to say so we can work out what we think is a fair minimum for everyone to have. I know that Laffy supports profit sharing schemes and I think he also said he wants people to get a living wage. Those are both principles that I agree with, I think the only disagreement is in the detail of how to implement them. The problem I have with people saying oh just get a better job, is that it doesn't address the root problem of that job not paying enough. If I can't pay the bills on minimum wage then I can go and get a better job, but then whoever takes my old job is also going to have the same problem. That job needs to be done, someone has to do it. Are we saying that we expect people to do those jobs, but we don't think think they deserve enough money to pay the bills?

Are you talking first hand experience here kes of not being paid enough?

Is your only job at BP?

You might get more informative answers and solutions if you didn't keep ducking questions.

The pay there is fair enough tbh

Question for Marko,

As you know the press are getting the blame for Labour's and Corbyn's abysmal performance, and of course your constant mis-truth about the Buffoon getting zillions off Murdoch.

What is your view on Seumas Milne, and what he used to do for a living before screwing the Labour party, and of course that well know loony Owen Jones, and his day job ?

This is what happens when the fabled money tree turns out to be just that-a myth.

I feel pity for the staff but a lot of them need a reality check after their Xmas list manifesto failed

https://apple.news/ASPOv0AsqQH6dyE1ysG4prw

The unemployment rate has just been announced at 3.8%. That means an employment rate of 96.2%.

Hard to believe so I went on the Office for National Statistics site.

It says the number of people in employment is 32.78 million.
Broken down that is:
27.67 million in paid employment.
4.73 million self-employed
1.29 million unemployed'

Some interesting statistics on that site:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/employmentintheuk/september2019

Be careful as the numbers only refer to the economically active. There will be several million plus more who would like to work but do not register. Government plays with the numbers.

Also if you are a student you do not count in the job figures unless you get a job, to get you by, and then you are counted as employed.

That's the trouble with statistics. People pick the ones they like and ignore the rest.

Students are counted but as 'economically inactive', they are neither unemployed or are part of the labour force.

However, I do agree there is some ambiguity to how the calculations are made.

You also have those who are on disability/sickness/benefits but work part-time. They are not classed as unemployed.

Whichever way you dissect the figures, the trend is high employment (they have always made figures to suit).

I'll bet everyone on this board is either full time employed or retired. (or maybe the odd student)

It wouldn't matter how high the minimum wage and/or universal credit limit were raised to, there will always be a percentage of the population who claim they can't manage on what they get, be it not being able to afford the latest IPhone, Sky package or whatever. And, as has been explained on here countless times before, if these are increased it will cause a ripple effect where everybody will (with justification) want more, until the businesses they work for become unviable.
It is this feeling of entitlement that gets me - he/she has that, why shouldn't I.
Maybe dig a bit deeper, and see the sacrifices these people have made, whether it is through education, hard graft, making the right decisions, luck or more likely a combination of these. It is basically about taking responsibility for their futures and not waiting for someone to do it for them.

I was about to post exactly this...how old are you Kessler? You seem to be a prime example of this gimee gimee generation...everything for nowt..credit cards maxed out, always buying stuff instead of paying the bills first...really annoys me.....so please STOP posting about it. Thank you

Some classic stuff on the net tonight.’I think it’s patronising to think the next labour leader should have ovaries and a northern accent’

And this lot aspire to government!

Of course, defining standard of living is hard, Sky, Netflix, XBox etc.

I agree. Which is why it's important to talk about it and see what everyone else has to say so we can work out what we think is a fair minimum for everyone to have. I know that Laffy supports profit sharing schemes and I think he also said he wants people to get a living wage. Those are both principles that I agree with, I think the only disagreement is in the detail of how to implement them. The problem I have with people saying oh just get a better job, is that it doesn't address the root problem of that job not paying enough. If I can't pay the bills on minimum wage then I can go and get a better job, but then whoever takes my old job is also going to have the same problem. That job needs to be done, someone has to do it. Are we saying that we expect people to do those jobs, but we don't think think they deserve enough money to pay the bills?

What you fail to realise is that people have different priorities and attitude to money.

If you took all the money in circulation in the UK and distributed it equally to each adult. Then if you were to revisit those individuals a year later, some would have spent all the money and some would have doubled it.

That's the reality and there's nothing you or I can do about it..

I like that analogy-because it’s true.My 14 year old is a saver, my 9 year old a spender.It starts early

Ditto my two kids back in the day.

Wouldn’t it be good if everyone started to take more responsibility for their own actions? By and large I’m a firm believer that you end up in life where you deserve to end up.

For those who unfortunately have been unable to influence their life the way they had hoped there is the safety net of the welfare state. Unfortunately this was hijacked by the bone-idle a long time ago and is being abused into bankruptcy.

This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

I suggest a few in here read Animal Farm. It gives the answers to many of the questions raised

By and large I’m a firm believer that you end up in life where you deserve to end up.

That's bollocks.

That and The Road to Wigan Pier-no particular order.

We seem to building a consensus on here-most want the welfare state to be the safety net, not the crutch.

That's boll ocks. With bells on

That and The Road to Wigan Pier-no particular order.

We seem to building a consensus on here-most want the welfare state to be the safety net, not the crutch.

Certainly can't argue with the second part. What pisses me off is how many of your wastrels end up in Scotland.

Let's not forget that Orwell was a committed socialist who fought in Spain for the Marxists. AF is as much about capitalism as it is about communism. Propaganda, the illusion of choice, brainwashing over potential enemies. Orwell said himself that while he did not approve of the Soviet Union he did not know what Stalin could have done differently at that time. AF was translated into over 80 languages after Orwell's death by the CIA who also bought the film rights; it was pushed as anti-Soviet propaganda. Ironic that Orwell stood so strongly against propaganda and yet became a victim of it himself.

The Road to Wigan Pier? The whole second half is about the misconception in Britain of socialism?!!