Politics shit innit

[mkowl]

36 minutes ago, Reesh said:

What a crock of shit. 

Agree - shooting them would be a much better policy 

[holmesfield_owl]

2 hours ago, Reesh said:

What a crock of shit. 

It's bullshit, another nail in pubs coffins and I'll be dammed if anyone is telling me I can't smoke outside a pub, we've already been forced outside.

[Reesh]

28 minutes ago, holmesfield_owl said:

It's bullshit, another nail in pubs coffins and I'll be dammed if anyone is telling me I can't smoke outside a pub, we've already been forced outside.

I don't smoke, never have done but what you do with regards to smoking in the outdoors is your business not mine.

[mkowl]

2 hours ago, Reesh said:

I don't smoke, never have done but what you do with regards to smoking in the outdoors is your business not mine.

Can we agree those outside the hospital doors sat in a wheelchair hooked up to a drip are arsewipes though 

[Reesh]

1 minute ago, mkowl said:

Can we agree those outside the hospital doors sat in a wheelchair hooked up to a drip are arsewipes though 

Absolutely 

[Skamp]

1 hour ago, mkowl said:

Can we agree those outside the hospital doors sat in a wheelchair hooked up to a drip are arsewipes though 

They even do this outside Weston Park Hospital.

 

[Andyben]

Rayner "Workers must have the right to switch off from work and only be contacted during their core hours"

Rayner "Workers must have the right to work 4 days by condensing their week and extending their hours accordingly"

Eh? So what about the workers that need others in support or supervisory roles (I.e. 90% of them) which policy wins? The right to switch off or the right to work longer? Who's going  to cover the additional 2 hrs a day that condensed workers have to undertake? 

So all this with increased employer NIC and Pension contributions coming in, plus the additional bureaucracy, minimum 5% increase in fuel duty (let alone the increase in fuel costs after Milliband effectively closes the North Sea Oil Fields making us less energy independent) how is this promising not to harm the worker?

[mkowl]

28 minutes ago, Andyben said:

Rayner "Workers must have the right to switch off from work and only be contacted during their core hours"

Rayner "Workers must have the right to work 4 days by condensing their week and extending their hours accordingly"

Eh? So what about the workers that need others in support or supervisory roles (I.e. 90% of them) which policy wins? The right to switch off or the right to work longer? Who's going  to cover the additional 2 hrs a day that condensed workers have to undertake? 

So all this with increased employer NIC and Pension contributions coming in, plus the additional bureaucracy, minimum 5% increase in fuel duty (let alone the increase in fuel costs after Milliband effectively closes the North Sea Oil Fields making us less energy independent) how is this promising not to harm the worker?

It is a very polarised view of the world of work that politicians have. Like the call for banning zero hours contracts, I agree where it's basically used with full time jobs its not appropriate, but for others the business eg hospitality needs that flexibility to survive but flip it round for some workers it suits as well. Mrs MK likes the fact last week she could say I am not working and took 3 days off to take her niece away camping. 

As an employer I am pretty progressive, tick most the boxes on flexible working. The mantra is you have work to do, deadlines to meet and as long as you tick that box fine. In the main, because it works 90% of the time but the other 10% I am covering the peripheral shit.

I am small time so I can see if you scale that up, the business is more complex how the gaps would appear

[mkowl]

47 minutes ago, Andyben said:

Rayner "Workers must have the right to switch off from work and only be contacted during their core hours"

Rayner "Workers must have the right to work 4 days by condensing their week and extending their hours accordingly"

Eh? So what about the workers that need others in support or supervisory roles (I.e. 90% of them) which policy wins? The right to switch off or the right to work longer? Who's going  to cover the additional 2 hrs a day that condensed workers have to undertake? 

So all this with increased employer NIC and Pension contributions coming in, plus the additional bureaucracy, minimum 5% increase in fuel duty (let alone the increase in fuel costs after Milliband effectively closes the North Sea Oil Fields making us less energy independent) how is this promising not to harm the worker?

In terms of your last part, US companies often set up the European arm in the UK. Ok language being one element but it's the flexibility of employment, the low barriers to entry, the reasonable balance on compliance that encourages start ups which are inherently risky to take the chance. 

The noises being made in one corner about investment etc are all good to hear but on the other this additional bureaucracy and costs, union powers will end up returning the UK to the 70s. 

[Skamp]

But Raynor also wants people to be able to work from home.  Flexibly.

How the fuck is an employer to know when their staff are 'clocked on'?

Oh, core hours. Of course. Hence forth, you'll all need to work 10:00 until 2:00 as a minimum and we'll call these core hours. Pardon? You work 4:00pm til 9:00pm as it suits you? Oh.

Let's make core hours 3:00 to 5;00pm then. Pardon? ...

 

I actually believe that staff should be able to 'clock off', quite right too.

But, of course there's a but, how about the employee texting their boss on a Sunday 'oh, little Johnny has a temperature, can I swap tomorrow for another day?' Or, 'I know it's your day off, but any chance of some overtime this week as I have bills to pay?'

 

Good intentions mind 

 

 

 

[mkowl]

13 hours ago, Skamp said:

But Raynor also wants people to be able to work from home.  Flexibly.

How the fuck is an employer to know when their staff are 'clocked on'?

Oh, core hours. Of course. Hence forth, you'll all need to work 10:00 until 2:00 as a minimum and we'll call these core hours. Pardon? You work 4:00pm til 9:00pm as it suits you? Oh.

Let's make core hours 3:00 to 5;00pm then. Pardon? ...

 

I actually believe that staff should be able to 'clock off', quite right too.

But, of course there's a but, how about the employee texting their boss on a Sunday 'oh, little Johnny has a temperature, can I swap tomorrow for another day?' Or, 'I know it's your day off, but any chance of some overtime this week as I have bills to pay?'

 

Good intentions mind 

 

 

 

As I suggested in my own little world then flexible and remote working can work pretty well. I have one effectively on a zero hours contract but she takes every school holiday off to look after her daughter, why work just to pay child care costs and indeed miss out on the growing up. But her tasks are not generally time critical.

Another has moved permanently to Spain, this has necessitated last minute time off dealing with the Spanish authorities,  her tasks are time critical, PAYE, CIS etc but I know she will work late, or the weekend to achieve that.

It's give and take as it is for many small businesses, which collectively employ huge numbers in the UK. And I know from my SME client base, the shop steward type employee is not particularly welcome, generally not by the other employees.

 

[Andyben]

They're basically trying to impose the slack civil service working practices into the private sector.

My mate works for the home office in Sheffield. He hasn't been in th office for years and his whole team clocks off no later than 3pm and earlier on a Friday - if he bothers at all..

This won't end well and I'm certain they're trying to smash small businesses, but hey-ho, what's the worst that could happen.

[Andyben]

...minimum pricing for alcohol coming next, pubs killed off then

[mkowl]

On 31/08/2024 at 08:43, Andyben said:

They're basically trying to impose the slack civil service working practices into the private sector.

My mate works for the home office in Sheffield. He hasn't been in th office for years and his whole team clocks off no later than 3pm and earlier on a Friday - if he bothers at all..

This won't end well and I'm certain they're trying to smash small businesses, but hey-ho, what's the worst that could happen.

I wouldn't mind but when it comes to one dept, namely HM Revenue and Customs I end up doing most the work in the first place, then we spend half our life sorting out the fuck ups, like I have this morning. They don't give a shit either, that they have made an error or the impact on the mentally fragile client at the best of times gets out the blue letters demanding £77k 

 

[Reesh]

1 hour ago, mkowl said:

I wouldn't mind but when it comes to one dept, namely HM Revenue and Customs I end up doing most the work in the first place, then we spend half our life sorting out the fuck ups, like I have this morning. They don't give a shit either, that they have made an error or the impact on the mentally fragile client at the best of times gets out the blue letters demanding £77k 

 

They are fucking inept, the last 4 years since COVID started they have employed absolute spackers in the departments.

[Skamp]

The working from home thing is here to stay and so we need to adapt to meet the challenges that this brings.

It's no longer acceptable to hear that 'call volumes are higher than normal' and that 'your call is important to us', the use of AI in trying to direct you to the right department/ person is frustrating at best and so if this government, or any other, is relaxed to see WFH as standard, then the system needs to be upgraded to deal with it efficiently.

It's an absolute disgrace as to how long it takes to speak to someone at HMRC [as an example] only to be told they don't deal with that that particular query and they don't know who does.  Nor will they give you their name anymore and so if you need to call back again, you normally have to start right back from the beginning again.  That assumes the call doesn't terminate whilst still on hold.

 

 

[owl4ever1867]

Wait till October when we get hit with pay by the mile for car travel.....

[mkowl]

12 hours ago, owl4ever1867 said:

Wait till October when we get hit with pay by the mile for car travel.....

The scary part is I saw some post about the new cameras that are being trialled to detect minor offences. They take pics of the front seat passengers but to the extent they can check if a seat belt is being worn, on the phone, getting a blow job 

At least the latter you would take the 3 points with a 😃.

But if they can do this under the ruse of car safety and we all accept it - the roll out to road pricing is basically done without a murmur until it's too late.

Your digital footprint is everywhere and the tale will be "well if you are behaving what is the issue". 

Well in the wrong hands that technology and the ability of State control to be exerted is a scary prospect. In China it's already in action.

 

[owl4ever1867]

1 hour ago, mkowl said:

The scary part is I saw some post about the new cameras that are being trialled to detect minor offences. They take pics of the front seat passengers but to the extent they can check if a seat belt is being worn, on the phone, getting a blow job 

At least the latter you would take the 3 points with a 😃.

But if they can do this under the ruse of car safety and we all accept it - the roll out to road pricing is basically done without a murmur until it's too late.

Your digital footprint is everywhere and the tale will be "well if you are behaving what is the issue". 

Well in the wrong hands that technology and the ability of State control to be exerted is a scary prospect. In China it's already in action.

 

I highly recommend people watch a guy on YouTube called "Geoff Buys Cars" he's highly upto date with this kind of thing, the amount of new cameras going up is scary.

[mkowl]

1 hour ago, owl4ever1867 said:

I highly recommend people watch a guy on YouTube called "Geoff Buys Cars" he's highly upto date with this kind of thing, the amount of new cameras going up is scary.

The slightly less exciting sequel to "Debbie does Dallas" 

[Andyben]

46 minutes ago, mkowl said:

The slightly less exciting sequel to "Debbie does Dallas" 

Not sure I'd want a car with bright pink tyres

[Reesh]

[Skamp]

I think Deborah Meaden will be OK ti be honest.

[Andyben]

So @Skampdo you think Labour putting prisoners into Estonian Jails to make space for more white working class men who shout at police dogs, is madder than Germany's plan to use facilities paid by the British tax payer and abandoned by Labour to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda?

Queston is, who wasted the £700m spent on Rwanda the last government or the one that cancelled the contracts with no refund?

Edited September 5 by Andyben

[Andyben]

Nxt thing they'll be lying about th decision to stop the export of arms to Israel on 'legal advice' instead of it being a ministerial decision by a known antisemite.

[Skamp]

@Andyben  what's so disappointing is that the Tories, what's left on them, are too busy struggling to understand what the fuck happened 5 weeks ago to try and form any form of opposition.

No one is shouting out about the lies of this sudden unfunded £22bn, removing the WFA to save exactly the same amount of money that the unions have just been given without any conditions attached, the appointment of donors to top Civil Service roles and the Sue Gray disgrace of holding an inquiry into Boris' meetings during Covid and now becoming the effecvtive deputy leader of the Labour Party.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that 1970's Britain might be considered luxury compared to what 2029 will look like.

Oh, and then there's Starmer taking down a painting that Gordon Brown commissioned because he realises that he's not fit to be in the same room as her very image.  She'd have made mincemeat of him and he knows it.

We'd all bettter start reading up on what Marxism looks like and prepare for it. Don't bother having any savings or any form of pension. Its not worth it comrade.

 

Screen shot these comments and remind me of them in a couple of years if I'm wrong.

Edited September 5 by Skamp

[Fat Eric]

Top flight comedic posting 😁

[mkowl]

The fact the Tories can barely muster a shot across the bows whilst the focus is on which numptie will take them backwards, shows how much they need another Thatcher. Pity Ruth Davidson can't be tempted to come back to the fore, be a step in the right direction.

Which needs to be centre right on the political spectrum.

Yes it's crowded in there, the centre ground,but frankly that is where the majority of the population sit politically. 

The focus of the Tories, as always should be the economy, a reduced state, freedom of speech and thought, personal responsibility and ambition. Don't try and beat Farage 

Edited September 6 by mkowl

[Reesh]

4 hours ago, Fat Eric said:

Top flight comedic posting 😁

Oh look a Train driver....

[Reesh]

[BraddersTim]

4 hours ago, mkowl said:

The fact the Tories can barely muster a shot across the bows whilst the focus is on which numptie will take them backwards, shows how much they need another Thatcher. Pity Ruth Davidson can't be tempted to come back to the fore, be a step in the right direction.

Which needs to be centre right on the political spectrum.

Yes it's crowded in there, the centre ground,but frankly that is where the majority of the population sit politically. 

The focus of the Tories, as always should be the economy, a reduced state, freedom of speech and thought, personal responsibility and ambition. Don't try and beat Farage 

Can't disagree with much here, maybe that most of the population sit either slightly left or right of it, but really the centre ground is the typical British voter stance and it's what the Tories abandoned.

I've started to take a very small interest in the Tory leadership "race" and listening to Jenryck this morning on the BBC (a man who was too extreme, even for Sunak's Government) I fear for their existence (never thought I'd say that) if he wins.  Given his corrupt history, Labour would have alot of fun with him, but he'd also completely alienate the middle ground Tories.  The list of potential leaders is very poor indeed, if Mordaunt were still around she would have been the best choice but to me it looks like Badenoch or Jenryck & I think they're screwed with either of them.

[Skamp]

16 hours ago, Andyben said:

Nxt thing they'll be lying about th decision to stop the export of arms to Israel on 'legal advice' instead of it being a ministerial decision by a known antisemite.

The best of it being that Israel are the only democratic nation in the Middle East and fighting for their very existence. 

[BraddersTim]

Thomas Birley (27) of Rotherham given a 9 year prison sentence for expressing his genuine concerns about immigration levels by trying to burn down a hotel with 20 staff and 200 people inside.

[Reesh]

What did that Labour **** get who said they should cut people's throats....?

[BraddersTim]

4 minutes ago, Reesh said:

What did that Labour **** get who said they should cut people's throats....?

Did he try to do it?

[Skamp]

20 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

Thomas Birley (27) of Rotherham given a 9 year prison sentence for expressing his genuine concerns about immigration levels by trying to burn down a hotel with 20 staff and 200 people inside.

and quite right too.  Attempted arson with a cause to endanger life is a very serious offence.

Not sure of your point here if I'm being totally honest.

[mkowl]

16 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

Did he try to do it?

That seems irrelevant in most of the cases coming to court. The threat of violence or supporting it seems to have been enough for 3 years.

He was caught on camera and let's be honest the gimps clapping in the background should be charged as well for tacit and public support, the physical equivalent of re-tweeting.

Do you accept if the councillor gets off that is prima facie evidence of two tier justice 

[BraddersTim]

18 minutes ago, Skamp said:

and quite right too.  Attempted arson with a cause to endanger life is a very serious offence.

Not sure of your point here if I'm being totally honest.

The clue is right there in my post.  

 

[BraddersTim]

2 minutes ago, mkowl said:

That seems irrelevant in most of the cases coming to court. The threat of violence or supporting it seems to have been enough for 3 years.

He was caught on camera and let's be honest the gimps clapping in the background should be charged as well for tacit and public support, the physical equivalent of re-tweeting.

Do you accept if the councillor gets off that is prima facie evidence of two tier justice 

If they plead guilty, which is what they did.

Make no bones what the Labour councillor said was absolutely as bad as what some of those who have been charged said and could have led to similar outcomes.  So Yes, he needs to get the same treatment.

The whole two tier justice thing is a crock of shit though, you must see that.  

[mkowl]

4 hours ago, BraddersTim said:

Can't disagree with much here, maybe that most of the population sit either slightly left or right of it, but really the centre ground is the typical British voter stance and it's what the Tories abandoned.

I've started to take a very small interest in the Tory leadership "race" and listening to Jenryck this morning on the BBC (a man who was too extreme, even for Sunak's Government) I fear for their existence (never thought I'd say that) if he wins.  Given his corrupt history, Labour would have alot of fun with him, but he'd also completely alienate the middle ground Tories.  The list of potential leaders is very poor indeed, if Mordaunt were still around she would have been the best choice but to me it looks like Badenoch or Jenryck & I think they're screwed with either of them.

The crux here is you can both dislike what the Tories became, rightly they were thrown out, but equally be dismayed how Labour have started off in power.

Reversing or threatening to reverse the inherently sensible policies that lead to the state of this country in 1978, at the behest of communist unions. 

That this will lead to the flight of capital and business owners out the country. To remind the top 1% contributed 30% of taxes. Even if only 10% leave that is a huge gap in the tax take - about 40bn I reckon, but if the underlying businesses re-locate extrapolate that on the loss of PAYE 

[mkowl]

3 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

If they plead guilty, which is what they did.

Make no bones what the Labour councillor said was absolutely as bad as what some of those who have been charged said and could have led to similar outcomes.  So Yes, he needs to get the same treatment.

The whole two tier justice thing is a crock of shit though, you must see that.  

There is more evidence there is at present - the joke that the speaker is suggesting only social media posts stating "facts" will be permitted. So immediately banning any elected MP I would suggest 

[BraddersTim]

18 minutes ago, mkowl said:

The crux here is you can both dislike what the Tories became, rightly they were thrown out, but equally be dismayed how Labour have started off in power.

Reversing or threatening to reverse the inherently sensible policies that lead to the state of this country in 1978, at the behest of communist unions. 

That this will lead to the flight of capital and business owners out the country. To remind the top 1% contributed 30% of taxes. Even if only 10% leave that is a huge gap in the tax take - about 40bn I reckon, but if the underlying businesses re-locate extrapolate that on the loss of PAYE 

Give me some credit here, I was saying before during and after the election that I'm not a fan of the Labour economic policies.  Reeves has come out with Tory austerity measures and i's not what we need.

The unions aren't communist, they do their job, which is to fight for the pay and as importantly the rights of their workers.  That is going to be increasingly vital as Freeports swing into action - MK you really need to read up on Sunak's father in law and his activities to get a grip on how bad for workers this is going to be.  Starmer btw could stop/change it all today and he'd have my admiration but he hasn't and he won't.  But yeah, those wealth makers will make more wealth, they will just pay less of it to their workers and in tax.

Nobody on here could seriously accuse me of offering uncritical support to Labour under Starmer, for me he's a mixed bag, I wish there was a better leader but there isn't right now, but he is much, much better than any one of the PM's the Tory's have offered in the last 14 years. 

[Reesh]

1 hour ago, BraddersTim said:

Did he try to do it?

Oh fuck off Tim, you'd be screaming blue murder if the boot was on the other foot.

It's inciting murder....

[Reesh]

9 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

Give me some credit here, I was saying before during and after the election that I'm not a fan of the Labour economic policies.  Reeves has come out with Tory austerity measures and i's not what we need.

The unions aren't communist, they do their job, which is to fight for the pay and as importantly the rights of their workers.  That is going to be increasingly vital as Freeports swing into action - MK you really need to read up on Sunak's father in law and his activities to get a grip on how bad for workers this is going to be.  Starmer btw could stop/change it all today and he'd have my admiration but he hasn't and he won't.  But yeah, those wealth makers will make more wealth, they will just pay less of it to their workers and in tax.

Nobody on here could seriously accuse me of offering uncritical support to Labour under Starmer, for me he's a mixed bag, I wish there was a better leader but there isn't right now, but he is much, much better than any one of the PM's the Tory's have offered in the last 14 years. 

Unions are full of greedy workshy wankers. 

 

Starmer isn't a mixed bag he's an absolute clusterfuck of a politician and an even bigger **** of a man.

[BraddersTim]

Just now, Reesh said:

Oh fuck off Tim, you'd be screaming blue murder if the boot was on the other foot.

It's inciting murder....

Whilst the other one was actually attempting murder...

[Reesh]

Just now, BraddersTim said:

Whilst the other one was actually attempting murder...

And he's got what he deserves.

[BraddersTim]

Just now, Reesh said:

And he's got what he deserves.

Finally you got there...

[BraddersTim]

42 minutes ago, mkowl said:

The crux here is you can both dislike what the Tories became, rightly they were thrown out, but equally be dismayed how Labour have started off in power.

Reversing or threatening to reverse the inherently sensible policies that lead to the state of this country in 1978, at the behest of communist unions. 

That this will lead to the flight of capital and business owners out the country. To remind the top 1% contributed 30% of taxes. Even if only 10% leave that is a huge gap in the tax take - about 40bn I reckon, but if the underlying businesses re-locate extrapolate that on the loss of PAYE 

One thing about Reeves, which directly contradicts your point about the wealth makers.  I have it on very good authority that she was engaging in conversations and getting feedback about what business wants from a Labour Govt for 18 months before the election, think CBI, Chambers of Commerce, those sorts of groups and the view was that she was really listening in a way that the Tories hadn't for years.

She is not going to piss off big business and The City.  But she is going to take money from the neediest, make welfare cuts and impose taxes that are unfair at the lowest end.  It's a pisser isn't it, finally get a Labour Govt and we get a Chancellor that's going to out Tory the Tories.  

[Reesh]

27 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

Finally you got there...

I was there all along, you know most sane people aren't disagreeing with that, don't be all pompous, it doesn't suit you.

Edited September 6 by Reesh

[mkowl]

16 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

Give me some credit here, I was saying before during and after the election that I'm not a fan of the Labour economic policies.  Reeves has come out with Tory austerity measures and i's not what we need.

The unions aren't communist, they do their job, which is to fight for the pay and as importantly the rights of their workers.  That is going to be increasingly vital as Freeports swing into action - MK you really need to read up on Sunak's father in law and his activities to get a grip on how bad for workers this is going to be.  Starmer btw could stop/change it all today and he'd have my admiration but he hasn't and he won't.  But yeah, those wealth makers will make more wealth, they will just pay less of it to their workers and in tax.

Nobody on here could seriously accuse me of offering uncritical support to Labour under Starmer, for me he's a mixed bag, I wish there was a better leader but there isn't right now, but he is much, much better than any one of the PM's the Tory's have offered in the last 14 years. 

Do you really think that freeports are going to be unregulated to the extent that many fear.

So are you suggesting NMW rules won't apply

Employment protections won't apply

Union representation won't be allowed

Planning regulations totally abandoned

Health and safety abandoned

Like parts of Bangladesh or indeed those businesses flying under the radar in the likes of Leicester. Because that is where the real dodgy stuff goes on, but guess what nobody inspects those businesses, a blind eye to every equality law.

So not sure the beef about freeports because they won't become some lawless state that you seem to predict, indeed they will compete with those that exist hidden in plain sight already in the UK. 

Don't see the left daring to mention that though