The 2015 General Election

[bickster]

I think zero hours contracts have been demonised to a large extent - there's an idea that they've replaced 'proper' jobs which whilst I'm sure is true in some cases isn't their primary purpose, for the most part they exist because successive governments have made casual work very difficult to maintain, there's a desire to do two things - force companies to offer zero hours contracts to workers who would previously have been casual (and in doing so remove them from the unemployment figures as they're now 'employees' rather than 'workers') and impart employee rights onto a previously disposable workforce.

 

The company I work for offers zero hours contracts, our previous casual workforce became a legal risk to the company - zero hours contracts give the employee better holiday conditions, auto-enrolment on our pension, rights to full disciplinary process and access to the same benefits and training as any other employee - none of which were available to the casual workforce.

 

In industries where business's don't open five (or seven) days a week, the zero hour contract has improved conditions for a huge proportion of the workforce. Are there bad ones? Sure, there are lots of bad ones, it's a mile from being perfect, but it's not quite the evil act that political posturing would have you believe.

I agree, the missus started back to work in an NHS job bank on a zero hours contract. She's now in a full-time position in the same organisation. In the right circumstances they work just fine. There are however plenty of companies that take them way beyond their intention into the realm of exploitation

[smetrov]

It did seem a bit unfair that they changed the running order, but then that's on Cameron for not agreeing to a one-on-one. It's his own fault really. Weirdly the first poll had 54% for Cameron.

 

I never quite understand how they measure that Cameron won (Or EM)

 

To be valid those people have to be totally neutral - otherwise they are just voting along party lines - with the debate not making much difference whatever happens.....

 

Cameron isn't widley loathed by any stretch - numerous polls have shown that he is signficantly more popular than EM - so if he 'Won' last nights debate 54-46 - He actually hasn't done that well.

 

I think the whole thing is pointless - anyone (or a majority) who tunes in - will already be rooting for there man (ie mind already made up) - the don't don't knows - probably won't be watching !!!!

[mjmooney]

'Results' on who 'won' a TV debate are absurd, and massively undemocratic. It's the Britain's Got The Voice On Ice Idol approach to politics.

[tonyh29]

 

sure why not , it's not like I'm affiliated to any party

 

  Are you going to vote Tone? I genuinely can't remember if you've mentioned it.

 

Probably not in all honesty , my MP is Philip Hammond and he has a majority of over 9000 in a town that probably only has 9050 voters ... of course if all 9000 of us feel the same way he could lose but I think it's unlikely

[MakemineVanilla]

Has anyone heard of this new party: Justice for Men and Boys

 

It's running on an anti-feminist ticket, and the leader is a former consultant to the Conservative party. Apparently men and boys have it really bad. I don't know about the state of divorce settlements, but if fathers are really denied rights to their children - of course controlling for the requirement that they are a 'fit and proper' parent and not an abusive alcoholic asshole -  that is quite horrific. 

 

Its one of those weird fringe parties I feel, I'm worried the kind who may call for a reintroduction of National Service for the good of young boys and men. Not like it'd be a bad thing honestly, some of the youngsters these days are **** hooligans. Okay maybe not National Service, but better schools and economic prospects would get rid of idle hands which tend to do bad stuff. 

 

Thanks for the link.

[Condimentalist]

'Results' on who 'won' a TV debate are absurd, and massively undemocratic. It's the Britain's Got The Voice On Ice Idol approach to politics.

 

True of course, but it's probably the only politics Britain's Got The Voice On Ice Idol fans actually watch.

 

For those who do take an interest in politics, it's better than another channel 4 disability porn documentary. 

[mjmooney]

I don't mind the TV debates as such, it the subsequent judgements of who 'won' that annoy me. I'll bet there are people who don't watch the debates, but believe the 'results', as if it were a sports fixture.

[tonyh29]

Watching the TV debate on catchup ( I missed the Paxman bit for Cameron)

Ed seemed to be given a rougher ride by the audience than Cameron was ... And he didn't look entirely comfortable as a result , but he seemed more confident than he has for a while though his advisers let him down by telling him to put his hand in his pocket to look casual , the look didn't suit him

I thought I read that he did well v Paxman but so far all ive seen is Paxman annihilate him , Ed often looks like a naughty child being told off by a headmaster

I do feel the brother stuff was a bit low from paxman and the audience member

[bickster]

I do feel the brother stuff was a bit low from paxman and the audience member

The brother stuff is a huge reason why people don't like him. The whole shit on your brother doesn't really resonate well with people

[Condimentalist]

Was David entitled to the role?

[snowychap]

Was David entitled to the role?

David was an apologist for torture and rendition.

[meregreen]

 

I do feel the brother stuff was a bit low from paxman and the audience member

The brother stuff is a huge reason why people don't like him. The whole shit on your brother doesn't really resonate well with people

 

Never really understood all the self righteous crap about this. If David had won, would he have been accused of stabbing Ed in the back? They both wanted to lead the Labour Party, there was an election, Ed won. Big deal.He hasn't shit on anyone. Why should he have stood aside. Didn't he have as much right as his brother to aspire to be leader? It's all just sanctimonious nonsense from certain media outlets that  have an anti Miliband agenda .  

[chrisp65]

it was a free hit for journalists with an agenda, a few things lined up irresistably

 

the journo's for the majority of 'news' outlets work for anti labour media so any story that is negative is one that has to be squeezed and spun

 

the last Labour leadership had been a 'buddy team' that actually turned out to hate each other

 

brothers fighting for the same thing is always going to be a story, it's a classic

 

one brother being 'popular' whilst the other is voted in over his head by the evil unions is just nectar to the media

 

too much in the story to resist - if only they could also have been fighting over the same girl, it would have been a film

 

I know that's not a sensible and grown up list and is overly dramatising a very dry subject - but we are talking about journalists looking for easy dumb stories her, right

[bickster]

Me I couldn't give a crap about the Millipede brothers. I was merely saying why it was on the agenda, not whether it was right or wrong.

The reason journalists (including Paxo) go on about this is because there's too little in real terms between the two main parties. Politics these days in real policy terms is the difference between two brands of cigarette papers and then the policy is spun out to appeal to the parties target voters so as to appeal to the parties core. You had it the other day. The Tories saying they wouldn't raise VAT (they said that last time and almost did it straight away) and Labour saying they had no plans to but couldn't rule it out. Neither of them actually plan to raise VAT.

When there's such a vacuum in policy difference the only thing journalists have to mix things up is the tittle tattle. trouble is the tittle tattle is what the voters respond to these days because of the that policy vacuum. The parties kinda want it that way.

[smetrov]

Me I couldn't give a crap about the Millipede brothers. I was merely saying why it was on the agenda, not whether it was right or wrong.

The reason journalists (including Paxo) go on about this is because there's too little in real terms between the two main parties. Politics these days in real policy terms is the difference between two brands of cigarette papers and then the policy is spun out to appeal to the parties target voters so as to appeal to the parties core. You had it the other day. The Tories saying they wouldn't raise VAT (they said that last time and almost did it straight away) and Labour saying they had no plans to but couldn't rule it out. Neither of them actually plan to raise VAT.

When there's such a vacuum in policy difference the only thing journalists have to mix things up is the tittle tattle. trouble is the tittle tattle is what the voters respond to these days because of the that policy vacuum. The parties kinda want it that way.

 

You really think there is little difference in how a  incoming conservative government would manage the NHS and how a Labour government does 

 

Ive worked for the NHS for 15 years - and the mismanagement, and chaos, and wastage of the last 4 dwarfs anything I've ever seen, - I actually think the Conservatives want to dis own the NHS and push the responsibility of it the Local Government - I believe that's what will happen should the conservatives win next time - Its another reorganisation - but this time by stealth. 

[OutByEaster?]

I believe that the aim of both Labour and the Conservatives is to run the NHS so badly that the only alternative is to allow it to be 'rescued' by private firms. Both of the main parties are operated and run by corporate and financial entities, they don't in any way serve the public; in all cases I think it's worth considering that as a basis for the motivation of any action they take.

[blandy]

I believe that the aim of both Labour and the Conservatives is to run the NHS so badly that the only alternative is to allow it to be 'rescued' by private firms. Both of the main parties are operated and run by corporate and financial entities, they don't in any way serve the public; in all cases I think it's worth considering that as a basis for the motivation of any action they take.

I don't think that's quite true of Labour. Firstly because they're largely funded by union members donations, including the nurses, and other health workers - so there's an inbuilt tendency towards not privatising the NHS. Of course they did put some of it out to Private tender under Blair, but I suspect they rather wish they hadn't, and that they would not do it again, if they re-had the chance.

Also, just generally, I'd rather parties made it better, instead of using it as a sort of proxy for "them and us".

I am alarmed, but not surprised at how many politicians have some form of interest in Private companies bidding for or doing work for NHS contracts. Most of them are tories, obviously, but not quite all. So I think it's less that there's an ideological desire of both Labour and Tories to privatise it, or partly to do so, and more a case that significant parts of (mainly) the tory party want to do so for reasons of personal gain.

[Demitri_C]

I believe that the aim of both Labour and the Conservatives is to run the NHS so badly that the only alternative is to allow it to be 'rescued' by private firms. Both of the main parties are operated and run by corporate and financial entities, they don't in any way serve the public; in all cases I think it's worth considering that as a basis for the motivation of any action they take.

Ding ding we have a winner, that is exactly how it is. Labour or conservatives that is what's going to happen. The reality is it's too expensive and with all the influx of people coming it cannot sustain in its current form

[meregreen]

 

I believe that the aim of both Labour and the Conservatives is to run the NHS so badly that the only alternative is to allow it to be 'rescued' by private firms. Both of the main parties are operated and run by corporate and financial entities, they don't in any way serve the public; in all cases I think it's worth considering that as a basis for the motivation of any action they take.

Ding ding we have a winner, that is exactly how it is. Labour or conservatives that is what's going to happen. The reality is it's too expensive and with all the influx of people coming it cannot sustain in its current form

 

You've swallowed the lies hook line and sinker. The NHS is in crisis, because it's always in crisis with Tory Govts. The Tories fought its inception, and would happily see its demise. Labour created it, and are its only real hope.

[OutByEaster?]

 

 

I believe that the aim of both Labour and the Conservatives is to run the NHS so badly that the only alternative is to allow it to be 'rescued' by private firms. Both of the main parties are operated and run by corporate and financial entities, they don't in any way serve the public; in all cases I think it's worth considering that as a basis for the motivation of any action they take.

Ding ding we have a winner, that is exactly how it is. Labour or conservatives that is what's going to happen. The reality is it's too expensive and with all the influx of people coming it cannot sustain in its current form

 

You've swallowed the lies hook line and sinker. The NHS is in crisis, because it's always in crisis with Tory Govts. The Tories fought its inception, and would happily see its demise. Labour created it, and are its only real hope.

 

Well then all we really need is a Labour party. Hopefully the one Blair killed will be back one day. This ain't it.