The Hung Like a Donkey General Election December 2019 Thread

[rubberman]

9 minutes ago, MCU said:

small cleaning business owner has 10 workers on minimum wage, if labour get in he’ll have to pay them all £10 an hour, ultimately sacking many off as he’s not making profit.

why am I gonna vote for a party who supports lazy people? 

 

 

And the Tories living wage pleadge is £10.50.  All parties are going to at the least review this.  Really shouldn't be the reason to choose between them.

[snowychap]

28 minutes ago, rubberman said:

I'm going for the more hopeful, but no less disastrous Tory majority of 10.

Indeed.

A majority of one may as well be a majority of a hundred (illnesses and pairing commitments being ripped up notwithstanding).

[bobzy]

35 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

not really

take my brother for example, works at vision labs factory in kiddy, currently working doubles and weekends if he can get them to pay for Christmas, he's a supervisor so on maybe £12-14 an hour (maybe...)

how does he react to the headline that Corbyn wants to get mcdonalds workers £15 an hour? "**** that word removed"

what does the real living wage of £10 do? makes all the people below him earn more, diminishing the benefit of his supervisor role

there is a belief that labour will be of more benefit to those below him than there will be to him, the gap between those below him and him will close the gap between him and those above him will stay exactly the same

he will vote tory

That's seriously bonkers.  I can't even get my head around how messed up that thinking is.

He's angry at Corbyn because he's going to try and allow people who earn not-very-much, to earn more?  He doesn't want Labour to come into power because people who earn less than him will benefit?  I mean, what the **** is that?

To be honest, this is a general problem with society.  It's just selfish.  Your brother is concerned that voting for a party who will improve the prospects for society as a whole will reduce the gap between the amount he earns over those he supervises.  Surely he should be chuffed that the people he manages will be better off?

But no.  No, it's just resentment.  The same way people bang on about "scroungers" - as if living on **** all but claiming benefits is something to aspire to.

Country is **** mate.

Edited December 12, 2019 by bobzy

[rubberman]

Just now, snowychap said:

Indeed.

A majority of one may as well be a majority of a hundred (illnesses and pairing commitments being ripped up notwithstanding).

If the majority is small enough there may still be enough rebels left to at least stop a no-deal Brexit.  (That's all I've got as a silver lining.)

[bobzy]

15 minutes ago, MCU said:

small cleaning business owner has 10 workers on minimum wage, if labour get in he’ll have to pay them all £10 an hour, ultimately sacking many off as he’s not making profit.

why am I gonna vote for a party who supports lazy people?

Cleaners are lazy, eh?

What about those binmen?  Nurses?  All just lazy?

**** hell

[Genie]

3 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Well that's a classic tory voting belief isn't it. **** everyone else and make sure it's all about me. 

The idea that Boris Johnson would care about a supervisor earning £14 an hour suggests he's been duped  

I'd also expect an employer that had to add £1-£2 onto their minimum wage employees would need to do similar to the others up the pay scale, otherwise there'd be chaos.

[GarethRDR]

16 minutes ago, MCU said:

why am I gonna vote for a party who supports lazy people? 

Disgusting.

[snowychap]

53 minutes ago, MCU said:

small cleaning business owner has 10 workers on minimum wage, if labour get in he’ll have to pay them all £10 an hour, ultimately sacking many off as he’s not making profit.

An increase in labour costs can be accommodated in different ways than merely a reduction in the workforce (price increases, efficiencies elsewhere, reduced dividends/profit take by shareholders).

Edited December 12, 2019 by snowychap
eek - spelling

[mrbojangles]

35 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Does he think the policy only applies to McDonalds workers? **** me.

It would push him upwards too. He wouldn't be left on 10 quid an hour whilst a burger flipper gets 15.

Senseless. Duped.

I think you very well know he doesn't think this only applies at McDonalds.

The point Stefan is making is that by pushing minimum wage up so much it will make his brother closer to the poorer minimum wage workers. Although he may get a rise | would doubt it would be around the same % increase, this then pushes his economical standing down and closer to the poorest rather than the rich. When companies increase prices on products to compensate for the wage rise he will in fact be worse off.

I also don't think that Stefan agrees with his brother however he is not wrong that this is the way a lot of people think, a few of my friends earning around the same bracket are also voting Tory for the same reasons as above. I don't think they have been duped it is just the way some peoples minds work, i get the logic behind it but its not the way of progression

[HanoiVillan]

53 minutes ago, hippo said:

The Exit polls have been very accurate in recent times though ? 

This is true, but it isn't a law of nature. The prediction that comes out can only be as good as the data that goes in, and if the data going in this year is worse . . .

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, rubberman said:

If the majority is small enough there may still be enough rebels left to at least stop a no-deal Brexit.  (That's all I've got as a silver lining.)

I don't think there's much of a chance of that. The Tory intake from this election will consist of headbangers and sheep. Once the WAB is passed, they'll have wider scoppe to change legislation without recourse to Parliament via SIs. Even beyond that they'lll have huge scope to change the nature of government and institutions further (that's the desire of Cummings et al. over and above leaving the EU) and there will be very little rumbling from anyone within the party otherwise they'll be out very, very quickly.

[mrbojangles]

Also i am impartial as decided not to vote, cant get on board with a lot of policies and I dont think any of them have handled themselves with any form of dignity. Voted Tory last election so one less vote for them I suppose

[DCJonah]

13 minutes ago, bobzy said:

That's seriously bonkers.  I can't even get my head around how messed up that thinking is.

He's angry at Corbyn because he's going to try and allow people who earn not-very-much, to earn more?  He doesn't want Labour to come into power because people who earn less than him will benefit?  I mean, what the **** is that?

To be honest, this is a general problem with society.  It's just selfish.  Your brother is concerned that voting for a party who will improve the prospects for society as a whole will reduce the gap between the amount he earns over those he supervises.  Surely he should be chuffed that the people he manages will be better off?

But no.  No, it's just resentment.  The same way people bang on about "scroungers" - as if living on **** all but claiming benefits is something to aspire to.

Country is **** mate.

100%

The way poor and vulnerable people are convinced to turn on each other is a masterclass in manipulation.

And you're right we are **** if so many people allow themselves to be duped into it.

[Rodders]

Also, on people "accepting" wages. At that level, you often don't have much choice do you, you take what you are given and be thankful for that. And if it doesn't cover your outgoings, just get another ( and maybe another, depending on the number of hours these part time rota'd type jobs offer ). 

Perhaps these people should just "get a qualification", just like that, or just be better. Ignoring that for jobs, where you often get those statistics of say 1000 people applying for some menial post, the 999 who don't get it aren't automatically losing scroungers. In a highly competitive environment, and with economic or family pressures, when are people supposed to make the "easy, obvious personal responsibility choices" that, that particular type of toryism voter mentality advocates?

They might get an evening class going, if they're lucky enough to have the available time + mental energy ( if you have a full time type role, and/ or kids, 2 or 3 hours a week plus studying time is not exactly a breeze ). But they'll still be competing with other people in a similar environment. If people think this is "just an excuse for free handhouts" or whatever the similarly worded argument is, go on, let's hear examples of how people can work their way out of poverty in less than 20 years. 

No one is asking to be given everything on a plate ffs, but for the many who miss out, it isn't all because they're scroungers / not trying / addicts / whatever who aren't being sufficiently personally responsible. And this isn't just at the bottom end of the scale, the battle to improve your lot affects loads of us. And this mass pool of people will variously suffer from ailments, mental health issues, bereavements etc along the way. They will need the teacher to provide the evening class, the health worker to support their anxiety, the services to provide the transport to take them from job 1 to job 2 in sufficient time to allow them to pick up kids etc. 

You then have the kafka-esque insanity of the benefits system and it's sanctions or admin incompetence that squarely kicks people in the nether regions when they do try and to the right thing. 

 

So yeah there are also the cohorts of individuals, who don't try, ( though if I have my particularly liberal hat on, what is it about the environment that puts people off trying at all ) and some will make a series of pretty piss poor personal judgements ( not exclusive to any level of society rich or poor though is it ) yet most don't. At least they don't start off like that. 

 

It maddens me that anyone could think the answer is to begrudge people at the bottom end getting some additional help. 

 

[bobzy]

Kind of looking forward - in a half-curious, half-dreading kind of way - to seeing which way my constituency goes.

Affluent area - but quite split in sub-areas between left-wing hippies and people who have more money than sense - which voted 57% in favour of Remain and has had Ken Clarke as MP since the 60's.  Tory vote has strengthened over recent years, but everyone liked Ken.  Labour trampled all over Lib Dem/Green/UKIP votes last time round and saw a massive surge.  Wonder if it will continue, or if Lib Dems are going to re-surge and ensure Tory stability.

[MCU]

33 minutes ago, hippo said:

So the workers should work  for lower wages to keep his business afloat ? 

Come on mate...

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

and when you turn 40 you'll start voting Tory as well

He won't, just like I didn't. 

[rubberman]

12 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't think there's much of a chance of that. The Tory intake from this election will consist of headbangers and sheep. Once the WAB is passed, they'll have wider scoppe to change legislation without recourse to Parliament via SIs. Even beyond that they'lll have huge scope to change the nature of government and institutions further (that's the desire of Cummings et al. over and above leaving the EU) and there will be very little rumbling from anyone within the party otherwise they'll be out very, very quickly.

Yeah - I'm trying not to think about that.

[Mic09]

42 minutes ago, hippo said:

Point still stands - He is paying them a pittance to keep his business profitable - If he can't pay them a reasonable wage the business can go bump. 

Thing is, it's not as simple as Labour paint it.

Because the cleaner will earn minimal and baker will earn minimal.

If we artificially (via legislation) increase the wages of both, the prices in both places will go up to keep the profits up. 

And 3/4 years into the term, the cleaner will wonder how is it possible that I am now earning £10 an hour but I still have little money? 

You guessed it. Because he had to pay £3 for a loaf of bread.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Mic09

[HanoiVillan]

I voted Labour this morning. These children - and the millions like them - are why it's important we have a different government. Fifteen years ago, the number of children in this desperate poverty was small, and decreasing. Now it is large, and increasing. This isn't because we can't afford to feed these children - we're the 5th richest country on the planet. It isn't because we don't know how to solve child poverty - it's easy, you make sure parents have enough money to feed their kids. The reason the number of kids in situations like this is large and increasing is because the Conservatives Do Not Care. Forget what they say, look at what they do. Nine years of Tory government and this problem, and homelessness and in-work poverty as well, are bad and getting worse. 

The damage done to these kids will last a lifetime. Poverty is not just an affliction of now, but affects your life chances forever. Stress exacerbates medical conditions, creates mental problems and can lead to kids acting out, which then has further consequences. Poor quality nutrition reduces cognitive capacity. Their lower grades at school will ensure that fewer have the opportunities afforded by further education. 

This generation of children have suffered at the hands of this government. Don't let another generation suffer the same way. 

Spoiler

If you want to know more about the devastating effects of poverty on people's life chances, I strongly recommend Ezra Klein's podcast with Sendhil Mullainathan, an expert in poverty's effects on mental capacity. It is long and hard to listen to, but hugely important: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/e/62124623?autoplay=true

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by HanoiVillan