Current Affairs The Labour Party

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

People always support a higher rate of tax, for other people.......

Me and the missus already pay a fortune in tax (she's actually in the 40% tax bracket) we have a comfortable lifestyle, and I don't mean big house, cars, loads of holidays abroad etc, just comfortable, and we work hard and pay our dues for that comfortable lifestyle.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

The privatisation of railways has been crap Bruce. We have one of the worst rail systems in western europe.

Our railways have always been crap mate.

 

[Barnfred 55]

32 hour week now...they have gone full mental

Taking people out of poverty by increasing the minimum wage to £10 per hour, then dumping them back in again by reducing their hours to 32lol.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If companies and the country can afford it why not. However the same people demanding this will be the same people who will resist the efficiencies required to pay for it. AI is coming, robotics will dominate and we have to start thinking about how the world will look in the near future. Trusting our politicians with this is another matter....

That's the elephant in the room, as the UK suffers from poor productivity, with a big factor in that the poor takeup of technology among small/medium sized firms. Some of that technology will augment labour, some of it will replace it. It's only with that productivity improvement that initiatives like this will be affordable though, and as we've seen with the trains, investing in that kind of technology is not something unions tend to support.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That number is true, but covers a lot of tiny religious schools - it's 75% of schools represented by the Independent Schools Council which is what we'd normally think of as a private school educating a body of pupils, where you'd have reasonable expectations of social responsibility in line with charitable status.

There is zero risk in removing this status, on the contrary it is votes in the bank. The private school sector has been on the take for years in this department (in aggregate, there are some impressive exceptions), trousering tax relief on new playing fields whilst failing to widen access to bright kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. UK voters of any stripe dislike this sort of brazen chiselling of the system, and you can times that by ten when it comes to kid's education so no idea why you'd see that as a high risk strategy. Just need to shine some sunlight onto it.

We're not talking about all the money in the world here, but it's a critical reality check and a step towards tackling inequality - hard to get progress on this fundamental issue when we've got all these private schools hanging off our teats.

It's risky because a good many people in the UK are strivers (or see themselves as such), and that was something Thatcher tapped into in the 80s. If you want to get ahead, the state will help you do so. Blair largely continued that and tried to soften the edges. I think it's hugely risky to punish any family aiming to do the best for their kids because I don't think that will sit well with people.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Taking people out of poverty by increasing the minimum wage to £10 per hour, then dumping them back in again by reducing their hours to 32lol.

It does seem very nanny like, especially as they've spent much of the last few years bemoaning the rise of zero hours contracts and the gig economy, despite many workers in this sector lauding the flexibility and work life balance it affords them (obviously this doesn't apply to all before anyone jumps on this statement).

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

Taking people out of poverty by increasing the minimum wage to £10 per hour, then dumping them back in again by reducing their hours to 32lol.

I wonder how business' will react to their profits taking a hit by reducing the working week, or is it that the premise will be, less hours, means more output from workers because they will be in a better state of mind.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Ok I actually do 'talk to people" as you put it, don't be so patronising, why do you think it's not achievable?

Three things the LP are proposing are all linked. Minimum wage upto £10ph. Reduce working week to 4 days. Abolish zero hour contracts. As somebody who used to work closely with small business's these can have a huge adverse effect that can only lead to job losses and animosity within the workplace. It will quite possibly decimate the apprentice system too.

The current LP is 100% anti business. If business's don't flourish, they won't be able to pay the workforce or the taxes that pay for the welfare system.

The wealth division in this country is obscene and something does need to change. But these LP policies are not the way to go about it. The vast majority of small business's sail very close to the wind and these policies will make many fail.

 

[neil999]

@mellowblue and anyone else i have been a bit of a dick too, i apologise...i'm just very concerned about a tory majority

 

[roydo]

I wonder how business' will react to their profits taking a hit by reducing the working week, or is it that the premise will be, less hours, means more output from workers because they will be in a better state of mind.

Thats the thing though, businesses can always hire more staff if they need to. Like businesses are not likely to open for less hours or days are they? Will just need more bodies to do so if they cant force anyone to work more than 32 hours.

 

[Barnfred 55]

It does seem very nanny like, especially as they've spent much of the last few years bemoaning the rise of zero hours contracts and the gig economy, despite many workers in this sector lauding the flexibility and work life balance it affords them (obviously this doesn't apply to all before anyone jumps on this statement).

Zero hour contracts do need looking at as some business's do use this to take advantage of their "employees". But as you say, a lot of people do like the flexibility it gives them (for whatever reason that suits them individually) plus some business's can only operate properly on this basis due to the nature of the service they provide. Giving people fixed contracts just won't work for them. LPs plan to just abolish them is just as bad as their plan to abolish private schools. Yes they need reviewing and, were appropriate, workers rights need protecting. But so do the employers rights and needs which the LP are just simply dismissing.

 

[larrygobfiend]

Imagine thinking working less hours is "mental" lollollol

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

Thats the thing though, businesses can always hire more staff if they need to. Like businesses are not likely to open for less hours or days are they? Will just need more bodies to do so if they cant force anyone to work more than 32 hours.

Would be interesting too know in this day and age how many people could actually afford to only work 32 hrs a week.

 

[larrygobfiend]

There's gonna be less work across the board due to technology, so it makes sense to reduce hours whilst keeping pay at the same level. We've been conditioned to believe that working ourselves to death is normal.

 

[larrygobfiend]

Would be interesting too see in this day and age how many people could actually afford to only work 32 hrs a week.

They said they'd keep wages the same.