Oh Jeremy Corbyn (17 Viewers)

[Nick]

so why not make them optional? If people don't want a traditional full time contract then fair enough.

They are optional?

 

---

[skybluegod]

so why not make them optional? If people don't want a traditional full time contract then fair enough.

But you said to get rid of them completely did you not? Might be wrong if so then I apologise.

I am all for people being given full time contracts if they want them, but I do think forcing companies to give employees full time contracts will lead to more unemployment. At the pub I worked at for example. If they had more staff like me ( I worked 45 hours a week) then they would probably cut their staff by 2/3 because they don’t need the others?

 

[Johnnythespider]

No ofc it’s not, but say I earn 200,000 a year, why is it right that I only take 116,000 home?
I have no problem with paying tax, but I do when there are people that sit on their areas all day, and expect hard working people to pay for it.

You only take home £116,000 and you're looking for sympathy, i don't think I've seen much on here that rates as more ridiculous. Not all benefits go to lazy spongers you know, I've a sister in law who has just lost her disability allowance despite having a debilitating illness and being on more steroids than a gym full of meatheads (not all gym users are meatheads). She has gained so much weight she resembles a barrage balloon and finds it difficult to climb the stairs but the assessor seems to know better than her GP and her specialist or could they simply be targeting the week and the sick in order to meet some performance related target of their own. Yeah I feel really sorry for anybody who only takes home £116,000.

 

[clint van damme]

They are optional?

as in take it or leave it. I mean give people a choice between ZHC or full time contracts if people prefer to be on them.

 

[skybluegod]

You only take home £116,000 and you're looking for sympathy, i don't think I've seen much on here that rates as more ridiculous. Not all benefits go to lazy spongers you know, I've a sister in law who has just lost her disability allowance despite having a debilitating illness and being on more steroids than a gym full of meatheads (not all gym users are meatheads). She has gained so much weight she resembles a barrage balloon and finds it difficult to climb the stairs but the assessor seems to know better than her GP and her specialist or could they simply be targeting the week and the sick in order to meet some performance related target of their own. Yeah I feel really sorry for anybody who only takes home £116,000.

Can you actually read the rest of the thread? I don’t earn £200,000, I said IF someone did...

 

[skybluegod]

as in take it or leave it. I mean give people a choice between ZHC or full time contracts if people prefer to be on them.

In my experience again it has been like that, the managers where I have worked, have always offered full time or part time (Zhc) but I know this isn’t always the case and understand what you mean.

 

[clint van damme]

But you said to get rid of them completely did you not? Might be wrong if so then I apologise.

I am all for people being given full time contracts if they want them, but I do think forcing companies to give employees full time contracts will lead to more unemployment. At the pub I worked at for example. If they had more staff like me ( I worked 45 hours a week) then they would probably cut their staff by 2/3 because they don’t need the others?

I did, and a few people have posted saying extolling their virtues and saying people want them , if that's the case, giver people a choice between them and full time contracts.

 

[skybluegod]

I did, and a few people have posted saying extolling their virtues and saying people want them , if that's the case, giver people a choice between them and full time contracts.

Yes with that I agree, but I don’t think abolishing them helps employment or standard of living across the board.

 

[skybluegod]

You only take home £116,000 and you're looking for sympathy, i don't think I've seen much on here that rates as more ridiculous. Not all benefits go to lazy spongers you know, I've a sister in law who has just lost her disability allowance despite having a debilitating illness and being on more steroids than a gym full of meatheads (not all gym users are meatheads). She has gained so much weight she resembles a barrage balloon and finds it difficult to climb the stairs but the assessor seems to know better than her GP and her specialist or could they simply be targeting the week and the sick in order to meet some performance related target of their own. Yeah I feel really sorry for anybody who only takes home £116,000.

And furthermore I have never said that all money goes to lazy spongers, and there are cases where people do need benefits. As I say I have no problem with tax, I do however question how fair it is to be taxed for doing better in your field than others.

 

[Grendel]

I did, and a few people have posted saying extolling their virtues and saying people want them , if that's the case, giver people a choice between them and full time contracts.

Full time contracts will I assume mean at the expense of the 66% who prefer the arrangement and higher unemployment

 

[clint van damme]

Full time contracts will I assume mean at the expense of the 66% who prefer the arrangement and higher unemployment

how would giving out zero hour contracts lead to higher unemployment?
If 66 percent prefer them then surely giving full time contracts to the 34 percent wouldn't make a great deal of difference.

Why did Mike Ashley bow to pressure and stop using them at Sports Direct if they were so popular?

 

[Grendel]

how would giving out zero hour contracts lead to higher unemployment?
If 66 percent prefer them then surely giving full time contracts to the 34 percent wouldn't make a great deal of difference.

Why did Mike Ashley bow to pressure and stop using them at Sports Direct if they were so popular?

Because inevitably they would take the jobs on 38 hours a week permanently which if that's not available now would negate the others operating on zero hours in the same times. It's likely also that as full hours have to be born as a cost by the employer they will pay lower hourly rates as well

 

[Johnnythespider]

And furthermore I have never said that all money goes to lazy spongers, and there are cases where people do need benefits. As I say I have no problem with tax, I do however question how fair it is to be taxed for doing better in your field than others.

Ok I shouldn't have aimed that directly at You, I stand by the sentiment of my post though, for me taxation should be used to create a fairer society. I'm not against people becoming wealthy I just think that those at the bottom of the heap should be looked after before somebody on said £116,000 gets a tax break. Apologies again for my error.

 

[skybluegod]

Ok I shouldn't have aimed that directly at You, I stand by the sentiment of my post though, for me taxation should be used to create a fairer society. I'm not against people becoming wealthy I just think that those at the bottom of the heap should be looked after before somebody on said £116,000 gets a tax break. Apologies again for my error.

I agree to an extent about helping people at the bottom of heap. But I don’t think you help people by giving people money, I think you help people by giving them jobs.
Yes there are exceptions like your sister who ofc should be looked after by the state.
But for example my mum worked for 20 years to the top and becoming a head teacher. I know for a fact she gets pissed off with the fact how much she gets taxed. Yes it might be petty or obnoxious for people to complain about paying more tax. But I don’t think it’s fair that higher skilled workers should pay more tax when they are often doing more important jobs, or are in positions of authority.

 

[mrtrench]

We have a fair society, where people who work harder or smarter earn more and pay more, but not yet prohibitively more, tax. A fairer society is the left wing euphemism for 'vote for us so we can Duck the country up'

 

[clint van damme]

We have a fair society, where people who work harder or smarter earn more and pay more, but not yet prohibitively more, tax. A fairer society is the left wing euphemism for 'vote for us so we can Duck the country up'

no we don't and inequality is rising.
We shouldn't let it happen, this country has a proud record of looking after the most vulnerable, we shouldn't let that slip away.

 

[mrtrench]

I didn't say we had an equal society, there is no such thing. We have a fair society, where people who want to put extra in and earn more may do so. If you punish those people, then that would be an unfair society. It would also be disastrous for everyone else when they vote with their feet and you lose all the tax they pay.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Globalisation and unregulated banks fucked the economy up in reality. The Labour incumbents at the time just added to the disaster with negligent fiscal policy as usual.

Yes and which generation had the most influence on that? All political allegiances to one side.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I didn't say we had an equal society, there is no such thing. We have a fair society, where people who want to put extra in and earn more may do so. If you punish those people, then that would be an unfair society. It would also be disastrous for everyone else when they vote with their feet and you lose all the tax they pay.

Is it fair that I am given pay rises below inflation even if I hit all my criteria?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Let me see 10 years ago, that was Blair wasn't it, no wait a minute G Brown. Labour were in power from 1997 to 2010, a lot of damage was done then.

I was talking about generations rather than political parties but since you're keen, who was it who got the free market ball rolling in the first place?

 

[Grendel]

Is it fair that I am given pay rises below inflation even if I hit all my criteria?

So was I

 

[Grendel]

I was talking about generations rather than political parties but since you're keen, who was it who got the free market ball rolling in the first place?

Whoever it was should be praised unless you are saying free market forces are draconian?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Whoever it was should be praised unless you are saying free market forces are draconian?

Social democracy calls for a healthy balance of free market and state influence. A deregulated free market tends to lead to the economic crashes of the late 80s and late 2000s.

 

[Grendel]

Social democracy calls for a healthy balance of free market and state influence. A deregulated free market tends to lead to the economic crashes of the late 80s and late 2000s.

Which countries didn't experience those crashes out of interest? Zimbabwe?

 

[mrtrench]

Remind me again, which politician took financial regulation away from the bank of England, set up the FSA and boasted about light touch regulation during his Mansion House speech?

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

but there hasn't always been zero hour contracts. You know that they are not being used soley for students and casual labour. They are no good for people with families who need a regular income but many find themselves on them as they have become more widespread.

Quite to opposite in some cases. Some people use Zero hours contracts to fit in with their families. I know someone who works from 9 until about 2.30 no weekends. They choose their own hours. It suits them and their family. I'm sure there are plenty of people who use it to their advantage. It could be spun as a positive but Labour use it as a stick to beat the government with.

 

[xcraigx]

I've had zero hour contracts in the past and they were perfect for my lifestyle at the time.

 

[Sick Boy]

I think he will become pm. He will achieve enough in 5 years for the Tories to return. What I'm looking forward to most of all is hearing how labour reinvent themselves, talk down the country and blame everything on the Tories next time. I think they will remain hard left now forever.

Edit: it amazes me that they are succeeding in blaming the Tories this time. Such short memories.

Haha...it's strange that it is fine for the Tories to blame Labour for the country's economic woes and for a global recession.

 

[torchomatic]

How can you say that damage has been done by Brexit and blame the Conservatives? It was a manifesto pledge that had to be followed through or they would have been criticised for not delivering. Clearly it was wanted or they wouldn't have won that election nor the 17m that voted for it would have been given the opportunity, but as we have still not left yet and wont do for some time, to say that it's damaging is merely guessing. Let's wait and see what happens first.

Eh? It is easy to blame the Conservatives. "I blame the Conservatives" There, I said it.

Manifesto pledge? Are you having a laugh? Dementia tax, grammar schools, fox hunting, energy price cap, fixed term parliament act, winter fuel payments...care to comment on those manifesto pledges?

A vanity project just to shut up a few back benchers and we'll be suffering for decades because of it.

"I blame the Conservatives". Oh look, I said it again.

 

[skybluegod]

Eh? It is easy to blame the Conservatives. "I blame the Conservatives" There, I said it.

Manifesto pledge? Are you having a laugh? Dementia tax, grammar schools, fox hunting, energy price cap, fixed term parliament act, winter fuel payments...care to comment on those manifesto pledges?

A vanity project just to shut up a few back benchers and we'll be suffering for decades because of it.

"I blame the Conservatives". Oh look, I said it again.

I don’t see your point? You are blaming the conservatives for overseeing the will of the people?
How dare they uphold democracy!
Yes it might have been marginal brexit. But 52% still voted for it. It’s the will of the people at the end of the day.

 

[Sick Boy]

I don’t see your point? You are blaming the conservatives for overseeing the will of the people?
How dare they uphold democracy!
Yes it might have been marginal brexit. But 52% still voted for it. It’s the will of the people at the end of the day.

The way it's going the 'will of the people' will move more and more against it by March 2019, apart from the zealots desperate for deregulation.

 

[skybluegod]

The way it's going the 'will of the people' will move more and more against it by March 2019, apart from the zealots desperate for deregulation.

So what we have another vote just before we agree a deal? And make a U-turn?

 

[Sick Boy]

So what we have another vote just before we agree a deal? And make a U-turn?

If it's the will of the people, then what's the problem?

 

[mrtrench]

Eh? It is easy to blame the Conservatives. "I blame the Conservatives" There, I said it.

Manifesto pledge? Are you having a laugh? Dementia tax, grammar schools, fox hunting, energy price cap, fixed term parliament act, winter fuel payments...care to comment on those manifesto pledges?

A vanity project just to shut up a few back benchers and we'll be suffering for decades because of it.

"I blame the Conservatives". Oh look, I said it again.

Yep, agree with most of this. Fox hunting ffs, what were they thinking? I'd add that I think the brexit referendum was also motivated by nicking ukip's votes in 2015. I agree with brexit, not be cause I'm selfish but because I believe it is best for everyone (UK and Europe). But that doesn't change what motivated Cameron to offer the referendum.

 

[Sick Boy]

Yep, agree with most of this. Fox hunting ffs, what were they thinking? I'd add that I think the brexit referendum was also motivated by nicking ukip's votes in 2015. I agree with brexit, not be cause I'm selfish but because I believe it is best for everyone (UK and Europe). But that doesn't change what motivated Cameron to offer the referendum.

A fair post, good to have you back!