In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
Then maybe we should (and a lot of people are) looking at ways to pass down some to your children when they need it, not when you are dead, also means likely to avoid any IHT that would otherwise become payable.
Give some of it away as early as you can, no point being the richest person in the grave yard.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
If the unions No.1 reason for joining is to earn more than your fellow workers, doesn't that go against the Labour parties beliefs?
The exact phrase is "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members". So sounds just like those blooming Tories all they want to do is look after their own, bl00dy disgusted I am. "For the many, not the few"......... as Jim Royal would say..... My.....
No 2 is you can get more holiday ........
You have just described why it is beneficial to be part of a trade union if you are allowed to that is. Is it a crime for a worker to try to get more money? The point isn't to try to get more money than non trade union members, it is by being part of a trade union it gives you more protection against being screwed.
I'm not questioning it just clarifying the actual phrase referred to in Afka's post. So to clarify, for the many not the few, caveat as long as you are a union member......
No, that isn't the caveat. The unions exist to protect the worker - or at least that is what they are supposed to do. That is a noble thing.
I've never said it isn't a noble thing, I was simply giving the full sentence that AFKA referred to, that is what it is and is what it says, they say union members will on average be paid better than non union members (on average), so what part of the caveat, that it only applies to union members is not true, or are Unite lying that they get better pay for their members, on average for Union embers (in this instance their members).
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if they were lying! They used to be my union. The Union's only concern (because they didn't have negotiating rights with my employer) was to maximise membership subs. They never turned up to talk to us, you could never get them to return calls and were a total waste of space. The only reason I remained a member was to ensure I had access to the support of their lawyers because I foresaw potential "diffficulties" with my employer which didn't actually come to pass. Belonging to the union was otherwise an expensive waste of time and money. But I'm sure my subs contributed towards paying for McClusky's nice London gaff.
I'm sure it's not lost on a lot of Unite members his Salary and pad near Borough Market predominantly paid for out of membership fees so he could be 2 miles from his office rather than buy his own place and commute like his members. Kettle & pot springs to mind.
He is very slick. He will shake your hand as his henchman stabs you in the back. He does get things done - and environment secretary is a good job for him in all honesty - using his talents postively rather than negatively as when he was education secretary.
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
I think you misread my post. When I said pass on their inheritance I means the money the parents get from their parents (the children's grandparents). If you assume the age difference is approx 27 then when the children are 35 their parents would be 62 and their parents would be 89 (assuming they are still alive then).
You are, of course, correct we cannot afford to wait for our own parents to die before we buy something.
I cannot believe we have reached a point in the UK where in many (most?) cases the only possible way a young person can afford to secure somewhere adequate for them and their family to live is to wait for someone else to die. Provided that asset isn't required for care costs of course.
How much bigger clue do people need that the policies of successive governments have royally fecked up generations of young people?
There needs to be a cross party agreement on measures to correct that situation and this includes, in my view, the immediate scrapping of Right To Buy and a substantial public housing building regime. Won't happen for a multitude of political reasons and vested interests of course.
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
Then maybe we should (and a lot of people are) looking at ways to pass down some to your children when they need it, not when you are dead, also means likely to avoid any IHT that would otherwise become payable.
Give some of it away as early as you can, no point being the richest person in the grave yard.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
If the unions No.1 reason for joining is to earn more than your fellow workers, doesn't that go against the Labour parties beliefs?
The exact phrase is "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members". So sounds just like those blooming Tories all they want to do is look after their own, bl00dy disgusted I am. "For the many, not the few"......... as Jim Royal would say..... My.....
No 2 is you can get more holiday ........
You have just described why it is beneficial to be part of a trade union if you are allowed to that is. Is it a crime for a worker to try to get more money? The point isn't to try to get more money than non trade union members, it is by being part of a trade union it gives you more protection against being screwed.
I'm not questioning it just clarifying the actual phrase referred to in Afka's post. So to clarify, for the many not the few, caveat as long as you are a union member......
No, that isn't the caveat. The unions exist to protect the worker - or at least that is what they are supposed to do. That is a noble thing.
I've never said it isn't a noble thing, I was simply giving the full sentence that AFKA referred to, that is what it is and is what it says, they say union members will on average be paid better than non union members (on average), so what part of the caveat, that it only applies to union members is not true, or are Unite lying that they get better pay for their members, on average for Union embers (in this instance their members).
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if they were lying! They used to be my union. The Union's only concern (because they didn't have negotiating rights with my employer) was to maximise membership subs. They never turned up to talk to us, you could never get them to return calls and were a total waste of space. The only reason I remained a member was to ensure I had access to the support of their lawyers because I foresaw potential "diffficulties" with my employer which didn't actually come to pass. Belonging to the union was otherwise an expensive waste of time and money. But I'm sure my subs contributed towards paying for McClusky's nice London gaff.
'The Department's [for Business, Innovation and Skills} study found that “trade union members in the public and private sectors saw a rise in their average hourly earnings between 2012 and 2013".
In contrast, the report claimed private sector non-members saw a “broad stagnation in their average hourly earnings over the same period, while public sector non-members experienced a reduction”.
It concluded that the the "overall gap between member and non-member average hourly earnings has increased" to 16.4%, with an even larger increase in the public sector, where members can earn nearly 20% more than non-members'.
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
I think you misread my post. When I said pass on their inheritance I means the money the parents get from their parents (the children's grandparents). If you assume the age difference is approx 27 then when the children are 35 their parents would be 62 and their parents would be 89 (assuming they are still alive then).
You are, of course, correct we cannot afford to wait for our own parents to die before we buy something.
I cannot believe we have reached a point in the UK where in many (most?) cases the only possible way a young person can afford to secure somewhere adequate for them and their family to live is to wait for someone else to die. Provided that asset isn't required for care costs of course.
How much bigger clue do people need that the policies of successive governments have royally fecked up generations of young people?
There needs to be a cross party agreement on measures to correct that situation and this includes, in my view, the immediate scrapping of Right To Buy and a substantial public housing building regime. Won't happen for a multitude of political reasons and vested interests of course.
Do you think this will solve the dependency problem?
It is my view (and I'm more than happy to be convinced that I'm wrong) that all this will do is move people on low incomes from renting where they choose, to living in public housing where they are told - assuming they are not going to build hundreds of properties in places like Brockley, for example, where cabbles lives and wants to stay. If the right to buy option is removed then this group are, probably, never going to be able to buy their own home as the gap between the cost of buying and renting a 'cheap' alternative will 'trap' them in public housing for ever. Without the equity that they will make and be able to pass on to their, let's say, grand children it will probably reduce social mobility. It could even produce the kind of estates that people talk about with horror these days. The kind of places that many people worked hard their entire lives to get out of, and most of the time failed to do so.
I understand the benefits of enough Public Houses for all to have one but I can, also, see why successive governments have chosen to subsidise rents for the low income families rather than build them a home and then maintain it for ever and, presumably, allow them to live in for virtually nothing, when they retire, as they won't have bought it like those that do buy their own homes. Those on low incomes are always going to be dependent on the state. All building them homes, that they can rent off the state for a small sum, does is move the dependency from giving them rent monthly to buying them (or building them) a home. The capital cost of the building program would run into tens of billions of pounds I'm sure - and that is before we factor in that 'someone's friend' will be given the contract to build it, and maintain it, that will double the build costs while we make a few more millionaires along the way.
Even if an agreement could be made to build all these houses I don't see how it can solve the problems of the over populated cities, and towns, of which London is not the only one in the UK. There is just not enough space for all those that want to live there. Building huge estates out of town are probably no more desirable than for people to move out of town where the market rents are lower - yet many refuse to do that, and why should they if they can afford the rent in the place where they want to be.
Even though I have not looked into the specifics there was a report earlier this year that said that we have c. 1m empty homes in the UK. I suspect that some of these are in places where not enough people want to live. I don't think there are significant plots of land in the big the towns and cities that could accommodate large scale building programs. Moving people out of these big cities would be difficult and politically dangerous. I remember a Politician making a suggestion about moving people on benefits to Stoke a few years ago - that did not end well.
In response to the question about how the Tories need to change, I don't think they need to find a solution to the housing problem. The cost of doing so would probably cost more votes than the result. In reality, this is the same for all the parties. The number of people that would actually be satisfied with one of the limited solutions available is, in my view, much less than the number of people that would be disenfranchised by having to pay for it.
You are right about it being a mess - all the politicians need to do is make a token gesture to convince some voters that their efforts will help them. The rest of the electorate will always vote for the other party as they will believe that a change might be better as the status quo isn't working for them.
Back to the title thread - the tories seem to be digging their own grave at the moment. They should have involved The Labour party and devolved parliaments in Brexit discussions - it would have spread the blame! Their lust for power in the short term will damage their prospects for power in the longer term.
Chizz, some interesting thoughts and observations,
Just one I wanted to pick up on in particular - 3. Membership.
I've never really thought about it before as I've never been a member of a political party, don't think I ever would be as I don't feel that strongly about a particular party/name to do so. But thinking about it I don't personally know a single person who is a member of any political party other than Labour. Why is that? Especially as I probably know more Tory voters than Labour one's.
Having just looked it up the Conservatives have around 150,000 members, Labour around 480,000 although that was as at March 2017 (so will undoubtedly have risen for Labour) this had previously been reducing following Corbyn's election as Leader.
Only around 1.6% of the electorate are currently a member of the main 3 parties (CON, LAB, LIB's).
So why is membership that important? Through Labours most successful period in the last 40 years they had their lowest membership since records began in 1928.
is it historically parties have had their most successful periods when they are towards the centre?
I think Labour have 650k members and growing @Rob7Lee. I read a really good quote this morning from a Labour person that went something like " The Tories can throw money at an election but we can throw people".
Labour are up 150,000 members since the election taking them to 800,000.
Some are tipping it to go past one million. That would be about 8% of their vote.
There was a widely held perspective that Corbyn was unelectable. That has changed now. Unlike Brexit and the Conservatives, Labour are addressing the concerns of the ordinary voter with solutions not rhetoric.
The Tories will be consumed by leadership changes and Brexit until they finally keel over in a year or two. That's how they will change.
I'd agree with the bold part, although he's yet to prove he's electable in my view at the present time, he did get a lot nearer to it than a lot expected, me included.
I still think Conservative have less to do to win the next election compared to Labour. It's hard to see Labour improving next time around on their actual campaign as it was very good and it's hard to see Conservatives doing a lot worse (famous last words!).
This is both complex and turbulent - we live in interesting times!
What we saw was Corbyn going through a tipping point. Of course everybody was surprised that Corbyn and Labour surged so close to an outright win. And we are in a different place now. He won't be getting any more gyp from the PLP. Labour are clocking up 5,000* new members every day since the election and that equates to one sixth of the entire Tory membership! And those 700,000 members have friends and families who all network in to the central themes and messages.
One cannot be certain about what will happen for there are so many angles but to assert that "Conservatives have less to do" is to ignore three fundamental facets of the situation: a) Labour has been transformed into a grass roots, mass member organisation where every member was consulted on the manifesto - the first post election poll suggests that Labour now has a lead but we will have to see how that develops. This process started two years back and doesn't happen overnight. The Tories are nowhere on mass membership and reaching out. b ) Brexit and the EU27 is completely unplayable and news stories now suggest that the economy is running into trouble. That is going to kill the Tory ratings. Barnier is now putting the heat on stating that he can't negotiate with himself and yet the Tories have no nominated team, no plan and no mandate from Parliament - they are still negotiating with the DUP who are staunchly in favour of a "soft Brexit". And that position is diametrically opposed to the one put forwards before the election. c) It was May, Johnson, Gove and others who got us into this mess and that suggests that they are not the best people to resolve it. Who knows whether May will go or not, but who will replace her and what will they say that is any different? What precisely is the government going to do? If anything they will move further away from where we need to be.
The only thing we can be sure of is that our country is going to have to go through a lot of needless pain until the landscape changes enough in order to facilitate a change of direction. If the Tories had anything about them they would fall on their sword now and hand over the keys to Labour. They won't because they (and your good self) still think they can solve this mess.
May is saying to her party that she got us into this mess so she is the one to lead us out. That might sit well with the 1922 comittee as they look for ways to cling to power but the country as a whole might have a different view of May, Cameron, Gove and Johnson who have created this omnishambles over the last two years?
And according to the Telegraph this morning, May is even reaching out to Macron for support. I will leave it for others to explore the irony of this.
*the number was 15,000 but somebody added an extra zero(!) on a twitter post which was then picked up - since that story they have added another 10,000 so that's a run rate of around 5,000 per day since Thursday.
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
Then maybe we should (and a lot of people are) looking at ways to pass down some to your children when they need it, not when you are dead, also means likely to avoid any IHT that would otherwise become payable.
Give some of it away as early as you can, no point being the richest person in the grave yard.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
If the unions No.1 reason for joining is to earn more than your fellow workers, doesn't that go against the Labour parties beliefs?
The exact phrase is "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members". So sounds just like those blooming Tories all they want to do is look after their own, bl00dy disgusted I am. "For the many, not the few"......... as Jim Royal would say..... My.....
No 2 is you can get more holiday ........
You have just described why it is beneficial to be part of a trade union if you are allowed to that is. Is it a crime for a worker to try to get more money? The point isn't to try to get more money than non trade union members, it is by being part of a trade union it gives you more protection against being screwed.
I'm not questioning it just clarifying the actual phrase referred to in Afka's post. So to clarify, for the many not the few, caveat as long as you are a union member......
No, that isn't the caveat. The unions exist to protect the worker - or at least that is what they are supposed to do. That is a noble thing.
I've never said it isn't a noble thing, I was simply giving the full sentence that AFKA referred to, that is what it is and is what it says, they say union members will on average be paid better than non union members (on average), so what part of the caveat, that it only applies to union members is not true, or are Unite lying that they get better pay for their members, on average for Union embers (in this instance their members).
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if they were lying! They used to be my union. The Union's only concern (because they didn't have negotiating rights with my employer) was to maximise membership subs. They never turned up to talk to us, you could never get them to return calls and were a total waste of space. The only reason I remained a member was to ensure I had access to the support of their lawyers because I foresaw potential "diffficulties" with my employer which didn't actually come to pass. Belonging to the union was otherwise an expensive waste of time and money. But I'm sure my subs contributed towards paying for McClusky's nice London gaff.
'The Department's [for Business, Innovation and Skills} study found that “trade union members in the public and private sectors saw a rise in their average hourly earnings between 2012 and 2013".
In contrast, the report claimed private sector non-members saw a “broad stagnation in their average hourly earnings over the same period, while public sector non-members experienced a reduction”.
It concluded that the the "overall gap between member and non-member average hourly earnings has increased" to 16.4%, with an even larger increase in the public sector, where members can earn nearly 20% more than non-members'.
I'm sorry but that article proves nothing. It talks about differences in pay rates. But then says: "the difference is believed to have been caused by a surge in well-paid professionals joining powerful vocational unions and compounded by a steady decline in traditional “blue collar” memberships.
So, it is not comparing like to like. In fact that is probably impossible. Workers in large companies/public sector will more than likely be unionised; those in SMEs less likely. It could just be a reflection on how well an employer is situated to pay staff a higher rate, might be people commuting to and working in a large city commanding better pay compared wit h those living locally and working in a rural enterprise park. We just don't know (as Unite doesn't if it was being honest).
If they handed the mess over to Labour - Labour would soon try to call an election rather than govern. As you rightly identify, governing at this time and in these circumstances is a poisoned chalice!
All this I have got us into this mess and I will get us out of it, is too delusional and pathetic for words.
@seriously_red all I meant by the conservatives have less to do is simply the 8 seats v's 60+ appreciate there is any number of things that can effect that and will, no doubt momentum (excuse the pun) is with Labour.
Time will tell when we vote again, good odds on it not being this year which means it likely will be according to the bookies, I've had a little flutter.
@seriously_red all I meant by the conservatives have less to do is simply the 8 seats v's 60+ appreciate there is any number of things that can effect that and will, no doubt momentum (excuse the pun) is with Labour.
Time will tell when we vote again, good odds on it not being this year which means it likely will be according to the bookies, I've had a little flutter.
I woud rather try to win 60 seats with momentum than try to win even 1 whilst losing it!
@seriously_red all I meant by the conservatives have less to do is simply the 8 seats v's 60+ appreciate there is any number of things that can effect that and will, no doubt momentum (excuse the pun) is with Labour.
Time will tell when we vote again, good odds on it not being this year which means it likely will be according to the bookies, I've had a little flutter.
I woud rather try to win 60 seats with momentum than try to win even 1 whilst losing it!
Bit of luck then that Labour are where you want them to be, only 64 seats away from a majority, gives you something to look upwards and to aim for with momentum.
I'm coming around to your way of thinking Muttley, this coming season I want us to sit in 12th place and go on a surging run towards the end of the season to finish 7th. I'd rather do that and finish with momentum than spend the season in 1st place only to begin to slip up and wonder if we'll have enough to stay in the top two and gain promotion - only to see that we do.
I think you don't realise how close 64 seats is in terms of percantage vote rise. If you are losing votes, gaining 1 seat is impossible! If you take seats from the government, it is basically 32 seats. Your anology isn't totally correct- it makes it look like there are pros and cons and fails to acknowledge the weakness of the government's position.
Labour have certainly gained momentum, but I think that their momentum was because under Corbyn, they're a left wing party. People that sit either in the centre or slightly to the left or right of centre may consider Labour if they can show they are willing to look at more centrist policies, but their momentum would disappear with it.
There's a reason the momentum shifted toward them. it's a combination of the gap between the haves/have nots widening in my opinion, lazy and arrogance on the part of the Tories and how they campaigned and a surge in youth voting
If Corbyn left, I think they would lose a lot of the support and momentum they gained, and it wouldn't be sufficiently replaced with those that feel they can now vote for Labour based on them becoming more centre left again
I think the next few years are going to pretty static on the old swingometer front. I think the line in the sand has been drawn. There are only marginal shifts one way or the other
I think you don't realise how close 64 seats is in terms of percantage vote rise. If you are losing votes, gaining 1 seat is impossible! If you take seats from the government, it is basically 32 seats.
32 seats gained from Conservatives would still leave labour 32 seats short of an overall majority (unless they get 32 more from elsewhere), that's not a win is it? Or is it?
The cons of being top but going on a bad run is we might not get promoted. If only we had such luxuries at Charlton!
Jokes aside if labour continue as they are and so do the conservatives next election I'm sure labour will over take them, but it's all ifs and maybe's, time, as always, will tell.
You never know I might jump back again and vote labour. So far in 7 general elections I've not voted once and it's currently 3-3!
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
Then maybe we should (and a lot of people are) looking at ways to pass down some to your children when they need it, not when you are dead, also means likely to avoid any IHT that would otherwise become payable.
Give some of it away as early as you can, no point being the richest person in the grave yard.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
If the unions No.1 reason for joining is to earn more than your fellow workers, doesn't that go against the Labour parties beliefs?
The exact phrase is "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members". So sounds just like those blooming Tories all they want to do is look after their own, bl00dy disgusted I am. "For the many, not the few"......... as Jim Royal would say..... My.....
No 2 is you can get more holiday ........
You have just described why it is beneficial to be part of a trade union if you are allowed to that is. Is it a crime for a worker to try to get more money? The point isn't to try to get more money than non trade union members, it is by being part of a trade union it gives you more protection against being screwed.
I'm not questioning it just clarifying the actual phrase referred to in Afka's post. So to clarify, for the many not the few, caveat as long as you are a union member......
No, that isn't the caveat. The unions exist to protect the worker - or at least that is what they are supposed to do. That is a noble thing.
I've never said it isn't a noble thing, I was simply giving the full sentence that AFKA referred to, that is what it is and is what it says, they say union members will on average be paid better than non union members (on average), so what part of the caveat, that it only applies to union members is not true, or are Unite lying that they get better pay for their members, on average for Union embers (in this instance their members).
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if they were lying! They used to be my union. The Union's only concern (because they didn't have negotiating rights with my employer) was to maximise membership subs. They never turned up to talk to us, you could never get them to return calls and were a total waste of space. The only reason I remained a member was to ensure I had access to the support of their lawyers because I foresaw potential "diffficulties" with my employer which didn't actually come to pass. Belonging to the union was otherwise an expensive waste of time and money. But I'm sure my subs contributed towards paying for McClusky's nice London gaff.
'The Department's [for Business, Innovation and Skills} study found that “trade union members in the public and private sectors saw a rise in their average hourly earnings between 2012 and 2013".
In contrast, the report claimed private sector non-members saw a “broad stagnation in their average hourly earnings over the same period, while public sector non-members experienced a reduction”.
It concluded that the the "overall gap between member and non-member average hourly earnings has increased" to 16.4%, with an even larger increase in the public sector, where members can earn nearly 20% more than non-members'.
I'm sorry but that article proves nothing. It talks about differences in pay rates. But then says: "the difference is believed to have been caused by a surge in well-paid professionals joining powerful vocational unions and compounded by a steady decline in traditional “blue collar” memberships.
So, it is not comparing like to like. In fact that is probably impossible. Workers in large companies/public sector will more than likely be unionised; those in SMEs less likely. It could just be a reflection on how well an employer is situated to pay staff a higher rate, might be people commuting to and working in a large city commanding better pay compared wit h those living locally and working in a rural enterprise park. We just don't know (as Unite doesn't if it was being honest).
Surely as a minimum the article 'proves' that you were mistaken when you said "it wouldn't surprise me if they were lying" about Unite's claim that "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members"?
As the graph that accompanied the Telegraph article shows trade union members consistently earned at least 10% more than non-unionised workers:
I think you don't realise how close 64 seats is in terms of percantage vote rise. If you are losing votes, gaining 1 seat is impossible! If you take seats from the government, it is basically 32 seats. Your anology isn't totally correct- it makes it look like there are pros and cons and fails to acknowledge the weakness of the government's position.
I get your point but if 32 seats went from Tory to Labour, Labour would have 294 seats, Tory would have 286. To make a majority Labour would need 32 of the remaining 50 seats
I think you don't realise how close 64 seats is in terms of percantage vote rise. If you are losing votes, gaining 1 seat is impossible! If you take seats from the government, it is basically 32 seats. Your anology isn't totally correct- it makes it look like there are pros and cons and fails to acknowledge the weakness of the government's position.
I get your point but if 32 seats went from Tory to Labour, Labour would have 294 seats, Tory would have 286. To make a majority Labour would need 32 of the remaining 50 seats
Not if other parties get them.
Sorry Muttley, I initially intended to go on to say something else and when I looked at the numbers I realised that I was wrong - I didn't know I'd posted this.
I think it is disgraceful that non-union workers get different pay and benefits and protections from union workers.
There should be no need for unions because each individual worker should be treated fairly and have appropriate protections.
And should we just wait around for employers and governments to kindly hand over powers? Good luck with that, as evidence from @micks1950 shows, unionised places of work enjoy higher salaries.
Just thinking and sorry that this is really obvious, but you do know if a union negotiates better pay and working conditions then everybody in that workplace (union member or not) gets the pay rise and improved conditions.
I though the "I got us into this mess and I will get us out of this mess" from Theresa May was missing the point that the rest of the party actually wanted her to be more inclusive and less 'its all about me'.
As this is the first discussion that I have started in the last five years that anybody has been vaguely interested in, is it wrong for me to write this pointless, self promoting post to get it back to the top of page one? After all the Labour equivalent has gone on for two years.
As this is the first discussion that I have started in the last five years that anybody has been vaguely interested in, is it wrong for me to write this pointless, self promoting post to get it back to the top of page one? After all the Labour equivalent has gone on for two years.
Comments
How much bigger clue do people need that the policies of successive governments have royally fecked up generations of young people?
There needs to be a cross party agreement on measures to correct that situation and this includes, in my view, the immediate scrapping of Right To Buy and a substantial public housing building regime. Won't happen for a multitude of political reasons and vested interests of course.
In contrast, the report claimed private sector non-members saw a “broad stagnation in their average hourly earnings over the same period, while public sector non-members experienced a reduction”.
It concluded that the the "overall gap between member and non-member average hourly earnings has increased" to 16.4%, with an even larger increase in the public sector, where members can earn nearly 20% more than non-members'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10860017/Union-members-4000-a-year-better-off-government-report-suggests.html
It is my view (and I'm more than happy to be convinced that I'm wrong) that all this will do is move people on low incomes from renting where they choose, to living in public housing where they are told - assuming they are not going to build hundreds of properties in places like Brockley, for example, where cabbles lives and wants to stay. If the right to buy option is removed then this group are, probably, never going to be able to buy their own home as the gap between the cost of buying and renting a 'cheap' alternative will 'trap' them in public housing for ever. Without the equity that they will make and be able to pass on to their, let's say, grand children it will probably reduce social mobility. It could even produce the kind of estates that people talk about with horror these days. The kind of places that many people worked hard their entire lives to get out of, and most of the time failed to do so.
I understand the benefits of enough Public Houses for all to have one but I can, also, see why successive governments have chosen to subsidise rents for the low income families rather than build them a home and then maintain it for ever and, presumably, allow them to live in for virtually nothing, when they retire, as they won't have bought it like those that do buy their own homes. Those on low incomes are always going to be dependent on the state. All building them homes, that they can rent off the state for a small sum, does is move the dependency from giving them rent monthly to buying them (or building them) a home. The capital cost of the building program would run into tens of billions of pounds I'm sure - and that is before we factor in that 'someone's friend' will be given the contract to build it, and maintain it, that will double the build costs while we make a few more millionaires along the way.
Even if an agreement could be made to build all these houses I don't see how it can solve the problems of the over populated cities, and towns, of which London is not the only one in the UK. There is just not enough space for all those that want to live there. Building huge estates out of town are probably no more desirable than for people to move out of town where the market rents are lower - yet many refuse to do that, and why should they if they can afford the rent in the place where they want to be.
Even though I have not looked into the specifics there was a report earlier this year that said that we have c. 1m empty homes in the UK. I suspect that some of these are in places where not enough people want to live. I don't think there are significant plots of land in the big the towns and cities that could accommodate large scale building programs. Moving people out of these big cities would be difficult and politically dangerous. I remember a Politician making a suggestion about moving people on benefits to Stoke a few years ago - that did not end well.
In response to the question about how the Tories need to change, I don't think they need to find a solution to the housing problem. The cost of doing so would probably cost more votes than the result. In reality, this is the same for all the parties. The number of people that would actually be satisfied with one of the limited solutions available is, in my view, much less than the number of people that would be disenfranchised by having to pay for it.
You are right about it being a mess - all the politicians need to do is make a token gesture to convince some voters that their efforts will help them. The rest of the electorate will always vote for the other party as they will believe that a change might be better as the status quo isn't working for them.
What we saw was Corbyn going through a tipping point. Of course everybody was surprised that Corbyn and Labour surged so close to an outright win. And we are in a different place now. He won't be getting any more gyp from the PLP. Labour are clocking up 5,000* new members every day since the election and that equates to one sixth of the entire Tory membership! And those 700,000 members have friends and families who all network in to the central themes and messages.
One cannot be certain about what will happen for there are so many angles but to assert that "Conservatives have less to do" is to ignore three fundamental facets of the situation:
a) Labour has been transformed into a grass roots, mass member organisation where every member was consulted on the manifesto - the first post election poll suggests that Labour now has a lead but we will have to see how that develops. This process started two years back and doesn't happen overnight. The Tories are nowhere on mass membership and reaching out.
b ) Brexit and the EU27 is completely unplayable and news stories now suggest that the economy is running into trouble. That is going to kill the Tory ratings. Barnier is now putting the heat on stating that he can't negotiate with himself and yet the Tories have no nominated team, no plan and no mandate from Parliament - they are still negotiating with the DUP who are staunchly in favour of a "soft Brexit". And that position is diametrically opposed to the one put forwards before the election.
c) It was May, Johnson, Gove and others who got us into this mess and that suggests that they are not the best people to resolve it. Who knows whether May will go or not, but who will replace her and what will they say that is any different? What precisely is the government going to do? If anything they will move further away from where we need to be.
The only thing we can be sure of is that our country is going to have to go through a lot of needless pain until the landscape changes enough in order to facilitate a change of direction. If the Tories had anything about them they would fall on their sword now and hand over the keys to Labour. They won't because they (and your good self) still think they can solve this mess.
May is saying to her party that she got us into this mess so she is the one to lead us out. That might sit well with the 1922 comittee as they look for ways to cling to power but the country as a whole might have a different view of May, Cameron, Gove and Johnson who have created this omnishambles over the last two years?
And according to the Telegraph this morning, May is even reaching out to Macron for support. I will leave it for others to explore the irony of this.
*the number was 15,000 but somebody added an extra zero(!) on a twitter post which was then picked up - since that story they have added another 10,000 so that's a run rate of around 5,000 per day since Thursday.
So, it is not comparing like to like. In fact that is probably impossible. Workers in large companies/public sector will more than likely be unionised; those in SMEs less likely. It could just be a reflection on how well an employer is situated to pay staff a higher rate, might be people commuting to and working in a large city commanding better pay compared wit h those living locally and working in a rural enterprise park. We just don't know (as Unite doesn't if it was being honest).
All this I have got us into this mess and I will get us out of it, is too delusional and pathetic for words.
Time will tell when we vote again, good odds on it not being this year which means it likely will be according to the bookies, I've had a little flutter.
Cue landslide.
I'm coming around to your way of thinking Muttley, this coming season I want us to sit in 12th place and go on a surging run towards the end of the season to finish 7th. I'd rather do that and finish with momentum than spend the season in 1st place only to begin to slip up and wonder if we'll have enough to stay in the top two and gain promotion - only to see that we do.
There's a reason the momentum shifted toward them. it's a combination of the gap between the haves/have nots widening in my opinion, lazy and arrogance on the part of the Tories and how they campaigned and a surge in youth voting
If Corbyn left, I think they would lose a lot of the support and momentum they gained, and it wouldn't be sufficiently replaced with those that feel they can now vote for Labour based on them becoming more centre left again
I think the next few years are going to pretty static on the old swingometer front. I think the line in the sand has been drawn. There are only marginal shifts one way or the other
The cons of being top but going on a bad run is we might not get promoted. If only we had such luxuries at Charlton!
Jokes aside if labour continue as they are and so do the conservatives next election I'm sure labour will over take them, but it's all ifs and maybe's, time, as always, will tell.
You never know I might jump back again and vote labour. So far in 7 general elections I've not voted once and it's currently 3-3!
As the graph that accompanied the Telegraph article shows trade union members consistently earned at least 10% more than non-unionised workers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10860017/Union-members-4000-a-year-better-off-government-report-suggests.html
What you've now moved on to argue about is why they earn more (which you then speculate on) - however the original claim was correct.
Just thinking and sorry that this is really obvious, but you do know if a union negotiates better pay and working conditions then everybody in that workplace (union member or not) gets the pay rise and improved conditions.
There appear to be many too many people taking it at face value.