Labour's Employment Rights Bill

[Fergie 307]

Get a life man!!!

Dear oh dear. You may feel that JG was being somewhat pedantic, but there is really no call for you or Jacob to be so ill mannered.

 

[MikeJhn]

If he has the conviction of his own words, he has not resigned from UK Workshop's, he had some very strange views on many things, I don't think he will be missed.

 

[martin45]

MikeJhn said:
I don't think he will be missed.

Please don't presume to speak for me.

 

[Jacob]

I think the banana stuck to the wall with duct tape was my personal low point. And there will always be some sycophant gushing away about how to interpret the artist's message

Have you always been interested in art? What was your personal high point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork)

 

[Spectric]

Can anyone point out where in Labours employments rights bill there is anything about art, paintings or artist !

 

[RobinBHM]

Can anyone point out where in Labours employments rights bill there is anything about art, paintings or artist

If an artist is employed to be a painter, the company will have to give the artist set hours, not a zero hr contract

 

[John Brown]

MikeJhn said:
I don't think he will be missed.

Please don't presume to speak for me.

Nor me.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

No, just most of the rest of us.

 

[Fergie 307]

Have you always been interested in art? What was your personal high point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork)

More into sculpture than paintings, love the tactility. Henry Moore's two ovals would probably be my favourite.

 

[Fergie 307]

If he has the conviction of his own words, he has not resigned from UK Workshop's, he had some very strange views on many things, I don't think he will be missed.

I hadn't noticed his "strange views". Looked back over quite a few of his posts in case I had missed something, but still not seeing anything that I would see as particularly "strange".
He can certainly be a bit pedantic, as he readily acknowledges, but he's an engineer and they often are.
Personally I have found many of his posts very informative, so from my point of view it would be a shame if he were to leave.
The point I was trying to make is that we can play nicely, there really is no need for gratuitous unpleasantness.

 

[Scruples]

It's not a "right" it's about needs.
The lefty assumption is that government and society should be run "for the many not the few".
The right wing assumption is that property trumps everything.

The solution is to have something that looks after both ideologies. We need wealth to run businesses and to employ people who will pay taxes and not be a burden on the state. At the other end of the societal spectrum we need to identify those who have real needs and reduce the annual benefits bill.

My main worry, at the moment is the surge in unrest in the country fuelled, mainly, by immigration. The government is adamant that those who protest are nothing short of mindless vandals but I think Starmer is getting it wrong. There appears to be an underlying body of dissatisfaction about immigration which has been latched onto by the 'far right'.

 

[selectortone]

No, just most of the rest of us.

That's quite an assumption.

 

[selectortone]

There appears to be an underlying body of dissatisfaction about immigration which has been latched onto by the 'far right'.

This is the road to Kristallnacht.

 

[RobinBHM]

There is a lot of complete guff spoken about how a country is funded.

Primarily because 99.9999% of people have no idea about what money is, where it comes from or how it works.

Which is fair enough. We never think about *where* money comes from.

You do work, you get paid, there's the money.

Day 1... you are a new government. There is no money till you create it.

You decide to pay someone to do some work.

How do you pay?

You take zero and split it into +1 and -1.

£1 of money in the Consolidated Fund (CF) and £1 in the National Debt.

When HMG decides to fund a dept with say, £10m, it instructs Treasury to instruct the BOE to fund the CF with £10m.

There you go. £10m has been created and the National debt increases by £10m.

During the day tax receipts come into the CF and at the end of the day they are swept into the National Debt.

So if £1m worth of tax is collected, the National Debt is reduced by £1m.

Which means that in practice, the government creates & spends its own money and tax cancels the debt.

Note that SPENDING MUST COME FIRST.

Government cannot tax and then spend. It must first issue the currency to be able to tax it back.

Tax has NO FUNDING PUPOSE.

Tax is there to control the amount of money in the economy to make sure we do not have more money in circulation than there are goods and services to absorb it.

Tax expert Professor Richard Murphy is doing a series now on YouTube called "Economic Truths".

I would encourage everyone to watch them. They're typically 3 to 7 minutes long and the language used is not technical.

Richard Murphy (once informal financial advisor to Corbyn), is an advocate for MMT

He misses a vital point: U.K. doesn’t have complete control over its currency because we need imports.

For a balanced view to MMT, I recommend listening to Mark Blyth professor of economy who states: “MMT is closed economy Keynesianism”

 

[Jacob]

The solution is to have something that looks after both ideologies.

I'd query the idea that it's a choice between two ideologies. They aren't easily defined in spite of endless discussion and ongoing arguments forever.

...

My main worry, at the moment is the surge in unrest in the country fuelled, mainly, by immigration. The government is adamant that those who protest are nothing short of mindless vandals but I think Starmer is getting it wrong. There appears to be an underlying body of dissatisfaction about immigration which has been latched onto by the 'far right'.

Immigration isn't really a problem, it's just a fact of life and has been going on forever. In fact in most ways it's a boon and we all benefit.
If it stopped the objectors would likely find their quality of life diminished.
But it's a convenient target for those who find life problematic and play the blame game. They tend to target the most vulnerable in society, rather than the real culprits; successive governments and the powerful pressure groups behind them.

 

[John Hughes01]

Going back to the initial issue,there is no doubt that we have a substantial number of work-capable young people who would rather not work to earn a living - why do we need so many immigrants to fill those vacances? Many pf our local deliveries are carried out by eastern europeans and they are very efficient and polite because they are grateful to be here and value the job. OK,so we are a nation based on benefits often known as Treasure Island to immigrants so we must look carefully at how this is handled. Is it financially more rewarding to claim benefits and do cash jobs than actually do a real job? You hear that to qualify for benefits you must be seen to be applying for jobs so they apply to be a brain surgeon so that that box can be ticked. If there is a generational "Bread" mentallity then this must be made less attractive to prevent the next generation inheriting this way of life. To most people work is fulfilling but earning a living is an important trait that should be instilled in kids at school. Also we should not encourage kids to see making money and prudently saving for a rainy day as not "dirty". I was involved in teaching kids entrpreneurship in the UK and my grandaughter in the US thrived on it.

 

[Chris152]

My main worry, at the moment is the surge in unrest in the country fuelled, mainly, by immigration.

Which is fuelled, mainly, by right-wing media.

 

[evildrome]

I can accept those who made their money. I can accept those who inherited money from those who made their money. I can accept those who have serious, non-self-inflicted, illnesses and, for, me, there is where I stop. Everyone else can do the same as the rest of us and earn their continued existence.

Why some people think that they have a right to money because somebody else is better off than them, puzzles me. That the wealthy contribute more to the coffers than the average taxpayer is a given, although the government are doing well from traffic fines boosting the CF more these days.

And in a world where tax worked properly, you would be correct.

But it doesn't.

The deck is stacked in the favour of wealth and inherited wealth.

Hugh Grosvenor, The Duke of Westminster, inherited his fathers estate of about £9Bn when aged 25.

On this estate he pays 6% of the value of the estate once every 10 years.

You or I would have paid 40% on inheritance.

How much will his estate be worth after 10 years? Lets say he makes 5% a year... 10 years compounded = 63%.

So every 10 years he makes 63% and pays 6%.

Hmmm... sweet.

Are you getting that deal?

So what, eh? He's got money.

And that would be fine and well if he wasn't using that money to buy up London property.

Property prices in London are rising faster than wages because there are people who don't need a wage because they have more money than God and they're using that money to buy property.

So? What does that matter?

Well, that means normal, waged people need to rent from Hugh. Which means he has more money with which he buys more property.

If you're giving Hugh 40% of your wage as rent and he never spends that money, it means that money, that would have been spent in the real economy, paying real peoples wages, doesn't get spent.

So its not just the poor renters that are getting shafted, its all the tradesmen, shops, restaurants, etc that aren't getting business they otherwise could have had.

And that's the true purpose of tax. To prevent Hugh and his chums from owning everything.

 

[Jacob]

Going back to the initial issue,there is no doubt that we have a substantial number of work-capable young people who would rather not work to earn a living

How do you know this, do you have any figures? It always seems to me to be directly the opposite - work-capable young people are the most enthusiastic. It's the older work-capable who are happiest to retire early. Lots of people my age seem to have been early retired and still doing nothing 20 or 30 years later!

- why do we need so many immigrants to fill those vacances?

Because our standard of living, in a wealthier society, makes greater demands on the workforce. Migrants go to where the work is.

Many pf our local deliveries are carried out by eastern europeans and they are very efficient and polite because they are grateful to be here and value the job. OK,so we are a nation based on benefits often known as Treasure Island to immigrants

Not true. They come here looking for work and a livelihood - it's always been that way with immigration, everywhere. Their treatment here tends to be severe and mean spirited - long delays with applications being the big issue, but they see that as a risk worth taking in the hopes of a better life in work.

...To most people work is fulfilling but earning a living is an important trait that should be instilled in kids at school.

What makes you think it isn't? But many will be disappointed when they get low wages , zero hour contracts and all the usual things. Not to mention lack of training opportunities, student debt etc etc. It's a two way process.

Also we should not encourage kids to see making money and prudently saving for a rainy day as not "dirty".

Nobody thinks saving is "dirty" - this is a very weird idea, where on earth did you pick it up?

 

[dgs2001]

The decline of art started with a baked bean can and progressed to an unmade bed, who in their right mind thinks any of that is art.

And lets not forget the banana gaffer taped to a wall..........


EDIT - Just got the the bottom of the thread and see Fergie 307 beat me to the banana