General Election 2024

[BFTD]

4 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Keef getting it in the neck from the Unite union for his weak as dishwater ‘workers rights’ policy.

Has anything actually been decided about this at all? Kinda struggling to find any promises, just a bunch of vagueries that will be very easy to back away from when asked.

A cynic would suggest there's a reason for that.

[JS_FFC]

1 minute ago, BFTD said:

Has anything actually been decided about this at all? Kinda struggling to find any promises, just a bunch of vagueries that will be very easy to back away from when asked.

A cynic would suggest there's a reason for that.

LABOURS-PLAN-TO-MAKE-WORK-PAY.pdf

 

 

[JS_FFC]

The "right to switch off" stuff is impressive IMHO

[Salt n Vinegar]

9 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

The "right to switch off" stuff is impressive IMHO

I don't really see it that way. Unless you are being paid something like a"standby" rate, aren't you quite at liberty to tell the employer to GTF?

[BFTD]

5 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

LABOURS-PLAN-TO-MAKE-WORK-PAY.pdf

Aye, I'd already flicked through that. It's conveniently vague on almost everything; more like a wish list than a firm commitment. The only part I noticed that laid down any guarantees was on employment tribunals, but it's entirely possible I've missed something else.

Phrases like "we will make it easier to do <x>" and "we will end one-sided flexibility" don't mean a whole lot. I can promise to cut down on shitposting and still be technically correct by making one fewer post in the coming year. I doubt it would please anybody, though.

[Salt n Vinegar]

Just now, BFTD said:

Aye, I'd already flicked through that. It's conveniently vague on almost everything; more like a wish list than a firm commitment. The only part I noticed that laid down any guarantees was on employment tribunals, but it's entirely possible I've missed something else.

Phrases like "we will make it easier to do <x>" and "we will end one-sided flexibility" don't mean a whole lot. I can promise to cut down on shitposting and still be technically correct by making one fewer post in the coming year. I doubt it would please anybody, though.

Worthwhile giving it a try, surely?

[JS_FFC]

1 minute ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I don't really see it that way. Unless you are being paid something like a"standby" rate, aren't you quite at liberty to tell the employer to GTF?

That's the whole idea, your employer won't be allowed to contact you outside of office hours. That's why it's a good policy.

[BFTD]

Just now, Salt n Vinegar said:

Worthwhile giving it a try, surely?

Get fucked!

It's increasing by one per annum just for that.

[Salt n Vinegar]

Just now, BFTD said:

Get fucked!

It's increasing by one per annum just for that.

Fair enough.... 

[JS_FFC]

One thing I would like to see them doing is getting rid of the 2 year minimum service needed to use an employment tribunal. 

[BFTD]

6 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

That's the whole idea, your employer won't be allowed to contact you outside of office hours. That's why it's a good policy.

Reads more like something that your employer will have you sign away along with opting out of the Working Time Regulations.

[JS_FFC]

2 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Reads more like something that your employer will have you sign away along with opting out of the Working Time Regulations.

Not worth the paper it's written on then. Every job I've ever worked has insisted on day one that I waive my rights to working time regulations - although I don't think I've ever worked over 48 hours per week.

[BFTD]

1 minute ago, JS_FFC said:

Not worth the paper it's written on then. Every job I've ever worked has insisted on day one that I waive my rights to working time regulations - although I don't think I've ever worked over 48 hours per week.

I was going to say something similar - it's just a formality when you start. Can't remember the last job I had that didn't require it.

It's this bit here that makes me think it'll be something you can opt-out of (of your own volition, of course):

Quote

giving workers and employers the opportunity to have constructive conversations and work together on bespoke workplace policies or contractual terms that benefit both parties.

 

[Jedi2]

11 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

I’m not an expert on U.K. funding (of course neither are you, but you think cutting and pasting makes you so).

However as I understand it there is expenditure in England on things like hs2 and the London Underground that are ignored for comparative purposes.  Another example is that BBC spends less in Scotland than Scottish licence fee payers contribute, maybe if they were compelled to buy all the national football teams’ rights that would even things out.

Of course the biggest issue you ignore is that if Scotland had been ‘allowed’ to keep its oil revenue we could have built a sovereign wealth fund like Norway and not be so dependent on the rest of the UK’s ‘generosity’.

 

Don't disagree re oil..that was however around 40 years ago under Thatcher.

Speaking of funding...

Now we discover that Neil Gray and Shona Robinson have been trying to block additional funding of £2.9 billion from Westminster for local Councils in Scotland, as it doesn't fit their 'narrative'. Despite starving Councils of cash themselves for years and ushering in another Council Tax freeze to appease the Middle Class, the SNP now block this money 'because' its from Westminster.

 

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/disgraceful-snp-minister-called-uk-32879947?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

 

In fairness its been a cracking start to the campaign:

 

Honest John defends Michael 'he did nothing wrong' Matheson.

Murrell report is sent to the Fiscal and Sturgeon remains 'under investigation'

Honest John confirms that the most seats defacto Ref is still in play

And now it's found that they were trying to block additional funding from Westminster..and this is just the first few days.

 

[JS_FFC]

 

The thinnest line of hopium for the Tories? 

[Granny Danger]

17 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

Don't disagree re oil..that was however around 40 years ago under Thatcher.

So Labour was in favour of setting up a Scottish sovereign wealth fund at the time and advocated for it?  I must have missed that.

Since you’re so good at quoting things from online searches you can point me in the direction of Labour’s entreaties to the then Tory government.

Oh, and oil revenue peaked during Blair’s time in office.  Can’t recall him doing anything about it.

 

[sophia]

24 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

https://www.scottishdailyexpress

[Fullerene]

2 hours ago, Scary Bear said:

They should still be unceremoniously dumped by the electorate. I hope.  

Folk won’t be voting for that wet wipe Starmer, no matter how his team try to spin it, it will purely be a ‘not the Tories’ vote. Sadly, Labour are the only current alternative if Britain want to dump the Tories.

Only way I am voting Tory is if they promise to give me £1 million and let me retire. Even then, I’d have to think about whether I believe they would see that policy through.

£1 million.  You're easily bought.  They are offering me a villa in the Caribbean.  Hold out for more.

[lichtgilphead]

48 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

Now we discover that Neil Gray and Shona Robinson have been trying to block additional funding of £2.9 billion from Westminster for local Councils in Scotland, as it doesn't fit their 'narrative'. Despite starving Councils of cash themselves for years and ushering in another Council Tax freeze to appease the Middle Class, the SNP now block this money 'because' its from Westminster.

 

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/disgraceful-snp-minister-called-uk-32879947?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Dr Jedi PhD really loves these Tory policies, doesn't he, And now, the "Scottish" Daily Express, appears to be his favourite news source.

Anyway, the SNP weren't trying to block the money coming to Scotland, they were objecting to Westminster interfering in devolved matters, and the unfair distribution method.

Let's have a look at where they money went, and whether the council area overlaps with a Tory Westminster MP

Moray (Douglas Ross MP)

North Ayrshire

South Ayrshire

South Lanarkshire (Lisa Cameron MP)

Glasgow

Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack MP, David Mundell MP)

Scottish Borders (John Lamont MP)

Gosh! Apart from Glasgow, most of these areas have significant numbers of Tory voters, and money has been shovelled into the council areas of 5 of the 7 Tory Westminster MP's.

Obviously, every other council area got absolutely nothing.

No wonder anyone interested in fairer distribution of taxpayer's money objected, but not Tory Jedi.

[Jedi2]

Glad to see my favourite Internet troll dismussing yet another source as 'lies', and apparently I am now a Tory to boot, presumably unless exclusively citing the crayoning and coloring in of The Na TiOALl or www.snp.org (these are the only 'truth tellers' out there)...or maybe that noted truth teller Pete Murrell...

Anyway...to more important matters on oil and gas and the revenues during either a Blair or Thatcher govt:

Oil and gas revenues peaked in the early 2000s, hitting an all-time high (in cash terms) in 2008/09. But adjusting for inflation, revenues were much higher in the early 1980s, amassing – in today's prices – nearly £35 billion in 1984/85.

This time the source is www.economicsobservatory.com (Gosh, not the Express) 

Did Labour try to set up a National Wealth fund for Scotland in the mid-80's (to answer the question)...No. However, they were a bit hamstrung in doing so by a large Tory majority at Westminster which enabled said Tories to do whatever they wanted.

Edited May 25 by Jedi2