Politics

[Orange Gull]

I think Corbyn's stance on Europe is the most sensible from the major parties. He acknowledges that the EU has massive faults and so does not want to commit to voting to stay in. Instead he would rather wait until Cameron's negotiations have finished and see what the end results are. That is far more logical than the other leadership candidates position which was 'stay in at all costs'. Now I, like others, think that Cameron's negotiations will amount to very little. However, I will not commit to either in or out until everything has been concluded.

[Dave]

I'm no fan of unshaven, red flag waving lefties, Corbyn has some very questionable friends, it's a NO from me.

[Orange Gull]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm no supporter of Corbyn. I find the company he keeps and general opinions on individuals of dubious repute to be quite disturbing. Just on the issue of Europe, I think his policy makes more sense than that of others.

[Dave]

Well that will be the case for a lot people, however think we have to look at the complete package, Labour under Corbyn and the thought of them winning the next election is frankly very frightening. We can look at all Corbyn's leftie ideas on social justice and equality, all very good, but who pays for it all, ultimately, we will, the rich and poor a like will.

Scrapping trident and dismantling the arm forces, really ? in todays world where their are currently increasing threats coming from all over, not just the middle east, look at Ukraine.

And some of the people Corbyn's associated with , well who's coming first, the IRA, ISIS, HAMMAS, who knows, if you want that, fine vote for him.

[Orange Gull]

Of course, I agree with what you're saying. I would not vote for a Labour Party headed by him, nor do I think that he will ever become Prime Minister. The vast majority of his policies are too outlandish, and there is too much baggage (rightfully so) surrounding both him and his cabinet members.

[Colorado Gull]

I think Corbyn's stance on Europe is the most sensible from the major parties. He acknowledges that the EU has massive faults and so does not want to commit to voting to stay in. Instead he would rather wait until Cameron's negotiations have finished and see what the end results are. That is far more logical than the other leadership candidates position which was 'stay in at all costs'. Now I, like others, think that Cameron's negotiations will amount to very little. However, I will not commit to either in or out until everything has been concluded.

Fault in the argument.

[Orange Gull]

Fault in the argument.

Would you like to elaborate, or just leave it there?

[Colorado Gull]

Would you like to elaborate, or just leave it there?

Okay...there will be no re-negotiation. The EU and it's leaders are wanting a United States of Europe, so no re-negotiation will take place. If you think giving us minor powers and regulations back is enough, then think again.

[Orange Gull]

Well it's now emerged that Corbyn has changed his stance on the EU. Labour will campaign for Britain to remain in no matter what happens between now and the referendum. This makes the whole discussion regarding Corbyn's previous position pointless.

It seems that Labour has a list of changes that they would like to see implemented in the EU. One of which is the introduction of a "red card" system whereby a Commission proposal would be defeated if it were to be rejected by a sufficient number of parliaments. Clearly this was drawn up by someone with no knowledge of how law is made in the EU. This system already exists to a certain degree. The Commission purposes, it's then debated among the relevant ministers in the Council, then it goes to the European Parliament. The Commission can't implement law. This is just a cheap policy designed to attract those who are concerned about national sovereignty. It won't work.

[Dave]

Corbyn really isn't doing him self any favours.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/je ... lsignoutmd

[Gulliball]

Corbyn really isn't doing him self any favours.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/je ... lsignoutmd

For a poem someone else wrote on a website he also uses? That would be like me insulting you every time Brucie posts something stupid on here.

[Gullscorer]

How can Corbyn justify his stance on the EU when the EU is not going to let him re-nationalise our railways?
http://www.ukip.org/sorry_jeremy_the_eu ... r_railways

[Dave]

How can Corybn justify being a man of great principles, he was elected as a man of great principles , when leader of the Labour for a week, he's already ditched things he's believed in for 40 years.

In 1975 Corybn voted to against membership of the common market, always supported Tony Benn's left wing anti-EU stance, now Corbyn seems pro-EU , hmmm taps fingers.

Also for someone who's been an MP for 32 years, has so far shown a great deal of naivety on the what the job of leader of the opposition actually entails.

[chunkygull]

Now dont get me wrong, I am not a staunch supporter of any particular political party, I vote sensibly for who has the best policies and who would be best at the time, trouble is because of the small/closed mindedness down here it is always a two horse race so voting for anyone else is usually a wasted vote. I agree with various ideas and policies from all the different parties to be honest, its a shame there cant be a bit more compromise and working together, its like a big game between the big two just trying to out do, out score each other or just do the opposite and give each other a smack in the eye.

So, this is not me bashing our government because they have all been as bad as each other and I am not Labour or anything else.

Gradually this government has raised the tax threshold for low earning workers, I think its about 10.5k now before you have to pay tax, so some are paying very low tax or are out of tax completely. Thats great, as being classed as a low wage earner that works for me. At the same time tax credits get cut, but this is supposed to be counter acted by the tax earnings cut, I get that, it works and cuts out red tape. The tax credit system became probably too bloated in the first place it was Labour creating too big and unrealistic a welfare state making people dependant and trying to buy votes. If the buy and rental property market, jobs market, electric, gas, water, general cost of living hadnt been allowed to unaffordably spiral out of control through short sightedness and greed then there wouldnt have been as much a need to create tax credits or a big welfare state.

So, I have two problems to discuss which are joined together, one problem now is the new living wage, over the next few years the minimum wage is replaced with this, in a few years time it will rise to £8. Now Im not ungrateful, we all want to earn more money, but surely this is a sneaky way of putting more expense onto an employer so as to avoid paying benefits and gaining more tax, but therefore putting jobs at risk and unless the tax threshold is significantly raised along with the living wage the people taken out of tax or in a lower bracket or receiving tax credits will be screwed over by earning a higher hourly rate. So its not really of any gain to be earning more money is it. If you were earning a massively significant amount of increase rather than a few pence to a £ an hour then it really isnt worth it because you are likely to lose out in the long run and employers may try and cut staff numbers any way. I actually for once feel sorry for some employers especially those trying to run a small to medium size business and I wonder how they will cope having to pay these sort of wages when there is a very narrow profit margin already.

We then come to another problem with the living wage structure, in any form of services, retail or private care industry once the costs go up, guess what the prices/charges/cost of living goes up, so therefore counter acting any monetary gain for most workers any way, so what is the point. So you get paid more, but you pay more tax, you may have your hours cut, you lose your benefits, you may lose your job, products/goods and services cost more, you are more likely to lose out. Whats the point.

Now, I work in the care industry helping people live in their own home, there was a news article today and a documentary to air this evening and its something I have been thinking about for quite a while. Most care trusts, including our wonderful local authority, partly due to cuts have dropped the amount per hour that they will pay a care company to look after people in their own home. Wages are going to go up though! There is going to be a gap and an awfully big problem here. Companies will not really be making any money after bills and expenses. There were claims that this will cause cheap jack care companies getting all the work causing lower standards, not too sure about that, but, there will be less workers and possibly companies to take on the work, that is also according to the article as well.

The politicians are obsessed with banging on about the NHS and pumping money into it rather than organising and tackling some of the problems. Many people can stay in their own home rather than stay in hospital or in residential care if they can get a few visits a day from carers, homecare is a fraction of the cost of hospital or residential stays. Home visits, support, welfare checks and prevention before somebody gets too ill or frail or they are struggling can save a lot of trouble and more treatment at the GP and hospital etc and cost down the line. This is where there needs to be more investment, structure, planning and money spent. But no it is often deemed unneccessary and authorities would rather chance it that someone isnt going to decline or need help rather than spend on care, most of the time this goes wrong, penny wise - pound foolish. With an ageing and increasing population how the hell does it work that any form of care funding gets cut. The trouble is that most home care is council funded and they cant afford it or they wont pay for it, if they end up in hospital or worse so be it, they are then on the NHS or governments tab, surely social care should then be government funded more to help the councils or take it away from them completely , as I said it costs a fraction of hospital etc, therefore saving money for the NHS and keeping people happier and healthier, also allievieating any worries to care companies and workers over the problems that the rises in wages is going to cause.

The government keeps saying they are putting more and more money into social care, well where is it, because councils and care trusts are saying the pot is empty and there are funding gaps or they are having to cut and they refuse to increase the rate they pay companies, so where is the extra government funding going?

Just to add. dont even get me started on the new work place pension, totally unfair on the employer if you ask me, yet again hard on small to medium businesses being forced into more expense, this could cause job losses or cuts. I dont think my employer should have to pay my pension and I am opting out. How many people paid into a private pension for donkeys years only to not get anywhere near what they were expecting, or they go for the state pension only to be told they cant get their full entitlement because they have a private pension, so we all know what is going to happen at the end of your working life if you have paid into one of these work place pensions, dont we.

[Gullscorer]

Jess Phillips MP, bigot:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... ebate.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... elves.html
https://hequal.wordpress.com/2015/11/01 ... d-threats/