https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rade-talks
Why don't you ever stick to one point to debate.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:50 amhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rade-talks
We can see here that the US has taken climate change off the table in terms of a trade deal with us, and it’s telling that the Tories now don’t even want to be bound by the lower E.U. standards on worker rights. This is classic Johnson. Say anything to get elected, and then just do whatever he wants.
That’s because my point has been about Johnson breaking promises and betraying the people, who he said “leant him their votes”.clarethomer wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:05 amWhy don't you ever stick to one point to debate.
You complain about workers rights being removed from the EU bill.
We respond to say that it's not quite how you see it and for you to consider that an independent bill would be better for the country and that actually our workers rights are better than those in the EU.
How do you respond - lets talk about climate change and the US... Do we take the fact that you have finished discussing workers rights, you have accepted that things aren't quite as bad as you are trying to make others believe?
Hi Andrew, I understand that the rules of football (take your pick on the code) also won't be include in UK-US trade talks. Apparently, POTUS objects to Premier League's implementation of VAR.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:50 amhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rade-talks
We can see here that the US has taken climate change off the table in terms of a trade deal with us, and it’s telling that the Tories now don’t even want to be bound by the lower E.U. standards on worker rights. This is classic Johnson. Say anything to get elected, and then just do whatever he wants.
How has he broken a promise? He is still looking to protect workers rights, he is committed to put a bill through on climate change (although I agree he or any other of the main parties aren't going far enough).AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:22 pmThat’s because my point has been about Johnson breaking promises and betraying the people, who he said “leant him their votes”.
And it’s only been two weeks. My theory is those who’ve donated millions to the Tory Party are at the front of the queue for favours - and most of them live in London (or if you prefer “the metropolitan bubble”).
Let’s wait and see the response of the environmental movement is to the free trade talks between the US and UK. And the end result - if we remember to in six or seven years time.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:27 pmHi Andrew, I understand that the rules of football (take your pick on the code) also won't be include in UK-US trade talks. Apparently, POTUS objects to Premier League's implementation of VAR.
So when Johnson said “we will increase the living wage to £10.50 per hour” (this was announced at conference, and was in their manifesto), adding a caveat afterwards isn’t going back on a promise in what Orwellian way? You are accusing me of peddling a conspiracy when I’m just stating a fact. The standout feature of the new employment bill (of which little detail was provided) is that they’re going to ban rail strikes. Not forcing rail companies and workers into binding arbitration to resolve issues, but taking away some of the bargaining power of the workers. If we take the Tory Party as a whole, they’ve cut workers rights since coming into power in 2010. Working class people are sensible to worry about working rights being eroded by Johnson, and seeing him walk away from a previous commitment will only add to their fears.clarethomer wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:48 pmHow has he broken a promise? He is still looking to protect workers rights, he is committed to put a bill through on climate change (although I agree he or any other of the main parties aren't going far enough).
You are failing to realise that these were in the EU bill because of the olive branch that was extended to help get Brexit done. Corbyn decided he knew better and that unless he got everything he wanted, he didn't want to know. If you think it is Boris that has caused these things to come out of the EU bill then I think you need to look a bit closer to home.
If you are going to continue to assert some kind of conspiracy theory, please could you show me where Boris has promised to keep these in the EU bill post the election.
All of this rhetoric is frankly just confirming to all of those voters who aren't blindly giving allegiance to one party confirmation that they were right to not trust this country to the far left of politics.
Ha ha.. Brilliant..AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:47 pmSo when Johnson said “we will increase the living wage to £10.50 per hour” (this was announced at conference, and was in their manifesto), adding a caveat afterwards isn’t going back on a promise in what Orwellian way? You are accusing me of peddling a conspiracy when I’m just stating a fact. The standout feature of the new employment bill (of which little detail was provided) is that they’re going to ban rail strikes. Not forcing rail companies and workers into binding arbitration to resolve issues, but taking away some of the bargaining power of the workers. If we take the Tory Party as a whole, they’ve cut workers rights since coming into power in 2010. Working class people are sensible to worry about working rights being eroded by Johnson, and seeing him walk away from a previous commitment will only add to their fears.
On the environment the Tories has the weakest platform of all the parties, and Johnson didn’t even attend the leaders debate. It’s safe to infer that the environment is not high up on the list of Tory priorities, and not unreasonable to foresee them capitulating to US demands that the issue not figure in negotiations on a free trade deal.
Taking all the evidence into account - including Johnson’s history of campaigning passionately on issues that he suddenly drops when no longer politically expedient (Heathrow runway, campaigning on the bus with a slogan he had no intention of honouring, die in a ditch, and now the minimum wage) - it’s not me scaremongering, but you clinging to a fairytale.
Hi Andrew, what is the "environment movement's" position on UK-US trade talks? Do they have a view on trade in, let's say, motor vehicles? Should the UK decline to import ICE vehicles or should UK set a "free trade" deal that favours EVs? I guess Tesla will favor the latter. (Note my switch from UK English to US English spelling of "favour"). What other "goods" and "bads" should be dealt with in a UK-US trade agreement?
The fine print of the Queens speech says the minimum wage will rise “as long as economic conditions allow” - which is about as nebulous as you can get. To anyone who isn’t wearing Tory blinkers, that is stepping back from a commitment.clarethomer wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:32 pmHa ha.. Brilliant..
Lets break this down..
Increasing the living wage to £10.50 per hour..
Pre-election manifesto states.....
"In our first months, we announced an increase in the National Living Wage to two thirds of average earnings, currently forecast at £10.50 an hour, and widened its reach to everyone over 21. That means an average pay rise of £4,000 per year for four million people by 2024."
If you read the manifesto, you can easily understand that based on a forecast and the important bit is 2/3rds of average earnings will determine the minimum wage.
Post election Queen's speech
"My Government will bring forward measures to support working families, raising the National Insurance threshold and increasing the National Living Wage. To ensure every child has access to a high-quality education my Ministers will increase levels of funding per pupil in every school."
There has been no promise broken there as far as I can see. I maintain that you are trying to spin your facts in a way that misrepresents a- what was promised and b- what has been committed to.
They are going to ban rail strikes....
Good - Unions have far too much power. They are run like we are still in the industrial age. They give no regard to putting joe public at a massive inconvenience at the drop of a hat.
If you think trying to pull the wider public into their issues is a good thing to gain leverage then I'm glad that banning train strikes is going to happen. Trains are a necessary public infrastructure that needs to remain running for productivity purposes and to allow people to get to and from work. These policies are for the few and not the many in reality and a blunt tool which is all too often used because its the easiest way to cause outrage and pressure on companies
Workers protections should be about ensuring that the laws set out the required standards and expectation of employers so they are not taken advantage of etc. Disputes should be settled via courts and use of properly constructed law. Having a bill on this will allow politicians on both sides of the house to look to drive up standards here. Remember that conservatives have been elected on one of the main promises being to get Brexit done. By having workers rights stripped out of the brexit bill, I can only see this being a positive to allow some of these conservatives to be able to not be restrained by the thought of this having an impact on their ability to deliver this.
Workers rights are important and we have seen lower employment, increased minimum wage, lower taxes to those who earn the least, a focus on ensuring employees get pensions so they can look to have a better retirement - forcing additional cost on employers with having to contribute to these.
I would like to see what you mean by in the round how workers rights have been decimated/reduced since 2010.
The other points raised - as you say are inferred by your opinion which I can't change so would be happy to see where we get to with the above points but my opinion is that Labour have an equal record as most politicians will have a record on of going back on things they have said they will do..
Fiscally responsible, fully costed manifesto anyone? Whats that - we can win a few million votes by borrowing £58bn for WASPI women.. Yeah OK..
When did he say he had an "oven ready" plan for social care?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 5:26 pmThe fine print of the Queens speech says the minimum wage will rise “as long as economic conditions allow” - which is about as nebulous as you can get. To anyone who isn’t wearing Tory blinkers, that is stepping back from a commitment.
The Tories cut union power in the last ten years, along with working rights. If you think unions have too much power still, then it tells us all where you are in relation to working class people.
For all the talk about Tories now looking out fornworking class people, they’re not doing anything about it. You criticise the Labour manifesto for the WASPI commitment (and I would say rightly, because they should have said how they were paying for it), but that manifesto had far more in the way of detail than Johnson’s fag packet, and it was far more beneficial and forward thinking for ordinary people. After claiming he had an “oven ready” plan for social care, they published the square root of F-all. That is Johnson.
Give your forelock a tug for me.
When did he say he had an "oven ready" plan for social care?
The words he used were: “we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all...with a clear plan we have prepared” - when it came to the election, the plan was nowhere to be seen.
Tories were quiet on social care through the election campaign. Perhaps understandably given the election in 2017 although I was disappointed in them on this particular point. It's a difficult issue to resolve which is why successive governments for over 20 years have failed to do so. But you have an habit of misrepresenting things. The tories didn't say they have an "oven ready" plan. Likewise they didn't say they would increase the national living wage "only if it is economically viable". You also misrepresented the country's debt recently as well. Yet you are keen to highlight when others misrepresent. Let's see what they do or don't deliver on social care over the next year or two.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:14 pmThe words he used were: “we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all...with a clear plan we have prepared” - when it came to the election, the plan was nowhere to be seen.
The day after his election win, like any other man of the people he partied at an ex KGB spy’s London mansion, probably thrown to thank him for not releasing the Russian Report into interference in our democracy, or perhaps to underscore the massive help the Russian billionaire’s newspapers gave him politically? Either way, can you imagine if Corbyn has done that? It’d be a massive deal in the Mail.
You mean 'Serial war monger' David Lammy?tiger76 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:14 pmTo try and bring this thread back on topic.
David Lammy is considering throwing his hat into the ring.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... -bid-call
The misquotes don’t materially alter the broken commitments, and false Johnson statements. “Clear plan we have prepared” - if it weren’t such a serious thing, his lying would make good comedy.taio wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:25 pmTories were quiet on social care through the election campaign. Perhaps understandably given the election in 2017 although I was disappointed in them on this particular point. It's a difficult issue to resolve which is why successive governments for over 20 years have failed to do so. But you have an habit of misrepresenting things. The tories didn't say they have an "oven ready" plan. Likewise they didn't say they would increase the national living wage "only if it is economically viable". You also misrepresented the country's debt recently as well. Yet you are keen to highlight when others misrepresent. Let's see what they do or don't deliver on social care over the next year or two.
It was clear from the manifesto upon which people used to help them decide who to vote for that they didn't have a detailed plan on social care. That was well known and publicised throughout the campaign. And the electorate overwhelmingly voted in favour of the Tories. It could also be reasonably argued that because Brexit had become so protracted and parliament had disrupted progress so much that the government was unable to place enough focus on domestic policies such as social care. I'm not convinced Labour's manifesto on social care was particularly well thought out either.
It is well known that the green paper was significantly delayed and then the government decided not to publish it after he said the above. That's why the manifesto which set out their intentions upon which people voted overwhelmingly didn't repeat it.nil_desperandum wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:44 pmWithout wanting to get involved in this debate as I can see both sides of this:
“we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all...with a clear plan we have prepared”
That translates to me as "oven ready", and yet scarcely a mention or any sort of plan in the manifesto or Queen's speech.
Sure. It was just another off the cuff Johnson lie. The lying wasn’t just Johnson either, but the entire Tory machine. 88% of Tory ads on Facebook in the first week of December were misleading or simply untrue: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... ctory/amp/ - and as these are generally targeted ads, who knows what they promises or claimed?taio wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:51 pmIt was clear from the manifesto upon which people used to help them decide who to vote for that they didn't have a detailed plan on social care. That was well known and publicised throughout the campaign. And the electorate overwhelmingly voted in favour of the Tories. It could also be reasonably argued that because Brexit had become so protracted and parliament had disrupted progress so much that the government was unable to place enough focus on domestic policies such as social care. I'm not convinced Labour's manifesto on social care was particularly well thought out either.
Would you regard Labour's insistence that the NHS was "up for sale" a lie?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 8:46 pmSure. It was just another off the cuff Johnson lie. The lying wasn’t just Johnson either, but the entire Tory machine. 88% of Tory ads on Facebook in the first week of December were misleading or simply untrue: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... ctory/amp/ - and as these are generally targeted ads, who knows what they promises or claimed?
When a party says or does anything to win an election, without being challenged about it in the press (which for the most part supported them), by hook or crook; then I think it’s safe to say a lot of voters will end up disappointed.
Why ask other people to wait and see, when you aren't prepared to wait and see yourself.
There is a massive difference between Labour saying the NHS is up for sale, and all the various lies, deceptions, and avoidance of scrutiny that came out of the Tory campaign, and their press friends. That study showing 88% of their facebook ads being wrong or misleading was for just one week. They were putting up facebook ads before the election was even properly underway, and continued until the end.
Nope - I’d say it was a meaningless statement used for dramatic / shock tactics. Bit like saying the UK is up for sale.
So do an awful lot of Labour voters.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:32 pmThere is a massive difference between Labour saying the NHS is up for sale, and all the various lies, deceptions, and avoidance of scrutiny that came out of the Tory campaign, and their press friends. That study showing 88% of their facebook ads being wrong or misleading was for just one week. They were putting up facebook ads before the election was even properly underway, and continued until the end.
The Tories aren't going to put up a "for sale" sign in front of the NHS (that we can all see), but it'll be on the table in US UK trade talks to a greater or lesser degree (and possibly in trade talks with other countries). I think that was Labour's point.
The election is over, and we have five years of a Johnson government, and my point has been around how he has been betraying the voters that swung the result for him. Just a couple of weeks after the election. Here's another promise he's dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... eunion-law
The Tories received vastly more in donations than all the other parties combined during the election, and those people will be first in line for being looked after. They also live mostly in London.
650k disabled had their benefits cut. Are they all just faking their disabilities?Top Claret wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:31 pmGood to see the government are keeping a type grip on the benefit scroungers. To many folk were swinging the leg under the last Labour government back in the 00s