Off Topic Politics Thread

[San Tejón]

You have to really feel for people, like Lord Wolfson, who is paid a pittance to run Next and he loses a tribunal about unfair wages.
His response about how some shops may no longer be viable is just a typical response from a draconian boss who wants to put fear into his employees.
What a ****.

“FASHION giant Next yesterday warned an equal pay victory for its mostly female store staff could force it to close shops.

Lord Wolfson, the chain’s multi-millionaire Tory peer boss, raised the risk while at the same time revealing the company was on track to rake in almost £1billion in annual profit.

More than 3,500 current and former Next workers last month won an employment tribunal after a six-year legal battle.

The tribunal ruled that store staff, mainly women, should not have been paid lower rates than warehouse workers, just over 50% of whom are male.

Next, which is appealing, pays store staff over 21 the National Living Wage – the minimum allowed by law – of £11.44 an hour.

But it also gives younger staff the same rate.

Lord Wolfson’s Next income rose by £2million to £4.5m last year.

He told the Mirror he was not threatening to close shops, but said any cost increase could have an “impact on the viability of some stores”.

 

[StJabbo1]

HIGNFY.
As the row continues over Sue Gray's pay, Keir Starmer insists he is completely in control of No.10, as Sue has Friday off and has left him the keys and instructions on how to lock up

You must log in or register to see images

I think Sue (shades of) Gray will make a far better job of running the country than Dominic (short) Cummings or Carrie (not for long) Johnson.

 

[StJabbo1]

with the party conference season about to kick off It's worth having a read of this.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-uk-political-parties-support-proportional-representation/
Points of interest to me.
"Back in 2022, Labour party members expressed resounding support for PR at the Labour Party Conference, with a vote calling for the next Labour government to commit to delivering electoral reform.
But with Labour winning an election this year for the first time since 2005, there is now some division over support for PR, with leadership seemingly hesitant to back electoral reform at this point in time."

"The Conservatives are not in favour of proportional representation. In their 2024 manifesto, they reiterated their commitment to using First Past the Post for general elections.
Their commitment to FPTP was emphasised through the choice to change the electoral system used for Mayors from Supplementary Vote (SV) to FPTP." I'd call that tantamount to gerrymandering.

Unsurprisingly the smaller parties hardest hit by FPTP are in favour of PR with Single Transferrable Vote being the choice of most.

 

[StJabbo1]

with the party conference season about to kick off It's worth having a read of this.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-uk-political-parties-support-proportional-representation/
Points of interest to me.
"Back in 2022, Labour party members expressed resounding support for PR at the Labour Party Conference, with a vote calling for the next Labour government to commit to delivering electoral reform.
But with Labour winning an election this year for the first time since 2005, there is now some division over support for PR, with leadership seemingly hesitant to back electoral reform at this point in time."

"The Conservatives are not in favour of proportional representation. In their 2024 manifesto, they reiterated their commitment to using First Past the Post for general elections.
Their commitment to FPTP was emphasised through the choice to change the electoral system used for Mayors from Supplementary Vote (SV) to FPTP." I'd call that tantamount to gerrymandering.

Unsurprisingly the smaller parties hardest hit by FPTP are in favour of PR with Single Transferrable Vote being the choice of most.

"The Green Party also support proportional representation, calling for ‘a fair and proportional voting system’.
With the party repeatedly receiving disproportionately few seats relative to votes thanks to FPTP, this comes as no surprise: in 2024, they secured approximately 6.7% of the vote, but just 0.6% of seats."

 

[Puck]

You must log in or register to see images

All going well then.

 

[StJabbo1]

You must log in or register to see images

All going well then.

Nothing to see there.

 

[Puck]

Nothing to see there.

Yeah. Perfectly normal for a government that's been in power less than 3 months.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

Yeah. Perfectly normal for a government that's been in power less than 3 months.

What is?

 

[Archers Road]

What is?

Getting piled on by a right wing press just desperate for them to fail

 

[PompeyLapras]

with the party conference season about to kick off It's worth having a read of this.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-uk-political-parties-support-proportional-representation/
Points of interest to me.
"Back in 2022, Labour party members expressed resounding support for PR at the Labour Party Conference, with a vote calling for the next Labour government to commit to delivering electoral reform.
But with Labour winning an election this year for the first time since 2005, there is now some division over support for PR, with leadership seemingly hesitant to back electoral reform at this point in time."

"The Conservatives are not in favour of proportional representation. In their 2024 manifesto, they reiterated their commitment to using First Past the Post for general elections.
Their commitment to FPTP was emphasised through the choice to change the electoral system used for Mayors from Supplementary Vote (SV) to FPTP." I'd call that tantamount to gerrymandering.

Unsurprisingly the smaller parties hardest hit by FPTP are in favour of PR with Single Transferrable Vote being the choice of most.

FPTP is an anti-democractic joke that means that for a huge proportion of people, your vote doesn't matter. The concept of 'safe seats' is just repugnant and FPTP just entrenches these. Yes occasionally you'll see a safe seat lost but still, certain parts of the country if you don't vote a certain way your vote will never matter. For example where I live will vote labour until the end of time probably.

Of course the big parties don't want FPTP. They don't care about democracy, they don't care about improving the country. It's self first, party second every time.

While I may not agree with their politics, it seems crazy that reform got so many votes but so few seats. But that's the thing, you can't only want something like pr but be against it when it may benefit those with a differing view to you. That would be hypocritical. You've gotta take the good with the bad. Plus a lot of the reform vote was due to feelings of being disenfranchised, but had we not had an inherently disenfranching system as FPTP then likely their support wouldn't be so strong.

Plus aren't there only a few countries in the world that use FPTP and most of them aren't exactly bastions of democracy?

 

[SR get out of my club]

Getting piled on by a right wing press just desperate for them to fail

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Archers Road]

You must log in or register to see images

That’s a lot bigger than the one that’ll be playing when the government introduces VAT on private school fees

 

[Gregm1988]

That’s a lot bigger than the one that’ll be playing when the government introduces VAT on private school fees

Gosh if we think the press are bad now just imagine when that actually goes through. And their opposition is not for any reason other than self interest. And overwhelming proportion of the journalist and editors will be impacted

 

[StJabbo1]

That’s a lot bigger than the one that’ll be playing when the government introduces VAT on private school fees

 

[......loading......]

Gosh if we think the press are bad now just imagine when that actually goes through. And their opposition is not for any reason other than self interest. And overwhelming proportion of the journalist and editors will be impacted

43% privately educated.

 

[Gregm1988]

43% privately educated.

Compared to something like 8% of the population. I’m not certain where either number comes from officially

 

[......loading......]

Compared to something like 8% of the population. I’m not certain where either number comes from officially

• 43% of Britain’s top 100 journalists were privately educated, compared to 7% of the general population (Sutton Trust Elitist Britain report, 2019)

Why now? Here are the statistics - The John Schofield Trust : The John Schofield Trust

All those two-tier screaming folks, here is the real 2 tier in the UK. The haves and the have-nots.

 

[PompeyLapras]

Gosh if we think the press are bad now just imagine when that actually goes through. And their opposition is not for any reason other than self interest. And overwhelming proportion of the journalist and editors will be impacted

I'm opposed to it, but mainly because it would screw over myself or people like me.

Yes, I went to a private school, but we were hardly super wealthy. My tuition fees were paid for by compensation due to medical negligence resulting in brain damage. There was a bit left over which I've used for living costs, and no I don't live in a mansion, I have a one bedroom apartment. But the fact is, as a result of the brain damage it has impacted my earnings, how do I know this? Easy, compare how successful my siblings have been in their careers down to me, and don't get me wrong I've tried, I've slogged, I didn't mess around at school but there were still some limitations. But at least I got some money which paid for my place. But the fact is, no Vat breaks means higher tuition which means even more of my compensation money would have gone to tuition fees so I'd have even less to live on.

Oh attend a state school you might say. Well I did for years, it was horrible. SEN provision was apparently not great in my area in those days. I dunno what it's like now because I don't live there anymore but I doubt it is.

Plus this whole thing is apparently about raising money for the state sector, but I swear it's ideological. Funding of the state sector is a political decision, I doubt it's dependent on increasing vat for private schools. For years people have said austerity is a choice, well so is this.

 

[SR get out of my club]

That’s a lot bigger than the one that’ll be playing when the government introduces VAT on private school fees

Think you are misinformed - they have already brought it in.

So, in Jan 25 when it hits, it depends on two things though mate - firstly not all schools are passing it on, and secondly being able to afford it

 

[......loading......]

I'm opposed to it, but mainly because it would screw over myself or people like me.

Yes, I went to a private school, but we were hardly super wealthy. My tuition fees were paid for by compensation due to medical negligence resulting in brain damage. There was a bit left over which I've used for living costs, and no I don't live in a mansion, I have a one bedroom apartment. But the fact is, as a result of the brain damage it has impacted my earnings, how do I know this? Easy, compare how successful my siblings have been in their careers down to me, and don't get me wrong I've tried, I've slogged, I didn't mess around at school but there were still some limitations. But at least I got some money which paid for my place. But the fact is, no Vat breaks means higher tuition which means even more of my compensation money would have gone to tuition fees so I'd have even less to live on.

Oh attend a state school you might say. Well I did for years, it was horrible. SEN provision was apparently not great in my area in those days. I dunno what it's like now because I don't live there anymore but I doubt it is.

Plus this whole thing is apparently about raising money for the state sector, but I swear it's ideological. Funding of the state sector is a political decision, I doubt it's dependent on increasing vat for private schools. For years people have said austerity is a choice, well so is this.

Everything in life is ideological, PL. I am sorry about your brain injury, but how awful that the only way you felt you could keep up was by spending the payout intended to give you quality of life on decent education. And now you feel you still haven't hit the earnings of your your siblings despite the payout.

There are lots of truths to private education. One of them is that private education does not guarantee a good education. I know two teachers in private education and neither would ever be employed in a state school as they are simply not qualified. I also discovered a long time ago that private schools use every loophole to get the easiest grades - such as being the first adopters of IGCSE for indigenous British classes.

What private education gets you is simple. Prestige. Networking. Small class sizes. A sense you have "done right" by your child.

I am indeed ideologically opposed to private education. I don't object to your decision to use it. Or to anyone else's decision to send their kids there. I do disagree with their existence - as they perpetuate the gross imbalance in our society between those at the very top and everyone else.

7% of people go to private school. The vast majority are there because their parents have money - not for any particular intellectual reason.

Yet despite being only 7%, in 2019 they made up...

65% of senior judges
59% of civil servants
43% of the top 100 journalists
52% of junior ministers
49% of officers in the armed forces

The list goes on and on. These are not just positions that earn lots of money but also positions that decide the future of everyone in this country. The 7% who are wealthy have no right to this disproportionate stranglehold over the nation.
Chart: The UK's top jobs are dominated by the privately educated | Statista