|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 25, 2024 11:48:54 GMT
Labour scrabbling to define "working person". So far we've learned you're not a worker if you - Earn over £100k
- Are a landlord doing your own repairs and maintenance
- Can write a cheque, i.e. have ANY level of savings
I can't wait to tell my plumber he should go out and get a proper job of work!
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,608 
Likes: 1,738
|
Post by benaj on Oct 25, 2024 11:58:59 GMT
So is our new PM a "working" person under the definition you descrbied? or he found ways to get away with it from donations?
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,622
|
Post by keitha on Oct 25, 2024 13:01:16 GMT
Labour scrabbling to define "working person". So far we've learned you're not a worker if you - Earn over £100k
- Are a landlord doing your own repairs and maintenance
- Can write a cheque, i.e. have ANY level of savings
I can't wait to tell my plumber he should go out and get a proper job of work!
you missed paid monthly by some sort of cheque, does that mean people paid weekly, fortnightly or 4 weekly aren't workers, or as you say self employed builders, plumbers, my window cleaner, man and van removals, cafe owners etc are not workers. Can't own any shares or a property that is rented, I have friends in the services who own a property that is rented out, but will be the family home when the retire - but not working people according to Starmer ( that makes Blair not a working man ),
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,608
Likes: 1,738
|
Post by benaj on Oct 25, 2024 13:56:51 GMT
Of course there are differences between men and women. Which of them do you think even vaguely relevant to employment in just about any field? Are there any non-physical differences in your view ? Well, not sure if this is a difference in your view. This is the second time I hired a female painter. She arrived in a Uber with her tools instead of driving a van; her belly button is visible despite wearing low rise protective trousers covered with spotted white paint.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 25, 2024 14:14:45 GMT
So is our new PM a "working" person under the definition you descrbied? or he found ways to get away with it from donations? I imagine free-gear-Keir would see himself as not working, but in this dystopian world, increasingly bereft of all reason, who can say? Maybe he'll declare himself a worker by way of special legal dispensation, treating himself different to the rest as he did for his pension.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 1,287
|
Post by james100 on Oct 25, 2024 14:47:19 GMT
So is our new PM a "working" person under the definition you descrbied? or he found ways to get away with it from donations? I imagine free-gear-Keir would see himself as not working, but in this dystopian world, increasingly bereft of all reason, who can say? Maybe he'll declare himself a worker by way of special legal dispensation, treating himself different to the rest as he did for his pension. Let's not forget only 20.14% of the registered electorate voted Labour, and a yougov survey taken immediately after the GE indicated less than half of those voters did so with positive intent toward the Labour party. So, less than 10% of the registered electorate actively wanted Keir and the Gang, the current ratings are predictably dire and this dystopian world too shall pass There is an article in FT here with the headline "Rachel Reeves ain’t ‘working people’, says Starmer" listing 46 Labour MPs on the landlord registry with criteria >100K portfolio and >10K rental income pa. And a link at the bottom an article about Starmer getting into trouble when he disposed of an undeclared 400K plot of land less than 2 years ago, if your blood pressure needs a little boost (j/k).
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 25, 2024 15:13:06 GMT
I imagine free-gear-Keir would see himself as not working, but in this dystopian world, increasingly bereft of all reason, who can say? Maybe he'll declare himself a worker by way of special legal dispensation, treating himself different to the rest as he did for his pension. and a yougov survey taken immediately after the GE indicated less than half of those voters did so with positive intent toward the Labour party. So, less than 10% of the registered electorate actively wanted Keir and the Gang, the current ratings are predictably dire and this dystopian world too shall pass There is an article in FT here with the headline "Rachel Reeves ain’t ‘working people’, says Starmer" listing 46 Labour MPs on the landlord registry with criteria >100K portfolio and >10K rental income pa. And a link at the bottom an article about Starmer getting into trouble when he disposed of an undeclared 400K plot of land less than 2 years ago, if your blood pressure needs a little boost (j/k). That figure is misleading as it doesn't include those that would have voted Labour if they had time to make it to the polling station. I think it would be more honest to include their percentage share of the vote if you really didn't want to mention MP share.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 1,214
|
Post by travolta on Oct 25, 2024 15:37:30 GMT
I am so done with political parties .
If I wasn't so busy gardening,I'd be grubbing up cobble stones and rolling over ministerial cars.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Oct 25, 2024 16:27:11 GMT
Kia Starmer is a fud as we'll find out and is getting working people and common people mixed up, never listened to Pulp, neither did I mind you.
" You'll never live like common people
You'll never do whatever common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And you dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do "
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,548
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 25, 2024 19:10:49 GMT
Let's not forget only 20.14% of the registered electorate voted Labour, and a yougov survey taken immediately after the GE indicated less than half of those voters did so with positive intent toward the Labour party. So, less than 10% of the registered electorate actively wanted Keir and the Gang, the current ratings are predictably dire and this dystopian world too shall pass There is an article in FT here with the headline "Rachel Reeves ain’t ‘working people’, says Starmer" listing 46 Labour MPs on the landlord registry with criteria >100K portfolio and >10K rental income pa. And a link at the bottom an article about Starmer getting into trouble when he disposed of an undeclared 400K plot of land less than 2 years ago, if your blood pressure needs a little boost (j/k). That figure is misleading as it doesn't include those that would have voted Labour if they had time to make it to the polling station. I think it would be more honest to include their percentage share of the vote if you really didn't want to mention MP share. It cant be misleading as its a statement of verified fact. Anything else is just speculation or extrapolation. The percentage of people who didnt have time to make it to the polling station will be miniscule. Its dwarfed by the number of people who decided they didnt like any of the options so abstained.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 25, 2024 19:22:04 GMT
That figure is misleading as it doesn't include those that would have voted Labour if they had time to make it to the polling station. I think it would be more honest to include their percentage share of the vote if you really didn't want to mention MP share. . Anything else is just speculation or extrapolation. The percentage of people who didnt have time to make it to the polling station will be miniscule. Its dwarfed by the number of people who decided they didnt like any of the options so abstained. Your first statement is false. One can pick and chose which facts and statistics to repeat in order to support one's argument. Surely you know that ?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,548
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 25, 2024 20:08:35 GMT
It cant be misleading as its a statement of verified fact. Anything else is just speculation or extrapolation. The percentage of people who didnt have time to make it to the polling station will be miniscule. Its dwarfed by the number of people who decided they didnt like any of the options so abstained. Your first statement is false. One can pick and chose which facts and statistics to repeat in order to support one's argument. Surely you know that ? How is it false? The statement you highlighted is fact. The turnout was 59.8% of those registered to vote and Labour got 33.7%. ie out of an electorate of 48,175997, 9,708716 voted Labour which is 20.15%. Which of those numbers is incorrect? If none, then the first statement clearly isnt misleading. Whats misleading about it?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 25, 2024 20:17:21 GMT
You said that a statement of verified fact cannot be misleading. I cannot understand why you continue to believe this is true?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,548
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 25, 2024 20:28:06 GMT
You said that a statement of verified fact cannot be misleading. I cannot understand why you continue to believe this is true? I repeat how is it misleading?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 25, 2024 20:38:04 GMT
You said that a statement of verified fact cannot be misleading. I cannot understand why you continue to believe this is true? I repeat how is it misleading? You are asking about the particular statement that you made and whether or not it is misleading. You justified your statement as not being misleading by saying "a statement of verified fact cannot be misleading". I pointed out to you that that is not a valid justification. In simple terms, one cannot justify a statement as being not misleading by stating it is a statement of verified fact.
|
|
