Back to the Good 'Ole Days

[swansonj]

....
A key focus appears to be improving matters for British business, so our businessmen, big and small, will likely do well out of the process.

But a thriving business is equally good for the little people on the shop floor, unless you want to bankrupt the millionaire or billionaire owner at the inevitable cost of throwing many out of work.

That's an attempt to establish a dichotomy but it's a false one. The choice is not regulation/bankruptcy/unemployment versus non-regulation/thriving businesses. The choice is where we strike the balance. Your "little people on the shop floor" have benefited from quite a lot of health and safety regulation, for example, which has not stopped businesses from making profits.

"Improving matters for British business" clearly correlates, in the present political climate, with "reduce the protections for workers and allow bosses to make bigger profits".

Edited to remove unintended ittalicisation

 

[Pale Rider]

Just to be clear, are you saying that you trust them to just do what's right and don't have an opinion about the order or direction of any changes?

As a person with a single vote, I only have the tiniest and broad brush influence.

Thus I vote Conservative (in a safe Labour seat) and expect the Conservatives, if elected, to get on with their polices, of which Brexit was a key one.

I could try to enhance my tiny influence a tiny bit by becoming politically active, but I choose not to.

That's an attempt to establish a dichotomy but it's a false one. The choice is not regulation/bankruptcy/unemployment versus non-regulation/thriving businesses. The choice is where we strike the balance. Your "little people on the shop floor" have benefited from quite a lot of health and safety regulation, for example, which has not stopped businesses from making profits.

"mproving matters for British business" clearly correlates, in the present political climate, with "reduce the protections for workers and allow bosses to make bigger profits".

No attempt to establish a dichotomy, false or otherwise.

Workers, as I said, benefit from prosperous companies.

More prosperous companies means more benefits for workers.

There's nothing to suggest any changes will reduce protections for workers, not least because no one - including those making the changes - has yet any clear idea of what they will be.

 

[newfhouse]

More prosperous companies means more benefits for workers.

Messrs. Bezos and Ashley would no doubt agree wholeheartedly.

 

[swansonj]

....
There's nothing to suggest any changes will reduce protections for workers...

I'm sorry, I really have to ask, did you type that with a straight face?😀

 

[the snail]

More prosperous companies means more benefits for workers shareholders.

capitalism 101

 

[the snail]

I'm sorry, I really have to ask, did you type that with a straight face?😀

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-workers-rights-jacob-rees-mogg-a7459336.html

 

[Pale Rider]

I'm sorry, I really have to ask, did you type that with a straight face?😀

Stupid attempt at ridicule is your best answer?

Welcome to the new forum, same as the old one.

 

[newfhouse]

Stupid attempt at ridicule is your best answer?

Will you think badly of me if I say that I had the same thought as @swansonj ? Your faith in their desire to maintain or enhance worker protection is amusingly ridiculous.

I know you said you’re happy to support the Tories without taking much interest in the details of their policies, but it would be hard to miss this one. Follow the money.

 

[mudsticks]

Just to be clear, are you saying that you trust them to just do what's right and don't have an opinion about the order or direction of any changes?

Why on earth would you not trust them

Will you think badly of me if I say that I had the same thought as @swansonj ? Your faith in their desire to maintain or enhance worker protection is amusingly ridiculous.

I know you said you’re happy to support the Tories without taking much interest in the details of their policies, but it would be hard to miss this one. Follow the money.

Count me into the brigade of doubters too.

 

[swansonj]

Yeah, seriously, Pale Rider, you post something ("There's nothing to suggest any changes will reduce protections for workers...") which pretty well everyone knows is rubbish - The Snail promptly posted clear evidence disproving it. How far those reduced protections will end up going is an issue for debate - it's a legitimate viewpoint to say that many of the protections which Rees Mogg et al would like to do away with are in fact so embedded and so welcomed that they may discover it's too electorally unpopular to go as far as they would want. But to say there is "nothing to suggest" that the reassessment of regulation following Brexit will reduce protection for workers? That's so brazen that I thought my no-doubt-not-very-good attempt at humour was quite a restrained response.

 

[Deleted member 49]

I remember a time when Corbyn was going to take us back to the 70s and people nearly pi$$ed their pants ! He would of been pints and ounces 🙄

 

[Rusty Nails]

Stupid attempt at ridicule is your best answer?

Welcome to the new forum, same as the old one.

I seem to remember you several times referring to "NACA, home of the po-faced".

Irony not your strong point?

 

[stowie]

It could be a Tory conspiracy, but far more likely is the story is worthy but crushingly dull, so pulling out imperial measures is the only way to inject some life in it.

Johnson's core competency is to be able to throw dead cats onto the table. He has done it for as long as he has been in politics.

It isn't a conspiracy, it is the standard practice he uses to distract from other areas he might not be so keen to promote.

Complicated rules and regulations changes are boring enough in themselves, but a story saying 'we are going to make lots of complicated rules and regulations changes over a period of years' is even worse.

The "bonfire of the EU rules" will go one of two ways

1) Nothing much will change because the most advantageous position for us to be in will be remaining closely aligned with our biggest trading partners.
Or
2) He has a whole bunch of contentious rule changes in mind based upon lobbying from his chums.

Either way, throwing out the imperial weights and measures nonsense as the news story provides a rather nice cover. With the added bonus that it plays wonderfully with part of his socially conservative core who seem to yearn for the "old days".

 

[cookiemonster]

Pretty good as statements of the bleedin' obvious go, although if you attached a similar comment to every post by every member - as you could - the forum would look a mess.

By 'us' I meant our country, the UK.

I think the majority of the population would consider rules made by ourselves as a better system than rules made by a committee of 27 nations which are then applied to us.




It could be a Tory conspiracy, but far more likely is the story is worthy but crushingly dull, so pulling out imperial measures is the only way to inject some life in it.

Complicated rules and regulations changes are boring enough in themselves, but a story saying 'we are going to make lots of complicated rules and regulations changes over a period of years' is even worse.

You do realise that we were one of the 27 and we had just as much input as all other nations did. This whole idea that we were constantly unable to make/adapt any rules is not based on reality otherwise we would've had the Euro and been in Schengen.

 

[cookiemonster]

The government will seek to entrench its own power by making the new rules advantageous to the British economy, which is likely to secure votes.

'Other privilege' is a woolly term which I don't understand.



Since I wouldn't bark myself if I had a dog, I elect the government and expect them to ruddy well get on with it.

Better our unelected bureaucrats over whom we have some control than EU ones over whom we have next to no control.



I don't see it as 'them and us' and in any case your argument is against all parliamentary democracy.

How do you think laws should be made?

We had plenty of control, more than you care to publicly admit to. We did say no quite often.