|
Urgh this is awful, people treating UKIP with anything but utter contempt frustrate the hell out of me.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
namesake posted:Urgh this is awful, people treating UKIP with anything but utter contempt frustrate the hell out of me. I know. It worries me as well. Also, this Charlie multi millionaire is so Tory its making my teeth grind whenever he talks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
I'd happily denigrate somebody considering voting UKIP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:He more flubbered about with the lines we have been hearing all week, but when Stella Creasey held to feet to the fire he wouldn't deny it, which generally is a 'Whoops! You got me!' Eugh, Susie Boniface has literally suggested politicians do 26 weeks of work. Clearly having never heard of these things called constituencies. She's like a fountain of anti-politician bile, peddling all the usual soundbite myths that turn people off politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
To be fair, her comment that people vote differently in european elections was exemely insightful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Answers Me posted:I live in what will most likely be a swing seat (shifted from Labour to Tory in 2010), so I should probably vote Labour, right? I hate what they've become, and am aware that there's not much difference between Labour and Tory (neoliberlism with a smile versus neoliberalism with a 'gently caress you'), but for the most vulnerable in society there's still a very real difference between life under a Labour government and life under a Tory government, right? Or even then am I still giving Labour too much credit? Yes, there are important differences between Labour and Tory policy proposals. http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7373  (Low = more austerity. Yes, I know the graph is confusing.) The core point is that while Labour is using the rhetoric of austerity, their (and those of the Libdems) promises have left them the leeway to be looser and spend more than the Tories, because they've excluded investment spending from the fiscal calculation. Ergo, while Labour isn't committing to spend more - which in today's media, seems like political suicide for some reason, they at least have room to do so. And that's ignoring the Tory proposals for another round of tax cuts, thus setting up a revenue drop that would lead to a new debt 'crisis' down the line. And this is just the economics. Do Not Let The Tories Win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Jesus. The good people of Northampton are pretty loving right wing and brutal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:Jesus. The good people of Northampton are pretty loving right wing and brutal. Is that the border control lady? Epic takedown by Dimbleby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Maths isn't Labour's strong suit. While they've been trying to position themselves as having everything costed, by their own policy positions, they've used the banker's levy and the mansion tax several times over. Current UK median wage is £11.56/hour (see e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/20/miliband-pledges-rise-poorest-workers-labour-uk). £8/hour is 69% of that. Not 58%. From 6.5/hr to 8/hr is not a (58-54)/54 = 7.4% increase. It's actually a 23% increase. Your maths sucks. I think the answer for the discrepancy - if it even exists - is that Labour is using a less optimistic projection for 2020 median wages. Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Is that the border control lady? Epic takedown by Dimbleby. Its all of it. I can see pitchforks, torches, and castles being stormed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Hello, Susie. You're, quite good, at turning me, off politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
The Lib Dem guy seems pretty articulate, I don't think I've ever come across him before. Haha, Stella Creasy hoisted by her own petard, as Dimbleby points out they've promised to train even more doctors than the Conservatives. Presumably part of the solution is to make them work longer hours again? Prince John fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Current UK median wage is £11.56/hour (see e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/20/miliband-pledges-rise-poorest-workers-labour-uk). £8/hour is 69% of that. Not 58%. From 6.5/hr to 8/hr is not a (58-54)/54 = 7.4% increase. It's actually a 23% increase. Your maths sucks. The median wage figure I'm using is £517/wk (see here).
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Prince John posted:The Lib Dem guy seems pretty articulate, I don't think I've ever come across him before. He's got a nice safe seat in Cambridge, and is one of the muesli and sandals Lib Dems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:muesli and sandals How have I never heard this expression before. Brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:He's got a nice safe seat in Cambridge, and is one of the muesli and sandals Lib Dems. At a personal level, Julian's lovely. He'd probably take umbrage at being called one of the muesli and sandals kind; he's got a PhD in biological chemistry!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
GMO muesli and synthetic sandals then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
TinTower posted:The median wage figure I'm using is £517/wk (see here). Even if you use that article's outdated figure of £13.03 for full time workers, 8 pounds per hour works out at 61.4%, not 58% (and the current 6.5/hr becomes merely 49.9% of the median wage, creating a big contradiction). The actual *overall* median wage used here is lower, because part time workers are included. There is literally no way to make it so that 6.5 -> 8 is a measely increase of 4% on current wages. None. Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
TinTower posted:At a personal level, Julian's lovely. He'd probably take umbrage at being called one of the muesli and sandals kind; he's got a PhD in biological chemistry! Oh, never met him, and it wasn't a criticism, just a category. He always seems to make a lot of sense, and always seems a bit apologetic for Lib Dems being in bed with the Tories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
TinTower posted:The median wage figure I'm using is £517/wk (see here). Please show your working. I'm pretty doped on painkillers but I can't make that get anywhere near 58%
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Please show your working. I'm pretty doped on painkillers but I can't make that get anywhere near 58% 58% of £517/wk is £299/wk, divided by 37.5 (working hours in a week) is £7.99/hr.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
TinTower posted:58% of £517/wk is £299/wk, divided by 37.5 (working hours in a week) is £7.99/hr. Where did 37.5 come from? UK fulltime workers work for waay longer than that. Look, the article you linked *says* that (a) Only full time workers earn 517/wk. (b) Hourly wage for fulltime workers is 13.03 pounds. (In case you are wondering this implies they work almost 40 hours a week) (c) This is April 2013 figures, over a year out of date. You are pulling numbers out of your arse. It's not a pretty sight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Where did 37.5 come from? UK fulltime workers work for waay longer than that. Because 37.5 hours is a standard full-time work week? Unless everyone in this thread gets paid lunches.  The Living Wage Foundation also use 37.5 hours as their estimate for a working week; see here.I want to know where the Guardian have got that median wage of £11.56 from. Because it's at least £3,500 less than the ONS estimate for last year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Because 37.5 hours is a standard full-time work week? Unless everyone in this thread gets paid lunches. 37.5 is not standard, there's plenty of places that expect 40 and some that are 36.25 (usually public/non-profit sector) Google suggests the average is 39.1
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Because 37.5 hours is a standard full-time work week? Unless everyone in this thread gets paid lunches. I've already explained. The numbers you are looking at are median wages for Full Time workers. The 11.56 are median wages overall, including a proportion of part time workers that are paid a lot less than 517/week. The very article you linked says 13.03 per hour for Full Time workers, so there's no point for you to do this 37.5 craziness. Did you read ANY of it apart from the title? I have no idea why you are still digging on this. Just admit you got things completely wrong. EDIT: And even IF you are right, and 8 is 58% of the current median wage. I would like to see what sort of mathematical kung fu you intend to use, to show that 6.5, a number almost 20% smaller, is 54% of current median wage. YOU FAIL MATHS FOREVER. Fangz fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
That would require actually being "completely wrong". I concede that £517 is the full time median wage, but that's how the Low Pay Commission and Living Wage Foundation calculate the minimum and living wages: 37.5 hours, 52 weeks. Additionally, the same ONS statistics have a median weekly wage across all workers of £416.50. I have no idea how you can get £11.56/hr out of that using any standard number of working hours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
TinTower posted:That would require actually being "completely wrong". I concede that £517 is the full time median wage, but that's how the Low Pay Commission and Living Wage Foundation calculate the minimum and living wages: 37.5 hours, 52 weeks. What the hell are you on about for fucks sake? "Full-time employees receive £13.03 per hour" 13.03 x .58 = 7.55 National minimum wage is £6.50 7.55 != 6.50 find another source to back you up, yours doesn't. To be helpful; open it up and ctrl F "hours". And if you want to check, that's just under 39.75 hours, so literally everything you've posted is completely wrong. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:What the hell are you on about for fucks sake? The ONS statistics don't say that full time workers get a median of £13.03 per hour. They say that full time workers get a median of £517 per week. Those are two different statements. The standard method of calculating hourly pay from that is division by 37.5, not 40.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
TinTower posted:The ONS statistics don't say that full time workers get a median of £13.03 per hour. They say that full time workers get a median of £517 per week. Those are two different statements. The standard method of calculating hourly pay from that is division by 37.5, not 40. I've already told how to shortcut search what you're looking for in your own source so now you're being deliberately dense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I've already told how to shortcut search what you're looking for in your own source so now you're being deliberately dense. I'm looking at the actual ONS figures now. They don't have any hourly wages at all, they have weekly wages. That £13.03 figure is someone in the Guardian offices punching in £517/40 into a calculator; as I've already said, hourly wages tend to be calculated from a standard 37.5 hour work week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Would you chaps like me to ask my maths professer in the morning? He seems to understand imaginary numbers really well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I'm looking at the actual ONS figures now. They don't have any hourly wages at all, they have weekly wages. That £13.03 figure is someone in the Guardian offices punching in £517/40 into a calculator; as I've already said, hourly wages tend to be calculated from a standard 37.5 hour work week. And does the source also claim a 37.5 hour week? Seaside Loafer posted:Would you chaps like me to ask my maths professer in the morning? He seems to understand imaginary numbers really well. bravo
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:And does the source also claim a 37.5 hour week? It doesn't, but a 37.5 hour work week is overall the general figure used when deriving hourly wages. The point that's being lost with all the mathschat is that £8/hr really isn't a game changer that Labour want minimum wage workers to believe, just like Cameron's £12,500/£50,000 thresholds aren't actually the major giveaways he wants the middle class to believe. Anyway, the Tories have published their blueprint for a HRA replacement. As predicted, it's so flawed it would actually give the ECHR more power. 
TinTower fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It doesn't, but a 37.5 hour work week is overall the general figure used when deriving hourly wages. I strongly disagree, it's 40. We are now at an impasse; until one of us can be bothered to check which source Milliband is quoting, that is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I strongly disagree, it's 40. We are now at an impasse; until one of us can be bothered to check which source Milliband is quoting, that is. From whenever I've seen it discussed in terms of low pay reform, I've seen 37.5 hours be the figure used. It translates to a nine-to-five with an unpaid 30 minute lunch break, so that's probably where this dispute is coming from?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I'm looking at the actual ONS figures now. They don't have any hourly wages at all, they have weekly wages. That £13.03 figure is someone in the Guardian offices punching in £517/40 into a calculator; as I've already said, hourly wages tend to be calculated from a standard 37.5 hour work week. Specifically, you want the file "ASHE 2013 (provisional) Table 1 - All Employees" and the "PROV - Total Table 1.5a Hourly pay - Gross 2013.xls" spreadsheet within it. It gives the median hourly wage for all employees in 2013 as £11.62. The minimum wage for the corresponding period was £6.31/hour. 6.31/11.62 = 0.54. The current minimum wage is 54% of the median hourly wage for all employees (not just full timers).
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Do Not Let The Tories Win. Yeah I think tactical voting is a big no for this election. They are going to loving salt the earth if they get in again. Spooky Hyena posted:Or is the public just that misinformed on the amount spent on welfare? The average British person knows nothing about the economy. All they have is the news and papers. And have you watched/read them lately? Even the loving "i" didn't question the tax cuts and gave it a positive placement on their front page. I kinda liked that paper to. Regarde Aduck fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
edit: big dumb double post
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I strongly disagree, it's 40. We are now at an impasse; until one of us can be bothered to check which source Milliband is quoting, that is. For whatever it's worth, a single "whole time equivalent" or full working week in the NHS is 37.5 hours per week. Yeah it's 9-5 Monday-Friday, but at least one half hour break per 6+ hour shift is mandated, and these are unpaid. This rather suggests that other government offices are likely to use the same figure, no?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
Spangly A posted:I strongly disagree, it's 40. We are now at an impasse; until one of us can be bothered to check which source Milliband is quoting, that is. I've had multiple full-time 37.5 hour contracts and until this conversation I honestly thought it was a standard (I live in the Newcastle area in case it varies by region). e: yeah and as RR says across multiple jobs I've worked to WTE = 37.5 hours Apparently there's no strict definition but gov.uk claims that anything over 35 hours is generally considered full-time. quote:A part-time worker is someone who works fewer hours than a full-time worker. There is no specific number of hours that makes someone full or part-time, but a full-time worker will usually work 35 hours or more a week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 08:28
|
|
