Is Harriet Harperson???

C

clivex

Banned member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
12,720
The most stupid politican in living memory?

Is she retarded?

Now wants to extend maternity leave to A YEAR. In a fcking recession. Doesnt she read the papers? Can she read?

Worse than that, was the unblievable proposal to "discriminate" for top jobs on the basis of which region you come from. You couldnt make it up...

No wonder labour is heading for oblivion.
 
The bit about maternity leave kills two birds with one stone. You get people into work to cover for those on leave and mothers get to spend more time with their infants, which has been proven to be beneficial all round. I don't see the problem with such a proposal.

On the other hand, to suggest discrimination of any sort is a good thing is totally anathema to my beliefs as a labour supporter. I'm abhorred by the very existence of a police group recognised as something along the lines of 'the association of black police officers'.

Can you imagine the kind of accusations levelled at other cops who got together and formed the association white police officers?

There's an excellent episode of The West Wing in which Sam is trying to drum up support for a pro-women motion. He ends up scuppered by Ainsley who insists she's already protected by the Constitution.

It is illegal to discriminate. For the government to discriminate they are leaving themselves wide open to court challenges.
 
It simple electioneering and if Clive can't see that, then so be it.

Is Harriet the most stupid politcian in history? No where near, but then we are talking about spectacularly competitive field here
 
If thats electioneering, then why is Mandelson briefing the papers against the proposal? Beause he knows that the public are savvy enough to consider idiotic proposals such as that in a recession when businesses are under pressure, as almost autistic

She is the most stupid british leading politician i have come across ....without doubt

I agree with DO. Nicely put
 
DO - you obviously have never run a company, let alone a small company! And small companies are the lifeblood of this country's economy.

Matrernity/paternity leave is A NIGHTMARE for small companies and there should be an exemption for all companies employing less than 20 people in order for them not to have to provide ML for any worker they've employed for less than 12 months.

It cost us a fortune last year as we took on a employee in good faith. She turned out to be pregnant at the time of interview and current legislation meant we had to hold her job open for her, which is just so uneconomic for a small company - you have only just got them trained up and they are then on ML and you have to employ another person, on a temporary basis, without knowing for sure whether or not employee one is even going to return to work, as everyone says they are, even though they know they won't, in order to get benefits.

If you believe the ethos that infants benefit from spending time with their mothers, then quite frankly, you have to believe that all mothers should spend the first five years at home with them - as far as I can remember, my son needed me just as much at two as he did aged one! I am not anti-working mothers, ffs, I was one myself but I do think that it has become far too unbalanced in favour of the employee, with little consideration to the employer because the tax burden is becoming ridiculous and it's stifling new business.
 
You're seeing it from a business person's perspective, SS.

I'm seeing it from a neutral perspective and yes I do believe infants would benefit from spending more than the first year with a parent or two. I think part of the reason we're in such a hole is that consumerism and materialism have caused the vast majority of people to live beyond their means and businesses have fed the greed for more.

I can tell you as a teacher that I see a huge difference in kids who have had at least one parent to look after them in their early years compared with those both whose parents had to work, my own daughter included.
 
DO - it's not possible to be 'neutral' - yes of course I am seeing it from an employers viewpoint but without employers, you wouldn't have the necessary tax revenues to be able to provide a welfare state in the first place! The vast majoirty of employers are capitalist pigs wanting every last sheckel as so often portayed by some on here but just ordinary people who want to make a decent living running profitable companies that offer decent working standards to their employees in return for a fair day's work - something the majority of employees understand to be an equitable arrangement and do their level best to provide.

I would have more respect for this government if they had made it their primary aim to make it possible for one parent in all families to be able to afford to stay at home with their under fives but, from that point forward, it should be down to the parents to then go back into the workplace, wherever possible, and to survive without state handouts.

Like that will ever happen...
 
clivex said:
If thats electioneering, then why is Mandelson briefing the papers against the proposal? Beause he knows that the public are savvy enough to consider idiotic proposals such as that in a recession when businesses are under pressure, as almost autistic
Click to expand...

Was talking about regional employment quotas Clive. You never know you might end up with Scottish Prime Ministers, Chancellors, Cheif Medical Officers, Head of NATO, Football Managers who knows?
 
Songsheet...

Agree with everything you say but would also suggest that maternity leave priviledges are not always liked by fellow employees, let alone employers. Especially employees who also have stresses at home but are unable to hammer the employer with rights for this or that (i am thinking carers for instance)

Warbler. Once a goverment gives the impression that it is completely out of touch with the electorate, they are doomed. Think Callaghans last days and Major towards the end. Harpersons previous initiative was legislation forcing companies to declare which gender is paid how much If Harperson thinks that bombarding business with pointless regulation as well as useless meddling is what the electorate is seeking in the midst of a recession, then she is even more dim than i had thought previously.

She is a desperately stupid and poor politician (witness the hysterical "court of the people" statement) and perhaps my overall point is that her ridiculous ideas are severely damaging to labour (as Mandelson realises but Brown seems unable to act upon)
 
Songsheet said:
DO - it's not possible to be 'neutral' - yes of course I am seeing it from an employers viewpoint but without employers, you wouldn't have the necessary tax revenues to be able to provide a welfare state in the first place!
Click to expand...

I reckon it is possible to be neutral. I'm not involved with small or medium business so have no axe to grind with them one way or the other.

I'm quite taken aback by your subsequent statement, though. For someone so intelligent and articulate it strikes me as entirely meaningless, to put it politely. Without employers we wouldn't have any state, let alone a welfare state. Would you prefer that? Every one for himself or herself? (Or isn't that tory policy anyway?)

Our welfare state sets (or did so, when it was first introduced) us apart from many other nations. Look at the US. My relative was a senior tax guru with Texaco, earning megabucks for years. His family swere our archetypal 'rich American relatives', whom we all envied. Now well advanced in years, he is in ill-health, as is his wife and they've had to dowsize then ultimately sell thier house and move in with their daughter's family because the health insurance is running out and no company will take them on. They are heading towards dying in penury and that situation is not helping their health.

I'd rather pay higher taxes and make sure everyone had a decent standard of living (and dying) than face what they are going through.
 
Songsheet said:
DO - you obviously have never run a company, let alone a small company! And small companies are the lifeblood of this country's economy.

Matrernity/paternity leave is A NIGHTMARE for small companies and there should be an exemption for all companies employing less than 20 people in order for them not to have to provide ML for any worker they've employed for less than 12 months.

It cost us a fortune last year as we took on a employee in good faith. She turned out to be pregnant at the time of interview and current legislation meant we had to hold her job open for her, which is just so uneconomic for a small company - you have only just got them trained up and they are then on ML and you have to employ another person, on a temporary basis, without knowing for sure whether or not employee one is even going to return to work, as everyone says they are, even though they know they won't, in order to get benefits.

If you believe the ethos that infants benefit from spending time with their mothers, then quite frankly, you have to believe that all mothers should spend the first five years at home with them - as far as I can remember, my son needed me just as much at two as he did aged one! I am not anti-working mothers, ffs, I was one myself but I do think that it has become far too unbalanced in favour of the employee, with little consideration to the employer because the tax burden is becoming ridiculous and it's stifling new business.
Click to expand...

Agree very much with that. there needs to be a provision for how long you work for a company before you get maternity leave, otherwise situations like the above will happen again and again which are ridiculous.
 
I'm not sure what HH is on about - haven't read anything about it yet - but allowable maternity leave is already a year, with up to 39 weeks entitlement to Statutory Maternity Pay. Is she talking about the pay entitlement element of it?

Edit: I've just read a brief article about it and HH is indeed referring to SMP and not to the entitlement to leave.
 
Last edited:
Songsheet said:
The vast majoirty of employers are capitalist pigs wanting every last sheckel as so often portayed by some on here but just ordinary people who want to make a decent living running profitable companies that offer decent working standards to their employees in return for a fair day's work
Click to expand...

Well, some firms might be run by ordinary people wanting to make an honest days pay but far more don't give a four X about their employees and will hang on to every penny they can by denying their employees everything bar what they have to give by law. The way some firms treat their employees - especially ones who are proven to be hard working and reliable - is nothing short of disgraceful. The issue of sick pay is a good indicator of this.
 
How do you know 'far more' are like that, Shadow? Do you have a league table of employment stats to support phrases like that? There are crap employers in any field - I think we can take it as read - whether they're racing yards, factories, farms, banks, clothing manufacturers or the corner shop. There are also many very good, ethical ones. Just the same as there are good, honest employees and doss-pots who'll nick everything that's not nailed down, bad-mouth their bosses and yet expect to get a pay rise every year, regardless of how inept or shoddy their performance is.

I think the way forward for parenting is to have one parent take six months off work in the first year of baby's life, and the other for the next six. However, there are tens of thousands of babies born every year to single women with no significant parenting presence from the babies' sires, so that would run into difficulties. Given, though, that perhaps a fair number of these singletons are also the 45-50,000 teenage pregnancies which run to term, they weren't going to be in work, anyway - although they should be in school. Creche facilities at work and at school might help ameliorate the difficulties of mothers wanting to continuing at either, where applicable. Otherwise, there does seem to already be enough maternity leave available to spend bonding time with baby.

As for Harmadwoman, I'm with (gasp!) Clivex on this. She is a ridiculous creature, full of empty posturing and gestures - but then, why are we surprised by that, since the whole government is riddled with similar idiots? She'd stand out from the crowd were she any different!
 
i think she does stand out from the crowd though Krizon! I sense that Mandelson and others have their head in their hands when she spouts off again.

This is labours problem. Shes a liability
 
And that's a refreshing change from when they used to have their heads in their hands when Mandy used to spout off!
 
African mothers are back, hoeing the corn rows, within 12 hours, the newest suckling strapped to their backs, with last year's still on the teat at the front. Far too much bleating from these white gals about bonding with baby - strap it on, get down to those allotments, wummun!
 
Knowing Harman, she would probably bring in legislation determining leave on the basis of colour or region. White southerners get a week paid, northern muslims 5 years
 
Blue Moovies

clivex said:
The most stupid politican in living memory?

Is she retarded?

Now wants to extend maternity leave to A YEAR. In a fcking recession. Doesnt she read the papers? Can she read?

Worse than that, was the unblievable proposal to "discriminate" for top jobs on the basis of which region you come from. You couldnt make it up...

No wonder labour is heading for oblivion.
Click to expand...
It could be that tha blue films hubbys been watching, have worked wonders, and as her expenences have been cut back, she see a back door way of still getting more money, as she not going get back in next time, is she? :blink:
 
Shes all over the press this weekend. Clear early pitch for leadership ...jesus

Being clueless and not very bright (ok...thick then) she thinks that her message of constant discrimination and blaming "MEN" for everything is just want the voters want at this present time...

Now shes demanding that the leadership of the labour party must always include one woman. Why?

God knows, there have been some excellent female leaders (or which she is most emphatically not one) in recent times, but it doesnt occur to plankhead harman that they are good because they are good. Not because they are wimmim or black or northern or disabled or gay or ginger.... (or a combination of all six.....)
 
Would be hard to find anyone who can be defined as a socialist wouldnt it? Whats interesting is that despite the difficulties that "capitalism" has faced over past two years, the left is still in retreat. They have made no progress whatsoever and if we are talking about the far left, they have, with their bizarre total embracing of islamic fundamentalism, completely lost the plot...

Its a dead creed. finished..... Left of centre politics will always have appeal, but outright socialism is now consigned to the same bin as the flat earthers

Harperson was on the radio yesterday. Awful. Hectoring, arrogant and yet inarticulate at the same time.
 
Sure you're right about "outright socialism", Clive. There is a great reluctance by people to think of themselves as working-class these days and when the health system is in such a mess and yet there is still talk of taxes being too high, what chance has it got?

Not so sure about your views on "islamic fundamentalism" though.

Of course, you may well be right and 'our' tolerance of it may be just as dangerous as that which allowed "national socialism" to grow unopposed in the twenties and thirties.
 
Back
Top