My understanding now is that the unions are broadly behind the initiative (or at least they've decided not to moan about it). That may change should Labour in the GE.
Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII
- Thread starter Seeker_UK
- Start date
My understanding now is that the unions are broadly behind the initiative (or at least they've decided not to moan about it). That may change should Labour in the GE.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
This is funny and desperate in equal measure
www.telegraph.co.uk
Voter apathy will unleash a Labour government far more dangerous than many realise
Starmer’s cautious approach appears to be paying off. But make no mistake: he is a socialist in centrist’s clothing
www.telegraph.co.uk
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
What initiative?
gavreid
Pretty Words...
Unite warns it will hold back funds if Labour weakens plan on workers’ rights
Union leader Sharon Graham says Keir Starmer risks ‘limping into Downing Street’[They're consulting bosses on working sufficient loopholes into the policy to make it worthless]
Labour’s biggest union backer has warned it may divert election funding earmarked for the party, amid claims that Keir Starmer is diluting plans to overhaul workers’ rights.
"A pledge to give workers basic job protection from their first day of employment is expected to allow employers to use reasonable probationary periods for new staff. A vow to ban zero-hours contracts is expected to be changed to allow some workers to keep the status – but this has raised concerns that they may be forced to do so by pressure from their bosses."
Unite warns it will hold back funds if Labour weakens plan on workers’ rights
Union leader Sharon Graham says Keir Starmer risks ‘limping into Downing Street’
I read that unite article and see a single interest group desperate to keep their concerns at the top of an agenda when they have little control over the party which appears to be likely to romp to a victory with or without their support.
I think they have a point though - workers rights are important. However, where would you put that on a list of the issues facing an incoming government to the UK? How would you prioritise the economy, the environment, the NHS, defence, europe, immigration compared to workers rights? A tricky one, and i'm looking forward to seeing how Labour tackle this in the new year
I think they have a point though - workers rights are important. However, where would you put that on a list of the issues facing an incoming government to the UK? How would you prioritise the economy, the environment, the NHS, defence, europe, immigration compared to workers rights? A tricky one, and i'm looking forward to seeing how Labour tackle this in the new year
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
The economy, the environment, the NHS, etc and workers rights are not separate things. They all work together, or fail together.I read that unite article and see a single interest group desperate to keep their concerns at the top of an agenda when they have little control over the party which appears to be likely to romp to a victory with or without their support.
I think they have a point though - workers rights are important. However, where would you put that on a list of the issues facing an incoming government to the UK? How would you prioritise the economy, the environment, the NHS, defence, europe, immigration compared to workers rights? A tricky one, and i'm looking forward to seeing how Labour tackle this in the new year
At present they are failing together because ideas about what is good for the economy is antithetical to all the other things. Antithetical to investment in health, education, the environment and decent living and working conditions.
We need an economy that explicitly works *for* health, education, the environment and social justice, not against it.
MVV
pfm Member
Ultimately the British voter measures everything in terms of 'are they better or worse off', which is unsurprising because that is how the BBC and all mainstream media approach all budgets and policy. There are occasional hand wringing documentaries and articles about poor people which are presented as somehow separate to budget and policy and that everyone can get sad about and feel like they care about poor people.
There is no serious discussion about the challenges facing the country, take just one: 50% of the entire NHS budget is spent on the 4% of people with multiple long term conditions, that 4% will double by 2034.
Then we have the self harming Brexit debacle that can't be spoken about and we have been through a Global pandemic which people don't seem to think cost us anything and no-one wants to talk about.
So no one talks about it because they know that if they do they won't get elected.
There is no serious discussion about the challenges facing the country, take just one: 50% of the entire NHS budget is spent on the 4% of people with multiple long term conditions, that 4% will double by 2034.
Then we have the self harming Brexit debacle that can't be spoken about and we have been through a Global pandemic which people don't seem to think cost us anything and no-one wants to talk about.
So no one talks about it because they know that if they do they won't get elected.
I read that unite article and see a single interest group desperate to keep their concerns at the top of an agenda when they have little control over the party which appears to be likely to romp to a victory with or without their support.
I think they have a point though - workers rights are important. However, where would you put that on a list of the issues facing an incoming government to the UK? How would you prioritise the economy, the environment, the NHS, defence, europe, immigration compared to workers rights? A tricky one, and i'm looking forward to seeing how Labour tackle this in the new year
Sharon has leadership ambitions. That aside, it is her role to the keep up the pressure. Labour though have more money coming from non-union sources than the unions these days so her stick is not quite as big as she thinks it is.
gavreid
Pretty Words...
As the FT explained last week:
"“The move [to water down the employment "pledge"] is likely to anger some trade union leaders but please business groups, which have become more vocal in raising concerns.” One business leader said that after several meetings with the party, they were now “pretty relaxed” about its plans. "
I think that means there's nothing left of anything...
"“The move [to water down the employment "pledge"] is likely to anger some trade union leaders but please business groups, which have become more vocal in raising concerns.” One business leader said that after several meetings with the party, they were now “pretty relaxed” about its plans. "
I think that means there's nothing left of anything...
wulbert
pfm Member
Does Starmer really need the imprimatur of the oligarch tabloid billionaires and their outriders?
Couldn't he achieve a UK general election victory by simply hammering the Tories at every opportunity on their appalling record on the economy, grift, racism, hate, incompetence, austerity, immorality, dishonesty, corruption and utter out-of-touch madness?
Promote a manifesto returning to serious, real-world politics and strategy that address the every-day problems facing Britain's population? Act with honesty and integrity and show a compassionate and mature style of leadership?
I don't think there was a need for him to have become a paler, lightweight version of the Tories. Wouldn't the UK's working/voting population have responded very positively to a genuine, sane alternative to Titchy Bawsack and his odious ghouls?
Couldn't he achieve a UK general election victory by simply hammering the Tories at every opportunity on their appalling record on the economy, grift, racism, hate, incompetence, austerity, immorality, dishonesty, corruption and utter out-of-touch madness?
Promote a manifesto returning to serious, real-world politics and strategy that address the every-day problems facing Britain's population? Act with honesty and integrity and show a compassionate and mature style of leadership?
I don't think there was a need for him to have become a paler, lightweight version of the Tories. Wouldn't the UK's working/voting population have responded very positively to a genuine, sane alternative to Titchy Bawsack and his odious ghouls?
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Corbyn tried that, including a very well thought-out manifesto and look how well that went for him. As has been discussed here numerous times, he lost because the press were against him.
Seanm
pfm Member
He could do all these things, but the Labour right would return to suicide-bombing their own party, the media would return to running round the clock hit pieces, and the sensible centre would rediscover their respect for the Conservatives as the natural party of government. I reckon it would take about a month, at most, to tank Labour’s polling figures: the front bench are all very unlikeable, Starmer’s a proven liar, the bureaucracy is led by genuine racists and there’s a lot of shady stuff going on behind the scenes. Lots and lots of material for the press to work with.
None of this is an excuse. Starmer could probably have weathered all that if he’d chosen to consolidate grassroots support and push popular policies (which is what he promised to do). But he traded all that for support from the press. He’s deliberately created a situation in which it’s actually impossible to do the right thing, deliberately made the party a hostage to the tabloids.
Complicated way of saying he doesn’t *want* to do those things.
paulfromcamden
Baffled
I'm a bit confused about Labour's policy on Rwanda.
Pat McFadden was on telly this morning saying Labour don't want to continue with the scheme - not on the basis of it's cruelty but because they don't think it's good value for money.
But when asked if Labour will scrap it he refused to say.
He also said Labour wouldn't be returning anyone sent to Rwanda.
So taken at face value Labour will
- leave it on the statute books
- but not send anyone to Rwanda thus removing any use it might have as an alleged deterrent
- but carry on paying Rwanda millions of pounds indefinitely to hold any poor sods the Tories manage to send over in the next few months
Have I got that right?
Pat McFadden was on telly this morning saying Labour don't want to continue with the scheme - not on the basis of it's cruelty but because they don't think it's good value for money.
But when asked if Labour will scrap it he refused to say.
He also said Labour wouldn't be returning anyone sent to Rwanda.
So taken at face value Labour will
- leave it on the statute books
- but not send anyone to Rwanda thus removing any use it might have as an alleged deterrent
- but carry on paying Rwanda millions of pounds indefinitely to hold any poor sods the Tories manage to send over in the next few months
Have I got that right?
wulbert
pfm Member
Yes, but at that time of the last G.E. (Dec. 2019) getting Brexit "done" was the big deal and arguably we didn't fully know how bad Boris Johnson was. The Tories have nothing like the support or credibility now, that they had then.
You're probably right. Maybe no one can now win a UK general election without fully submitting to the super rich.
Because they're completely spineless and refuse to be anything but grey on every issue. Complete moral vacuum.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Didn't JC try that?
paulfromcamden
Baffled
Sorry Matt I'm afraid I jumped straight to the chapter on ‘Woke Politics’ & LGBT Education', skipped through a few minutes and closed it. I heard enough.
He's a nasty little bigot and I'm not interested in anything else he might have to say.