The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Demitri_C]

11 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

 

One horse race.

Id rather not have a mayor. They are bloody useless

[HanoiVillan]

Labour on nurses:

and:

Labour's position - which Jon whatever-it-is said the other day - is that a 1% pay rise is 'morally obnoxious', but Rayner would like to make clear here that 5% (itself far lower than the RCN's ask of 12%) is laughable, risible, proof of the failure of the previous leadership. Now it's obviously literally true that the 2.1% figure she's alighting on here is more generous than 1%, but it's not really so far from 1% that that figure can be 'morally obnoxious' while 2.1% can be fine. I also would challenge the not-even-hidden assumptions that a] Labour lost in 2019 because their manifesto was too generous to nurses, and b] that lanching an election campaign on an explicitly better-things-aren't-possible platform is going to inspire many people. But I guess we'll find out soon enough.

 

[bickster]

55 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Now it's obviously literally true that the 2.1% figure she's alighting on here is more generous than 1%, but it's not really so far from 1% that that figure can be 'morally obnoxious'

Isn't the point here that it's "morally obnoxious" to give them a pay rise that is below the rate of inflation and that 2.1% is the other side of that line (by about 0.6%), so the "morally obnoxious" dividing line is the rate of inflation.

FWIW I think Labour should be arguing for higher than that but I think the problem here is Rayner's use of language, she's using that silly overblown hyperbole of the Left to try and keep the left of the party onside. Same old problem, Left vs Right causing issues on every level. It ends up looking silly as you've pointed out

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Id rather not have a mayor. They are bloody useless

What would you propose in it's place?

Central Govt in charge, removing local democracy

Each Borough in charge pursuing their own agendas with co-ordination going to pot city wide?

Something else?

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

mayor...are bloody useless

Doesn't that depend on what power they have and how they are able to use it, Dem?

I mean a "figurehead" mayor that has only a ceremonial role is essentially useless, because they have no power, authority or budget to do anything.

But if you have a mayor who does have both the power and the money to do stuff, then they cannot be useless by definition, only because of a particular individual's abilities in the job, surely. And if they are pants, they can be got rid of by voters. Looking from the outside, say, Andy Burnham is the Manchester one, and he's done pretty well, by and large

I think the problem in a way is that none of the mayors have both the power and the finance made available to them to do as good a job as possible. The London Mayor has the most, but he's still hampered by the National Government - the Gov't cut police funding, knife crime goes up and he gets the blame (or the Gov't want him to get the blame), for example.

Edited March 11, 2021 by blandy
Dafurq?

[Demitri_C]

8 minutes ago, bickster said:

What would you propose in it's place?

Central Govt in charge, removing local democracy

Each Borough in charge pursuing their own agendas with co-ordination going to pot city wide?

Something else?

Local democracy? Our local councils ignore our objections and do what they want anyway.  You just have to watch that ignorant clown khan ignoring protestors last week who wnates to talk to him about slme of the policies he implemented on them. He wouldnt even even talk to them and ignore them like peasants.

Rather have central government than a lame mayor that doesnt listen anyway

[Demitri_C]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Doesn't that depend on what power they have and how they are able to use it, Dem?

I mean a "figurehead" mayor that has only a ceremonial role is essentially useless, because they have no power, authority or budget to do anything.

But if you have a mayor who does have both the power and the money to do stuff, then they cannot be useless by definition, only because of a particular individual's abilities in the job, surely. And if they are pants, they can be got rid of by voters. Looking from the outside, say, Andy Burnham is the Manchester one, and he's done pretty well, by and large

I think the problem in a way is that none of the mayors have both the power and the finance made available to them to do as good a job as possible. The London Mayor has the most, but he's still hampered by the National Government - the Gov't cut police funding, knife crime goes up and he gets the blame (or the Gov't want him to get the blame), for example.

So for example khan blames the government for the extension of the congestion charge and ulez but when probed he admitted it was his decison with a interview on GMB. 

Khan has wasted so much money on stupid crap around my area. Yet he will be the first to blame cuts on policing etc. 

Yes i dont agree with the cuts but at same time use the money you have on things we need like tackling crime helping homelessness. Not stupid expensive (and illegal) cycle lanes that no pne is using

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Rather have central government than a lame mayor that doesnt listen anyway

I suspect you'd rather regret the reality of that.

[HanoiVillan]

26 minutes ago, bickster said:

Isn't the point here that it's "morally obnoxious" to give them a pay rise that is below the rate of inflation and that 2.1% is the other side of that line (by about 0.6%), so the "morally obnoxious" dividing line is the rate of inflation.

FWIW I think Labour should be arguing for higher than that but I think the problem here is Rayner's use of language, she's using that silly overblown hyperbole of the Left to try and keep the left of the party onside. Same old problem, Left vs Right causing issues on every level. It ends up looking silly as you've pointed out

I think your first sentence there is exactly what Rayner is arguing, but I just don't think it's good politics.

I've complained before about Labour acting like they're in government, when they're in opposition, and this seems to me to be another example. Pushing for microscopic increases, and throwing the decisions to supposedly-apolitical pay review bodies, are what governments do when they're trying to keep costs down. The opposition need to make political noise about an issue. Now, they could say, well we don't think nurses should get any more than a 2% or 2.5% pay rise, and that's fine. I wouldn't agree, but they're entitled to come to that conclusion. But if they did come to that conclusion, I wouldn't advise to make it the *centrepiece* of their election campaign. I mean, I'm not the one saying 'a vote for Labour is a vote to support our nurses'; they've chosen that line.

Edited March 11, 2021 by HanoiVillan

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Our local councils ignore our objections and do what they want anyway. 

Yet they keep getting voted in, time after time.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think your first sentence there is exactly what Rayner is arguing, but I just don't think it's good politics.

I've complained before about Labour acting like they're in government, when they're in opposition, and this seems to me to be another example. Pushing for microscopic increases, and throwing the decisions to supposedly-apolitical pay review bodies, are what governments do when they're trying to keep costs down. The opposition need to make political noise about an issue. Now, they could say, well we don't think nurses should get any more than a 2% or 2.5% pay rise, and that's fine. I wouldn't agree, but they're entitled to come to that conclusion. But if they did come to that conclusion, I wouldn't advise to make it the *centrepiece* of their election campaign. I mean, I'm not the one saying 'a vote for Labour is a vote to support our nurses'; they've chosen that line.

I find nothing to disagree with there. It's an attempt to manage expectations before anyone has reason to expect anything

[Demitri_C]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yet they keep getting voted in, time after time.

So do conservatives whats your point exactly?

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

So do conservatives whats your point exactly?

Well you appear to be saying that yu'd do away with local democracy because you personally don't agree with their decisions. Firstly, I'd suggest that plenty of people are happy with those decisions because they keep getting voted in, that's how democracy works. Or certainly they know the alternative will be much worse.

Labour keep getting voted in in London Boroughs, Tories keep getting voted in to national government. I'd suggest you'll like the consequences of having local decisions made by Central Government a lot less than you imagine. You currently think your LOW transport price increases are high, I'd suggest being controlled by Central Government would see those prices alone, rocket.

[chrisp65]

Mr Starmer may want to pick up on this story. The headline is a bit cringe, but the substance is interesting...

The National

 

Quote

Speaking about how much difference the system in Wales has made to protecting the public, Mr Gething said: “The impact is seen in the figures - 167,000 people contacted by our service.

"Over 99% of our first positive cases have been contacted, 95% of their close contacts have been contacted - and last week 88% of those contacts were contacted within 24 hours of us having their details."

Quote

“It is a highly effective service, and it is one I am proud to say is a public service that is more efficient than our counterparts in England, in terms of reaching people, in terms of speed, but also in terms of value for money.

“This is a clear example where we should be proud that our public sector approach, the NHS and local government together, is delivering a better service."

 

[Demitri_C]

49 minutes ago, bickster said:

Well you appear to be saying that yu'd do away with local democracy because you personally don't agree with their decisions. Firstly, I'd suggest that plenty of people are happy with those decisions because they keep getting voted in, that's how democracy works. Or certainly they know the alternative will be much worse.

Labour keep getting voted in in London Boroughs, Tories keep getting voted in to national government. I'd suggest you'll like the consequences of having local decisions made by Central Government a lot less than you imagine. You currently think your LOW transport price increases are high, I'd suggest being controlled by Central Government would see those prices alone, rocket.

But then again the same can be said about the conservatives (as unpopular they are here) keep getting voted in. Your right and i am quite puzzled why they keep winning as most people i know and read onlkne moan about their councils.

Alot of residents are getting fed ul and we could see a big shift at the next council meetings. But we see eh?

I dont mind paying more if the money is not wasted on  crap!

[bickster]

24 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I dont mind paying more if the money is not wasted on  crap!

You realise the Tories are actually worse for this?

[HanoiVillan]

Given that Rayner explicitly linked Labour's timidity re nursing pay increases to public opinion, probably worth looking at public opinion on this:

Honestly I find their timidity and cleaving to conventional wisdom so, indescribably depressing.

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

You realise the Tories are actually worse for this?

Worse or as bad?

[Sam-AVFC]

13 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Worse or as bad?

Garden bridge, designing Routemasters for non-existent conductors, water cannons, estuary airport etc etc

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Worse or as bad?

Much much worse. The pandemic should be ramming that into everyone's head