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

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Jareth said:

I think most died in the wool tories will be quite terrified by this, because it kicks off a new government term with a nationalisation project front and centre, and one which isn't scaring the masses. They'll fear creeping national permission for similar ideas.

It's their party's plan in the main

[Designer1]

2 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I think most died in the wool

Dyed* 

(pedantic sorry)

[blandy]

21 minutes ago, Jareth said:

most died in the wool tories will be quite terrified

flogging a dead sheep?

[ml1dch]

13 hours ago, bickster said:

Promising to nationalise the railways within 5 years apparently

How very centrist of them

 

This seems to be broadly the correct take to me, albeit the language is a bit more inflammatory than it needs to be. 

 

[Davkaus]

 

Meanwhile Kier is patting himself on the back for changing the party so significantly that another tory MP is happy to join.

 

[Davkaus]

Anyone surprised? Anyone at all? Usually he just sticks his pledges in the bin instead of watering them down to meaninglessness, so I guess it's...progress?

It's still a spoilt ballot with a spunking great big cock and balls for me.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/may/01/labours-new-deal-for-workers-will-not-fully-ban-zero-hours-contracts

Quote

Labour is facing criticism over plans for a loophole that would allow employees to work under zero-hours contracts, despite the party having pledged to ban them entirely.

Keir Starmer’s party is preparing to announce details of its promise to overhaul workers’ rights if it gets into power – a centrepiece of its early plans for government, but subject to fierce lobbying from businesses.

 

Labour has repeatedly promised to ban zero-hours contracts, under which an employer is not obliged to provide any minimum number of working hours. But as part of its revised plans, although employers would be required to offer a contract based on regular hours worked, workers could opt to stay on zero hours.

The party is also planning to do further consulting on the legislation that will be required for its most ambitious plan, to create a “single status” of worker.

Under the current proposals, the need to serve a qualifying period before gaining basic rights such as sick pay, parental leave and protection against unfair dismissal would no longer apply.

However, Labour is expected to clarify that probationary periods for performance will still apply, even where workers are given day-one rights to sick pay and parental leave. The party will also acknowledge that seasonal workers will be a “different category” when it comes to the reforms.

 

[limpid]

11 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Anyone surprised? Anyone at all? Usually he just sticks his pledges in the bin instead of watering them down to meaninglessness, so I guess it's...progress?

It's still a spoilt ballot with a spunking great big cock and balls for me.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/may/01/labours-new-deal-for-workers-will-not-fully-ban-zero-hours-contracts

 

I don't understand your position. Some employees like zero-hours contracts, this says that they can choose to stay on those terms, but a contract must be offered.

Seems completely sensible. Am I missing, something?

[Davkaus]

18 minutes ago, limpid said:

I don't understand your position. Some employees like zero-hours contracts, this says that they can choose to stay on those terms, but a contract must be offered.

Seems completely sensible. Am I missing, something?

A ban that an employee can opt out of is about as useful as the working times directive that employers just pressure employees to opt of of by default. If you can opt out of your statutory rights when negotiating with someone that has more leverage in the negotiations, they aren't rights.

If they didn't think a complete ban was a sensible position, maybe they shouldn't have claimed that's what they were doing in the first place.

Edited Thursday at 08:37 by Davkaus

[sidcow]

13 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Anyone surprised? Anyone at all? Usually he just sticks his pledges in the bin instead of watering them down to meaninglessness, so I guess it's...progress?

It's still a spoilt ballot with a spunking great big cock and balls for me.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/may/01/labours-new-deal-for-workers-will-not-fully-ban-zero-hours-contracts

 

 

2 hours ago, limpid said:

I don't understand your position. Some employees like zero-hours contracts, this says that they can choose to stay on those terms, but a contract must be offered.

Seems completely sensible. Am I missing, something?

I nearly responded when I read the OP.  My daughter would be pretty irked is zero hours contracts went.  She's a student and likes to work highly irregular hours when it suits her.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, sidcow said:

 

I nearly responded when I read the OP.  My daughter would be pretty irked is zero hours contracts went.  She's a student and likes to work highly irregular hours when it suits her.

Yep, we have similar with some of our staff too. They elect to be zero hours for very similar reasons. The vast majority of our staff are full time but some choose not to be for a whole variety of reasons.

[DCJonah]

14 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Anyone surprised? Anyone at all? Usually he just sticks his pledges in the bin instead of watering them down to meaninglessness, so I guess it's...progress?

It's still a spoilt ballot with a spunking great big cock and balls for me.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/may/01/labours-new-deal-for-workers-will-not-fully-ban-zero-hours-contracts

 

I get people being frustrated over things but any spoilt ballot is basically a vote for the Tories. 

They'll be pleased with any vote that doesn't condemn their 14 years of shit. 

[Davkaus]

46 minutes ago, sidcow said:

 

I nearly responded when I read the OP.  My daughter would be pretty irked is zero hours contracts went.  She's a student and likes to work highly irregular hours when it suits her.

 

39 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yep, we have similar with some of our staff too. They elect to be zero hours for very similar reasons. The vast majority of our staff are full time but some choose not to be for a whole variety of reasons.

There's plenty of use cases for people who'll find zero hours contracts beneficial, doesn't mean they're not generally a scourge, but obviously that's very much opinion.

Regardless of your views on whether they're a good or a bad thing though, surely you see the ludicrousness of proclaiming you'll ban them, then offering employees an opt out? "Great, you've got the job, we just need you to sign here for this opt out". If you don't like it, your choice will be which way to walk after you **** off and they give the job to someone else.

Now for prospective candidates reputable employers, this isn't an issue, but reputable employers aren't why Labour initially claimed this was required. They've identified it as an issue, hailed it as bold action, then watered it down into meaninglessness.

Edited Thursday at 11:16 by Davkaus

[ml1dch]

10 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Now for prospective candidates reputable employers, this isn't an issue, but reputable employers aren't why Labour initially claimed this was required. They've identified it as an issue, hailed it as bold action, then watered it down into meaninglessness.

This is how policymaking works. You identify a problem, then come up with a solution. You then talk to all the people that your solution might impact to see if your solution creates a new problem elsewhere. And eventually once the potential issues have been identified and fixed you are probably going to be left with something a bit different to what you originally proposed. But hopefully better, because you considered impacts that you hadn't thought about originally. 

In this particular case, the fairly obvious issue of "if we ban all zero-hours contracts then the people who like, and benefit from zero-hours contracts are going to be upset about it" was one of the issues identified with their original proposal. So they fixed it. 

Is your position that the people for whom ZHCs are a preferred way of working should be forced onto permanent contracts just so the purity of the original proposal wasn't contaminated? 

[Davkaus]

19 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

This is how policymaking works. You identify a problem, then come up with a solution. You then talk to all the people that your solution might impact to see if your solution creates a new problem elsewhere. And eventually once the potential issues have been identified and fixed you are probably going to be left with something a bit different to what you originally proposed. But hopefully better, because you considered impacts that you hadn't thought about originally. 
 

You'd usually consult on it before announcing your policy at a party conference, I reckon.

If what had happened is someone said "we're exploring the idea of whether we should clamp down on zero hours contracts", then they did, and this is what they came up with, I think you'd have a fair point, my reaction would be borderline hysterical.

But this is what they actually announced at their party conference.

https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/angela-rayner-speech-at-labour-party-conference/

Quote

Conference, I’ve heard some rumours that we’ll be watering down our New Deal for Working People.

Be in no doubt, not with Keir and I at the helm.

We’ll ban zero-hour contracts.

End fire and rehire.

And give workers basic rights from day one.

We’ll go further and faster in closing the gender pay gap.

Make work more family friendly.

And tackle sexual harassment.

My objection isn't so much the policy itself, but that once again they show that what they say today isn't what they'll do tomorrow.

What new information do they have? If they boldly declared they'd ban something before considering that actually some people quite like the thing that is going to be banned, they're thick as shit.

Edited Thursday at 11:53 by Davkaus

[Chindie]

It's Starmer's Labour party, they think we're all mugs. They don't actually disagree with the state of the country so much as they do it's not efficiently shit enough.

[Rodders]

2 hours ago, DCJonah said:

I get people being frustrated over things but any spoilt ballot is basically a vote for the Tories. 

They'll be pleased with any vote that doesn't condemn their 14 years of shit. 

Tory 1 v tory 2? Who cares really? And that being afraid of the other team.getting in or staying means we don't actually get an opposition party bothering to be ambitious. Just be 'not as shit / corrupt as the incumbent lot' is all we end being promised.

[mjmooney]

And now it turns out I have to vote for an Arsenal supporter. 

[Jareth]

Also not voting Labour cos less shit. Will vote for them if decent policies announced. Am hoping.