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

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

It may not be a given that trade union membership means you're going to vote Labour now, I'll give you that, but workers still need their union in the same ways as always when it comes down to it, so pay their subs and be part of a union. Unions help people everyday with collective and individual industrial relations matters. They win pay deals, get better Ts&Cs, and help people in sickness and disciplinary meetings. On top of that our unions champion and campaign for equality, health and safety, and education etc.

Spot on. My beef with McLuskey chopping funding to Labour is that he decided to do that. The members are still paying into the political fund ( or not, if they opted out individually, as I did when Corbyn was leader). Despite some hard left folk getting all upset with Starmer about whatever, the Labour opposition is still the best place for that funding to go. Len playing games with other people’s money.

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think at a simple level it's the problem between those that believe that you believe in a thing and then get people to vote for it and those who believe that you try to match up to what people will vote for and then believe in that. 

I don’t agree. I accept what you’re saying, but that’s too simplistic for me. I completely agree that Labour is lacking focus and message, but I don’t think Starmer is any less of a believer in a thing than Corbyn was. His career suggests he is a believer in a thing.

For me the issue is that you need to know how to get to the thing you believe in and you need to then persuade the voters (as well as your own party) that you can actually achieve the thing. And of course the thing needs to be something the voters either also want, or can be persuaded they want.

All the parties and leaders say they believe in fairness and equality and people having good lives and healthcare and safety…

[dAVe80]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Spot on. My beef with McLuskey chopping funding to Labour is that he decided to do that. The members are still paying into the political fund ( or not, if they opted out individually, as I did when Corbyn was leader). Despite some hard left folk getting all upset with Starmer about whatever, the Labour opposition is still the best place for that funding to go. Len playing games with other people’s money.

I'm not the biggest fan of McLuskey, and I've heard some stories about him that are disappointing from some good friends. I would say that when it comes to spending political funds, unless you're involved as an officer of your branch, you're unlikely to get much of a say on where it goes. Maybe on a local level. I normally get a say in how my region spends our political find as part of the political committee. We decide on which MPs we give funding to etc, and who who we back as the candidate for things like mayoral elections . Obviously there are practical reasons for not giving everyone a say, and (certainly in my union) we elect political officers to make those decisions, so we don't have to vote on where every penny goes. As a member you get the chance to turn up at an AGM and vote for a different political officer every 12 months though. I agree that ideally it would be better to take a ballot on bigger decisions, although that would be time consuming and costly, and where do you draw the line? I think affiliation would be the biggest one. If a gen sec made that decision without consulting the members, or voting at conference, then there would be hell on. 

[OutByEaster?]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don’t agree. I accept what you’re saying, but that’s too simplistic for me. I completely agree that Labour is lacking focus and message, but I don’t think Starmer is any less of a believer in a thing than Corbyn was. His career suggests he is a believer in a thing.

I think it's very difficult to look at Starmer and think "there's a man that's lead by his beliefs". 

 

 

 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

unless you're involved as an officer of your branch, you're unlikely to get much of a say on where it goes

Yeah. From a member’s perspective I paid it for years, knowing, essentially, I’m giving the money to the Union to use in political work as the big wigs see fit. That’s fine. I stopped paying the levy when Corbyn was leader because [reasons], and that was my choice, but Len and a few cronies getting a paddy on with Starmer and cutting funding because of that doesn’t sit right with me. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think it's very difficult to look at Starmer and think "there's a man that's lead by his beliefs".

I agree at the moment. Same with Labour generally. That’s what both need to fix. 

[dAVe80]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yeah. From a member’s perspective I paid it for years, knowing, essentially, I’m giving the money to the Union to use in political work as the big wigs see fit. That’s fine. I stopped paying the levy when Corbyn was leader because [reasons], and that was my choice, but Len and a few cronies getting a paddy on with Starmer and cutting funding because of that doesn’t sit right with me. 

Well let's be honest about it. The reason unions donate to the party is the same reason business donate to the Tories. They want influence and power. If McLuskey or whoever is handing over money to the Labour Party, and not being involved in making decisions, and can't have the ear of the leader when he wants it, then that's going to influence the amount of money they give. 

Corbyn was happy to meet and talk to the affiliated unions, and have a link with the TUC, and go to the Durham Miners Gala every year. He was happy to let the unions help shape policy in the manifesto even. Starmer has moved away from that (rightly or wrongly, depending on which way you look at it). On top of that and very unfortunately, Starmer has been silent when it comes to publicly supporting the unions. Not supporting the teachers unions during covid, the spycops bill, British Gas engineers. It should be an easy win for him. It's bread and butter, and a sure-fire way of bringing in support and money. Obviously he's looking to break that link. Whether it's to minimise the power of the unions, or to win over business, who knows? 

Edited July 25, 2021 by dAVe80

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I don’t think Starmer is any less of a believer in a thing than Corbyn was

You're quite correct. He believes in throwing decent people under the bus. He believes in lying to people to get elected before sticking 2 fingers up at them and laughing. He believes in deceit and dishonesty.

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think it's very difficult to look at Starmer and think "there's a man that's lead by his beliefs". 

I'm not sure I agree. It's certainly fair to say that it's not clear what the precise nature of those beliefs is - and for various reasons that both are, and aren't his fault at the moment.

People are in politics for broadly three reasons - ideology, money or power. 

Money - he's earning a fraction of the money he could earn in his professional capacity, and his income right now is probably the lowest it has been in the last thirty years. So it ain't that.

Power - I could be being naive, but he doesn't strike me as a Johnsony "say whatever I have to say to be in charge and hang the consequences". So I don't think it's that, although I'd certainly not argue too much with anyone who disagreed with me on it. Normally people like that start trying to be MPs in their 20s, not their 50s.

Leaving ideology. He needs to get around to selling whatever the f**k that is pretty quickly, but I think it's why he's doing it. 

Edited July 25, 2021 by ml1dch

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

Leaving ideology. He needs to get around to selling whatever the f**k that is pretty quickly, but I think it's why he's doing it. 

He's been in charge for a year and a quarter and so far the only thing we know he believes in is government bonds.

I'd go with power, of a sort - I think he climbed the legal tree, looked around and thought where can I go from here - he has intelligence, he can manage bureaucracy, he speaks well, he's 'presentable' but I don't think he has any real belief, it's just part of his CV; Labour leader, hopefully PM. I'm increasingly convinced that Starmer is in politics for the benefit of his CV and I think it shows in the party he's created. It's nothing - nothing with good hair and a nice suit.

 

[dAVe80]

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

He's been in charge for a year and a quarter and so far the only thing we know he believes in is government bonds.

I'd go with power, of a sort - I think he climbed the legal tree, looked around and thought where can I go from here - he has intelligence, he can manage bureaucracy, he speaks well, he's 'presentable' but I don't think he has any real belief, it's just part of his CV; Labour leader, hopefully PM. I'm increasingly convinced that Starmer is in politics for the benefit of his CV and I think it shows in the party he's created. It's nothing - nothing with good hair and a nice suit.

 

I wonder if he's still got being a member of the  International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency on his CV?

[HanoiVillan]

4 hours ago, darrenm said:

You're quite correct. He believes in throwing decent people under the bus. He believes in lying to people to get elected before sticking 2 fingers up at them and laughing. He believes in deceit and dishonesty.

I wouldn't put it so dramatically, but it's along these lines.

The guy used to be a human rights lawyer, but has shown no interest in the topic while in the current role, and indeed eg whipped the party to abstain on the CHIS bill.

He was parachuted into a safe seat, and did not rise through the party in any traditional pathway of either the left, soft left or right.

He won the leadership contest on a platform of 10 pledges, absolutely none of which he appears to have any interest or intention of keeping, by pitching himself as basically loyal to Corbyn and hewing to something close to the 2017 manifesto, which again he clearly has no intention of doing. Yet at the same time, the right of the party are suspicious of him, and do not (yet?) regard him as one of their own.

People can, if they want, debate the merits of winning a leadership contest on a lie. Maybe people can make some kind of cynical, instrumentalist argument that whatever lie you have to tell to win power to 'save the party from itself' is worth doing or something. I personally think that's bullshit, but it's an argument that could be made. But what is harder to do is suggest that he is clearly 'a believer in a thing' in @blandy's words. On the contrary, I don't think there has been a Labour leader for many decades whose own personal politics are so well-hidden or whose approach is so cynical.

Edited July 25, 2021 by HanoiVillan

[Davkaus]

21 hours ago, dAVe80 said:

Starmer and Evans getting it in the Independent today, for getting rid of staff and hiring new staff on temporary contracts, with worse Ts and Cs. As a trade unionst who has fought for members in similar situations, this feels a lot like fire and rehire to me. A Labour Party that does not stand against this practice can't call itself the Labour Party. Sickening. 

They're offering voluntary redundancy to permanent staff to reduce costs, while bringing in some staff on fixed terms contracts for a short burst of high-volume work that isn't expected to persist beyond the contract. As it's a wide-reaching voluntary redundancy scheme, it's possible some of those people may have the needed skills for the temporary role, they're not doing the same role, and the FTC role still wouldn't be needed permanently.

I agree with the vast majority of the discussion since then, but it seems the article in the Independent is misleading, as is most of their work these days. It's not fire and rehire.

Tbh, the bit that struck me as most disappointing in their job add is that these roles, investigating official complaints, are to be processed on the personal devices of the temporary workers.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Davkaus

[Jareth]

Making Britain the best place to work - I'm sure this can be explained but it makes no sense in short form. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

Making Britain the best place to work

Too narrow,  lots of people like their job's but have zero chance of buying a house on their own for example.

A job is only part of it. 

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Too narrow,  lots of people like their job's but have zero chance of buying a house on their own for example.

A job is only part of it. 

I can't help read it and think the message is Britain is the best place to work, compared to other countries, but of course all those EU countries you can't go work in now. Or Britain is the best place, to work rather than not to work. Can't deduce one sensible message from it. 

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

Making Britain the best place to work - I'm sure this can be explained but it makes no sense in short form. 

Just had a read to see if there's any concrete proposals in there. Seems to be:

* Outlaw fire and rehire - solid
* Right to work flexibly - could mean anything
* Strengthen trade unions - interesting, given that the trade unions are moving away from Labour
* Fair and level playing field on tax between multinational giants and local businesses on our streets - Uh?
* Jobs promise - how?
* Living wage of £10 / hour - a bit underwhelming but that means you'll make £10 the minimum wage for anyone employed?

So 2 semi defined policies. Make fire and rehire illegal and perhaps make the minimum wage £10 / hour.

[Davkaus]

46 minutes ago, darrenm said:

* Living wage of £10 / hour - a bit underwhelming but that means you'll make £10 the minimum wage for anyone employed?

 

"For all" is a key phrase on this one. Are they really proposing scrapping the different NMW tiers? That's a very significant change. I've always had mixed thoughts on that, it is wage discrimination, but on the other hand, what's that going to do for employment figures for 18 year olds? Being allowed to pay them a bit less is an incentive to take on a younger applicant with absolutely no experience. Tough one.

I assume apprentices will remain excluded.

[OutByEaster?]

8 hours ago, Davkaus said:

"For all" is a key phrase on this one. Are they really proposing scrapping the different NMW tiers? That's a very significant change. I've always had mixed thoughts on that, it is wage discrimination, but on the other hand, what's that going to do for employment figures for 18 year olds? Being allowed to pay them a bit less is an incentive to take on a younger applicant with absolutely no experience. Tough one.

It's an interesting one that, I work in hospitality, an industry that employs thousands of young people on a temporary and hourly paid basis, I think you'd be surprised how many big companies now pay the full adult NMW to under 18's simply because it's cheaper to process everyone at the same rate than try to run two payrolls and having to move  people between bands as they hit eighteen.

 

[OutByEaster?]

8 hours ago, darrenm said:

* Fair and level playing field on tax between multinational giants and local businesses on our streets - Uh?

I like this as a concept, making sure that my local bike shop is able to sell a bike for the same price as Amazon because Amazon is forced to pay the same rate of tax as the bike shop is a noble idea.

How you make it happen is a mystery - Amazon has more influence over the UK than the UK has over Amazon.