Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Keir Starmer


rb14
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

I think it's good in theory but in practice it can throw up problems, such as the labour MP being 'held to account' by the relatively small number of people who control the CLP, rather than the tens of thousands of wider voters who put them there. During their tenure rather than pushing the agenda of the constituency they end up trying to appease what is usually three or four people. 

 

'you didn't vote X on our Punjabi amendment at conference, your work on the local bus station replacement buys you no favours here.'

 

I can only speak from experience but the shot callers in the CLP of the labour MP I worked for didn't like him for the simple reason that they wanted one of their family members to get the job but they were never selected. They'd wanted them in post so they could get jobs with them. As a result, they didn't campaign for him and looked for any chance to undermine him. He was a decent local MP though IMO and popular with the wider electorate.

 

There can be a lot of power games at CLPs, bullying and abject cuntery. Good people sure, but often drowned out.

CLPs need democratising, too. The idea of "delegates only" meetings is horseshit: all meetings should be open to all members.  Then, for candidate selection, anyone who can get x% (a threshold high enough to deter self-interested wreckers) of the membership to nominate them can stand for a One Member One Vote election. In practice, most MPs would still get selected unopposed, but it would be harder to attack them by claiming a lack of democratic credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever your thoughts on Starmer (And I actually think he has had some very good PMQs and I do believe he has some sort of plan although how much it aligns with traditional Labour values I have no idea) there is no excuse after the last 18 months to be behind that Tory government. They have to be the worst government we have ever seen by an absolute country mile, scandal and shame throughout and an absolute buffoon in charge yet Starmer/Labour still can't get close. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Whatever your thoughts on Starmer (And I actually think he has had some very good PMQs and I do believe he has some sort of plan although how much it aligns with traditional Labour values I have no idea) there is no excuse after the last 18 months to be behind that Tory government. They have to be the worst government we have ever seen by an absolute country mile, scandal and shame throughout and an absolute buffoon in charge yet Starmer/Labour still can't get close. 

 

I'm not inspired at all by Starmer but there's a lot of weird shit going on in wider society that I'd say is beyond his control. The 'wartime mentality' of Covid coupled with the post Brexit general weirdness of vast swathes of the working class electorste. You only have to look at some of the voter interviews around Hartlepool. They weren't pillorying Labour for not being left wing, they were slagging them off for nonsense shit such as the local hospital being understaffed (?!). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Whatever your thoughts on Starmer (And I actually think he has had some very good PMQs and I do believe he has some sort of plan although how much it aligns with traditional Labour values I have no idea) there is no excuse after the last 18 months to be behind that Tory government. They have to be the worst government we have ever seen by an absolute country mile, scandal and shame throughout and an absolute buffoon in charge yet Starmer/Labour still can't get close. 

Let's not forget when analysing polls the fact that we have been in a pandemic and this government has dished out a lot of fulough/grant/loan money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Let's not forget when analysing polls the fact that we have been in a pandemic and this government has dished out a lot of fulough/grant/loan money. 

I don't think it's a case of people thinking "Paid to stay at home? These are the good times!  Thank you, Tories!"

 

I do think that the "Boris is doing his best/imagine how bad it would be if Corbyn had won" propaganda has been allowed to take hold; partly because of the way our media & political system is rigged and partly because of Labour’s ineffectiveness. 

 

Also, the pandemic is providing cover for the shitshow that is Brexit* - and in any case, the EU are being blamed for that.

 

 

(* It really is, despite the temporary pay rises in some sectors.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I don't think it's a case of people thinking "Paid to stay at home? These are the good times!  Thank you, Tories!"

 

I didn't mean it to sound like a bagslap for the government, they only gave the aid because they had little choice and an awful lot of aid has had to be given, add in the pandemic and our successful vaccination program and imo the polls are skewed.

Quote

 

I do think that the "Boris is doing his best/imagine how bad it would be if Corbyn had won" propaganda has been allowed to take hold; partly because of the way our media & political system is rigged and partly because of Labour’s ineffectiveness. 

 

Also, the pandemic is providing cover for the shitshow that is Brexit* - and in any case, the EU are being blamed for that.

 

 

(* It really is, despite the temporary pay rises in some sectors.)

 I'm not going into Brexit on this thread  but once the Covid furlough/aid money stops the shitshow starts. Most sitting governments have seen a poll bounce so I wouldn't look too deeply into polls at this stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gnasher said:

 

I didn't mean it to sound like a bagslap for the government, they only gave the aid because they had little choice and an awful lot of aid has had to be given, add in the pandemic and our successful vaccination program and imo the polls are skewed.

 I'm not going into Brexit on this thread  but once the Covid furlough/aid money stops the shitshow starts. Most sitting governments have seen a poll bounce so I wouldn't look too deeply into polls at this stage.

Labour really should have been making more of the fact that the Govt. needed to be kicked and dragged into providing support - furlough payments, rent protection, school meals, etc. - every step of the way. Instead, the Tories are getting credit because they've done the bare minimum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Section_31 said:

I think it's good in theory but in practice it can throw up problems, such as the labour MP being 'held to account' by the relatively small number of people who control the CLP, rather than the tens of thousands of wider voters who put them there.

 

That's the entire purpose of it, of course. A feature, not a bug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Labour really should have been making more of the fact that the Govt. needed to be kicked and dragged into providing support - furlough payments, rent protection, school meals, etc. - every step of the way. Instead, the Tories are getting credit because they've done the bare minimum. 

My gravestone will read "did the bare minimum whilst avoiding responsibility"

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Nah.

 

Agreed, I think it was done for the right reasons - MPs should be answerable to the membership in some ways, it also stops them betting lazy. 

 

The problem is that human nature makes certain people try and harness whatever means they can to achieve control for their own ends, we've seen that ourselves with Labour in Liverpool - it's how do you stop that happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Labour really should have been making more of the fact that the Govt. needed to be kicked and dragged into providing support - furlough payments, rent protection, school meals, etc. - every step of the way. Instead, the Tories are getting credit because they've done the bare minimum. 

I agree. As I said I'm not in any way giving this government credit just saying its strange times with the pandemic and the polls may be giving false readings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

I agree. As I said I'm not in any way giving this government credit just saying its strange times with the pandemic and the polls may be giving false readings.

Mate, I think I'm right in saying that you'd rather shove an angry wasp down your hog's eye than give this Government any credit  - and that does you credit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Mate, I think I'm right in saying that you'd rather shove an angry wasp down your hog's eye than give this Government any credit  - and that does you credit!

Yes Angry, but you've put it more succinctly than I ever could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

So it looks like we've still got zero hour contracts to look forward to if Labour win the next election, according to our modern day John Prescott..

 

 

It might be difficult to fathom, but there are workers who like zero hour contracts. A TUC poll showed 25% of workers like them. So Angela Rayner is right, it's the exploitation of them that needs to stop, not the contracts themselves.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, skend04 said:

It might be difficult to fathom, but there are workers who like zero hour contracts. A TUC poll showed 25% of workers like them. So Angela Rayner is right, it's the exploitation of them that needs to stop, not the contracts themselves.

If a poll showed 25% of workers liked them I'm on the side of the 75% who don't. 

 

I'm not surprised you're the first to defend a practice that makes it easier to exploite low paid workers though, you've got history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like zero hours contracts but in my day they were just called temp contracts, certain industries have always used them such as pubs. I did them for years while I was at uni. I think the problem comes when you want a permanent job and you can't get one, I was only working part time back then but I can't imagine how stressful it must have been doing it full time if you had a family to support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of these zero hour contracts are NOT temp jobs or jobs people most people take passing through before going on to Uni or better things.

 

For most they ARE their job, remember zero hour contracts do not allow sick pay so forcing people to work whilst sick, if you get sacked you'll receive benefit sanctions. They should be outlawed.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34178412

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I don't like zero hours contracts but in my day they were just called temp contracts, certain industries have always used them such as pubs. I did them for years while I was at uni. I think the problem comes when you want a permanent job and you can't get one, I was only working part time back then but I can't imagine how stressful it must have been doing it full time if you had a family to support.

Their is a difference between temp and zero hour contracts jobs. With temps the boss is not obliged to offer work but the employee is also not obliged to take the work offered.

 

With zero hour the employee must by terms of contract take any work offered, if they do not they can be legally sacked and then not eligible for benefits. So basically fucked.

 

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/voices/comment/zero-hours-v-casual-contracts#gref

 

 

Edit, theirs a good reason they brought out zero hour contracts and didn't just stick to the old temp/casual system.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

Their is a difference between temp and zero hour contracts jobs. With temps the boss is not obliged to offer work but the employee is also not obliged to take the work offered.

 

With zero hour the employee must by terms of contract take any work offered, if they do not they can be legally sacked and then not eligible for benefits. So basically fucked.

 

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/voices/comment/zero-hours-v-casual-contracts#gref

 

 

 

 

 

That is shit then, it can get fucked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...