|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 9, 2024 6:59:03 GMT
Don't know if they've improved in the last few years but when I was a union rep for them they were an absolute shambles. I was a union rep for Unite up until about 4 years ago. I had issues with McCluskey - he was more concerned with influencing the Labour Party than doing the right thing for tbe members - but the local office were pretty good. Sharon Graham came in just as I left and from what I understand from ex-union colleagues she has been a breath of fresh air and has refocused on the workplace rather than party politics and is prepared to challenge any party, including Labour, when they do things against the interest of workers. Which is how it should be. What I like about Unite was that it was and is genuinely democratic - local branches have the final say on local matters and are empowered to make decisions. This can be a double edged sword- if the elected local reps are good it works but it can go wrong if either a bunch of incompetents or a bunch of walnkers looking after their own self interest take over. I've certainly got far more time for Unite than the Labour Party in terms of their commitment to genuine democracy and improving the lives of working people - all Labour want is their vote and are lying through their teeth to get it.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 9, 2024 8:17:53 GMT
Don't know if they've improved in the last few years but when I was a union rep for them they were an absolute shambles. I was a union rep for Unite up until about 4 years ago. I had issues with McCluskey - he was more concerned with influencing the Labour Party than doing the right thing for tbe members - but the local office were pretty good. Sharon Graham came in just as I left and from what I understand from ex-union colleagues she has been a breath of fresh air and has refocused on the workplace rather than party politics and is prepared to challenge any party, including Labour, when they do things against the interest of workers. Which is how it should be. What I like about Unite was that it was and is genuinely democratic - local branches have the final say on local matters and are empowered to make decisions. This can be a double edged sword- if the elected local reps are good it works but it can go wrong if either a bunch of incompetents or a bunch of walnkers looking after their own self interest take over. I've certainly got far more time for Unite than the Labour Party in terms of their commitment to genuine democracy and improving the lives of working people - all Labour want is their vote and are lying through their teeth to get it. Sounds like they've made some much needed improvements. Calling my local office in East Anglia was genuinely like something out of Little Britain, I put them on speakerphone once when I was with my youngest, he was in stitches, it was beyond parody. When the area rep (finally) turned up at our workplace for a meeting about pay he was dressed like an extra from Ashes to Ashes and was of little practical help. After I left my job I my kept my membership open intending to use the 'free legal advice' at some point, that also turned into a farce, then they rang me a full 18 months after I needed them to ask if they could help! I'm glad they seem to have made improvements.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on May 9, 2024 15:22:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on May 9, 2024 16:13:05 GMT
Voters vote based upon what they care about. If she can’t connect with British citizens enough to keep her seat, that’s her problem.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 9, 2024 17:27:09 GMT
I hope she does, can't stand the women. She's an opportunist and a bully who only cares about number one. Maybe less people would see Gaza as a critical issue if there was something else being offered up by Labour or conservative. But there's nothing. I'm a pacifist so I'm opposed to war and I don't want to vote for a party which has supported Israel. Its not just about Gaza but its also about how the Israeli lobby interfered in our politics to take Jeremy Corbyn down too. Maybe if Starmer offered Corbyn domestic policies then I'd be able to turn a blind eye to Gaza. But right now I can't and if the policies got pulled out of a hat I still don't think I'd vote them because they've been shown up as liars so I can't trust them.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 9, 2024 17:30:24 GMT
I suspect Jess Phillips is trying to nudge the Labour Party towards a position more in line with why she resigned her Front-bench position It would take a swing of more than 27% away from Labour/Phillips, it could happen I suppose but I doubt it. Especially as the potential Candidate she would be facing would hold the same position The criticism last week was that International issues shouldn't enter local Elections, surely that doesn't apply to General Elections and Party's Foreign Policy positions In any case let's hope there is an peaceful end to the conflict well before the GE likely in October
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 9, 2024 19:01:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on May 10, 2024 21:19:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 11, 2024 0:10:03 GMT
And absolutely nothing has changed, save for maybe they're a lot more brazen about it nowadays ...
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on May 12, 2024 12:38:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 12, 2024 17:43:54 GMT
Brilliant speech. But it really hits home on just how bad the Tories have become, when you compare the charge sheet that Major is being embarassed with there, to what we've been forced to endure for the last five years. They're not even in the same stratosphere! 🤦♂️
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on May 12, 2024 17:55:07 GMT
John Smith one of very few politicians I liked.
A genuinly decent man. Such a shame he was taken so young.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on May 12, 2024 19:17:38 GMT
John Smith one of very few politicians I liked. A genuinly decent man. Such a shame he was taken so young. You can see how far we have fallen since the greatest PM we never had was the man to follow. These charlatans aren't fit to shine his shoes.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 12, 2024 23:09:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on May 13, 2024 0:26:49 GMT
I personally think that it’s interesting that in the UK, there is a debate about a policy that would allow people to have as many kids as they want and expect that the taxpayer just keep forking out for them. God forbid that people consider the idea of only having the kids that they can afford to look after themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 13, 2024 1:14:28 GMT
I personally think that it’s interesting that in the UK, there is a debate about a policy that would allow people to have as many kids as they want and expect that the taxpayer just keep forking out for them. God forbid that people consider the idea of only having the kids that they can afford to look after themselves. It's an incredibly important debate. It's not the child's fault that it has been born. EVERY child (no matter how many older siblings they have) should be entitled to exactly the same support from the state as any other child. Heaven forbid, if you follow your logic through to it's ultimate conclusion, we'll be denying them health care, simply because they weren't the first out of the womb.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on May 13, 2024 1:35:02 GMT
I personally think that it’s interesting that in the UK, there is a debate about a policy that would allow people to have as many kids as they want and expect that the taxpayer just keep forking out for them. God forbid that people consider the idea of only having the kids that they can afford to look after themselves. It's an incredibly important debate. It's not the child's fault that it has been born. EVERY child (no matter how many older siblings they have) should be entitled to exactly the same support from the state as any other child. Heaven forbid, if you follow your logic through to it's ultimate conclusion, we'll be denying them health care, simply because they weren't the first out of the womb. It’s not the child’s fault. It’s the parents for being irresponsible and expecting others to take care of them. I fully understand the moral argument for one or even two children. After that, it seems like an interest free loan system could be set up. It’s free money though, so I’ll absolutely be filing for the tax break next year over here. However, I don’t think it’s the best policy (though I’m skewed as I’m personally a believer in a one-child policy anyways).
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 13, 2024 1:37:40 GMT
I personally think that it’s interesting that in the UK, there is a debate about a policy that would allow people to have as many kids as they want and expect that the taxpayer just keep forking out for them. God forbid that people consider the idea of only having the kids that they can afford to look after themselves. It's an incredibly important debate. It's not the child's fault that it has been born. EVERY child (no matter how many older siblings they have) should be entitled to exactly the same support from the state as any other child. Heaven forbid, if you follow your logic through to it's ultimate conclusion, we'll be denying them health care, simply because they weren't the first out of the womb. It is simply following the Royal tradition of requiring an Heir and a Spare, preferably Male and up to quite recently compulsorily so. More seriously it endorses that the pattern of life is dictated from birth depending on the environment you are born into. Of course there are many exceptions of people who overcome the disadvantages they are born into. Conversely there are very few examples of people who are born into wealth who end up in penury.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 14, 2024 17:57:16 GMT
Inaccurate as I suspected but I'll wait final judgement until it becomes enacted in Law A joint statement from the Labour Party and Tulo (Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation) following Tuesday’s meeting said: “Labour and the affiliated unions had a constructive discussion today.
“Together we have reiterated Labour’s full commitment to the New Deal for Working People, as agreed in July.
“We will continue to work together at pace on how a Labour government would implement it in legislation.”I'm sure there are some within Labour, Mendleson for one and probably some within PLP who oppose New Deal which is possibly the source of the inaccurate rumours to create disord www.thenational.scot/politics/24320335.labours-new-deal-will-implemented-as-agreed-keir-starmer-says/
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 14, 2024 18:53:09 GMT
Inaccurate as I suspected but I'll wait final judgement until it becomes enacted in Law A joint statement from the Labour Party and Tulo (Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation) following Tuesday’s meeting said: “Labour and the affiliated unions had a constructive discussion today.
“Together we have reiterated Labour’s full commitment to the New Deal for Working People, as agreed in July.
“We will continue to work together at pace on how a Labour government would implement it in legislation.”I'm sure there are some within Labour, Mendleson for one and probably some within PLP who oppose New Deal which is possibly the source of the inaccurate rumours to create disord www.thenational.scot/politics/24320335.labours-new-deal-will-implemented-as-agreed-keir-starmer-says/ What was inaccurate? He made a u turn, he got called out for it by unite. A meeting was organised this morning with the unions. The winds blown a different direction and he's went back on himself. Or are you suggesting that the chief of unite was inaccurate in her statement? Similar to how he says the public are also inaccurate when they remind him of his interview on LBC where he said Israel has the right to turn of water and electric? I think we've found labours philiteen. Here's the original quote from Unite on the documents which they received from the Labour party: So Unite were inaccurate wannabe as you suspected and they just completely misinterpreted the document they received? And coincidentally after a meeting with unions, what was suggested by Unite, in the final paragraph quoted above - most certainly did not happen. Instead Keir never tried to change course and told them all how they've misunderstood the document, like you suspected all the unions did, and their statements were inaccurate? But we all know the "inaccurate as suspected" wasn't about quotes provided by Union leaders. It was about me. The reply days later and the language used just reinforces what I said here last week; What I'd say you're blatantly trying to do here Wannabe is be very calculated in how you behave but lacking the self awareness that others see through it. You clearly have an issue with me rightfully criticising the actions of this right wing Labour party and that's grinding your gears so at every possible opportunity where you think I've got something wrong you're there trying to discredit me. It all feels rather similar to last weeks rodeo. I post something - you read it but don't reply. Suddenly when you think you've got an opportunity to show I'm "inaccurate as you suspect" you quote it. If the "inaccurate as you suspect" is instead directed at the unions commenting on documents they received from the Labour party then I retract the above. But I highly doubt that you genuinely believe multiple people in unions would have misinterpreted documentation sent to them by Labour. Thus I presume that language was instead directed at myself for my "u turn" comment along with a link to Unites comments. Which again would be strange because for that to be true then you'd also be implying what I said in my last paragraph. I have a few comments in the thread from around 6 months ago on Keir Starmer u turning on abolishing the house of lords. Feel free to add them to the bank so you can quote them and say they're inaccurate if he changes his mind in the next few years. Also have a few comments on the new Dover mp for labour too. Maybe if he removes the whip you can say that Natalie joining Labour was also wrong as you suspected. All love here buddy. But I can do this all night 😁. MAKE LABOUR GREAT AGAIN
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 14, 2024 20:05:09 GMT
Inaccurate as I suspected but I'll wait final judgement until it becomes enacted in Law A joint statement from the Labour Party and Tulo (Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation) following Tuesday’s meeting said: “Labour and the affiliated unions had a constructive discussion today.
“Together we have reiterated Labour’s full commitment to the New Deal for Working People, as agreed in July.
“We will continue to work together at pace on how a Labour government would implement it in legislation.”I'm sure there are some within Labour, Mendleson for one and probably some within PLP who oppose New Deal which is possibly the source of the inaccurate rumours to create disord www.thenational.scot/politics/24320335.labours-new-deal-will-implemented-as-agreed-keir-starmer-says/ What was inaccurate? He made a u turn, he got called out for it by unite. A meeting was organised this morning with the unions. The winds blown a different direction and he's went back on himself. Or are you suggesting that the chief of unite was inaccurate in her statement? Similar to how he says the public are also inaccurate when they remind him of his interview on LBC where he said Israel has the right to turn of water and electric? I think we've found labours philiteen. Here's the original quote from Unite on the documents which they received from the Labour party: So Unite were inaccurate wannabe as you suspected and they just completely misinterpreted the document they received? And coincidentally after a meeting with unions, what was suggested by Unite, in the final paragraph quoted above - most certainly did not happen. Instead Keir never tried to change course and told them all how they've misunderstood the document, like you suspected all the unions did, and their statements were inaccurate? But we all know the "inaccurate as suspected" wasn't about quotes provided by Union leaders. It was about me. The reply days later and the language used just reinforces what I said here last week; What I'd say you're blatantly trying to do here Wannabe is be very calculated in how you behave but lacking the self awareness that others see through it. You clearly have an issue with me rightfully criticising the actions of this right wing Labour party and that's grinding your gears so at every possible opportunity where you think I've got something wrong you're there trying to discredit me. It all feels rather similar to last weeks rodeo. I post something - you read it but don't reply. Suddenly when you think you've got an opportunity to show I'm "inaccurate as you suspect" you quote it. If the "inaccurate as you suspect" is instead directed at the unions commenting on documents they received from the Labour party then I retract the above. But I highly doubt that you genuinely believe multiple people in unions would have misinterpreted documentation sent to them by Labour. Thus I presume that language was instead directed at myself for my "u turn" comment along with a link to Unites comments. Which again would be strange because for that to be true then you'd also be implying what I said in my last paragraph. I have a few comments in the thread from around 6 months ago on Keir Starmer u turning on abolishing the house of lords. Feel free to add them to the bank so you can quote them and say they're inaccurate if he changes his mind in the next few years. Also have a few comments on the new Dover mp for labour too. Maybe if he removes the whip you can say that Natalie joining Labour was also wrong as you suspected. All love here buddy. But I can do this all night 😁. MAKE LABOUR GREAT AGAIN My previous post on this was (can't do boxes) He said, she said Ultimately Unions have a choice to support Labour Financially or not labourlist.org/2024/05/labour-new-deal-working-people-policy-manifesto-no-u-turn/ I had heard numerous Shadow Ministers before and after the Union Lady's outburst say there was no U-turn At that point I was prepared to wait for today's meeting before making a judgement I still want to see the Legislation enacted which if it is will the most transformative piece of Legislation in Workers Rights for Decades, surely that's the important issue Anyway back to the footie
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 14, 2024 22:17:04 GMT
Inaccurate as I suspected but I'll wait final judgement until it becomes enacted in Law A joint statement from the Labour Party and Tulo (Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation) following Tuesday’s meeting said: “Labour and the affiliated unions had a constructive discussion today.
“Together we have reiterated Labour’s full commitment to the New Deal for Working People, as agreed in July.
“We will continue to work together at pace on how a Labour government would implement it in legislation.”I'm sure there are some within Labour, Mendleson for one and probably some within PLP who oppose New Deal which is possibly the source of the inaccurate rumours to create disord www.thenational.scot/politics/24320335.labours-new-deal-will-implemented-as-agreed-keir-starmer-says/ Now that I have happily seen Arsenal lose the League I'll add a few more small points as I previously only skimmed your post Firstly I'll relink Reeves Statement that there was no U-turn as I'm not sure it worked last time. A critical point was it was made before Sharon Graham intervention. I know that Politicians lie but this would be extraordinary and as I said previously several Shadow Ministers had said the same. labourlist.org/2024/05/labour-new-deal-working-people-policy-manifesto-no-u-turn/This is quite crucial as it's in response to the original source claiming a U-turn in an Article in the Financial Times by Jim Pickford before Sharon Graham's comments In my view Sharon Graham misinterpreted that a) Business Consultation meant a business Veto, it doesn't and b) that it would be legislated into Law within 100 days, it's simply not possible Sharon Graham has accepted both of those positions when asked tonight The essential point is THERE IS NO WATERING DOWN FROM AGREED NEW DEAL POLICY AGREED WITH UNIONS IN JULY 2023 The "leak" was reported "Inaccurately" by FT by Jim Pickford picked up by Owen Jones and others. That's what I said was inaccurate, you posting an inaccurate link of a commentary from Owen Jones can't be inaccurate, the commentary is inaccurate Bizarrely Pickford is still tweeting tonight that the New Deal has been "Watered Down" Reluctantly returning to the Rodeo my immediate reaction to viewing the video was that it didn't look right, but I had no evidence one way or the other. The fact I was proved to be correct is neither here nor there but neither cautioning to wait for Official confirmation of Labour Party Policy or if the video posted by Ahmed Yacoob was my personal opinion and absolutely nothing towards you.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 16, 2024 8:48:11 GMT
Apparently releasing 6 pledges today. Hopefully a few good ones in there to give people some hope.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on May 16, 2024 9:03:06 GMT
Apparently releasing 6 pledges today. Hopefully a few good ones in there to give people some hope. Nothing exactly groundbreaking. “Cut down on antisocial behaviour”, is less of a pledge and more of a minimum that should be done by the govt 😂
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on May 16, 2024 9:07:39 GMT
A new Green energy company is a good start.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 16, 2024 11:10:40 GMT
Apparently releasing 6 pledges today. Hopefully a few good ones in there to give people some hope. Nothing exactly groundbreaking. “Cut down on antisocial behaviour”, is less of a pledge and more of a minimum that should be done by the govt 😂 Sticking to tough spending rules in order to deliver economic stability. - Pro austerity. Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes - Funding by sunaks non dom change. Surely a given pledge for any PM? Launching a border security command to stop the gangs arranging small boat crossings - "smash the gangs" could be useful tbf. Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company - this is good but would be much better with the 28 billion investment originally promised. Providing more neighbourhood police officers to reduce antisocial behaviour and introduced new penalties for offenders - petty crime stuff which may help with stats but not going to greatly improve my life. Recruiting 6,500 teachers, paid for through ending tax breaks for private schools - Ending tax breaks for private schools is good. Don't have children or know about teaching levels but presume this one is decent. Not exactly inspiring in my view.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on May 16, 2024 11:30:50 GMT
How does the Great British energy thing work. Do we produce energy without the need to worry about investors, shareholders etc. If so, how is it priced . Is it priced by the global energy market to which we are a signatory or do we get an exemption. Lets say we get an exemption. How is it distributed to the consumer. Do we set up a supplier to distribute this cheaper energy or do they just sell it to private concerns who then lick their lips and sell it to us consumers at the current higher prices, while raking in even more profits. Just trying to figure out how it would work to benefit us users.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 16, 2024 11:38:14 GMT
How does the Great British energy thing work. Do we produce energy without the need to worry about investors, shareholders etc. If so, how is it priced . Is it priced by the global energy market to which we are a signatory or do we get an exemption. Lets say we get an exemption. How is it distributed to the consumer. Do we set up a supplier to distribute this cheaper energy or do they just sell it to private concerns who then lick their lips and sell it to us consumers at the current higher prices, while raking in even more profits. Just trying to figure out how it would work to benefit us users. My guess is it would be tax payer funded because if it isn't then its not really publicly owned. Maybe just building a load of wind farms and stuff and then whatever energy they produce gets shared out/deducted from our bills? No idea. @wannabe is usually quite good at looking at the detail so maybe he can give us more info on it and how it will benefit the average person or how many years it may take to see return on investment.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on May 16, 2024 11:47:18 GMT
How does the Great British energy thing work. Do we produce energy without the need to worry about investors, shareholders etc. If so, how is it priced . Is it priced by the global energy market to which we are a signatory or do we get an exemption. Lets say we get an exemption. How is it distributed to the consumer. Do we set up a supplier to distribute this cheaper energy or do they just sell it to private concerns who then lick their lips and sell it to us consumers at the current higher prices, while raking in even more profits. Just trying to figure out how it would work to benefit us users. My guess is it would be tax payer funded because if it isn't then its not really publicly owned. Maybe just building a load of wind farms and stuff and then whatever energy they produce gets shared out/deducted from our bills? No idea. @wannabe is usually quite good at looking at the detail so maybe he can give us more info on it and how it will benefit the average person or how many years it may take to see return on investment. Yes mate, I believe the production would be a national asset. Its the distribution to us that hasn't been explained. We can sell it to ourselves which would be cheaper for us, or throw it in with all the other produced energy and leave us at the mercy of private companies who will probably capitalise on cheaper energy for profit rather than to benefit us. Maybe I'm wrong but with energy wholesale prices set by the global market I fear it will be the latter who supply it to consumers.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 16, 2024 12:18:49 GMT
It feels a bit like taking your car with a faulty engine, brakes and clutch to the mechanic.
And the mechanic tells you he is going to do an oil change and give you new window wipers.
|
|