Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

The best thing about our system is that every single person in the country gets an equal vote under equal circumstances. Unless a National ID card scheme is introduced this will just alienate poorer voters. Just another way to rig the system.

GSC wrote:Liz Truss saying the last 20 years of economic policy haven't worked while a Conservative government has been in power for the last 12 years is a real mood

Inject more "Liz Truss says she was wrong in 2016 when she said that Brexit would drive away investment and make Britain poorer despite the fact that thats exactly whats happened" directly into my veins.

Can we start a book on how long she'll last? I mean the longer the better but can you really see the Tories letting her lead them into a GE vs Starmer?

Starmer? Yes
Anyone competent? Probably no

The people who wanted a change have a choice of Boris' chancellor and his foreign secretary
The people who didn't want change want Boris over either of these two. Can imagine the membership isn't best pleased by this choice

Of course Truss will still be there for the next GE, they're hardly going to turf her out inside the next 18 months (bar a Sam Allardyce scandal). She'll probably beat Ed Starmer at the GE so she'll be around for a fair while. Probably at least four years, if she wins this vote, of course.

And no, I don't imagine the membership is too happy. The membership is generally more conservative than the mostly Blairite-centre mass of MPs that exist in the Tory Party, there's quite a disconnect. Had this election been the other way round - members whittling it down to the final two for MPs to make the final choice - then it would have likely been a Badenoch v Braverman final. Sunak wouldn't have got anywhere close.

One of the many good things for Labour about Truss being prime minister is that at a stroke, the attack line that Starmer voted Remain is taken away from the Tories. There's nothing there for them now, given that it's party policy not to re-join the single market.

Kwasi Kwarteng announced that the Tories have changed the law to allow companies to hire "skilled, temporary workers" to mitigate disruption due to strike action. This despite all the furore and faux outrage at P&O doing the same thing.

Running roughshod over workers rights.

Samo wrote:Kwasi Kwarteng announced that the Tories have changed the law to allow companies to hire "skilled, temporary workers" to mitigate disruption due to strike action.  This despite all the furore and faux outrage at P&O doing the same thing.

Running roughshod over workers rights.  

Strike action is not the same as firing and hiring.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Samo wrote:Kwasi Kwarteng announced that the Tories have changed the law to allow companies to hire "skilled, temporary workers" to mitigate disruption due to strike action.  This despite all the furore and faux outrage at P&O doing the same thing.

Running roughshod over workers rights.  

Strike action is not the same as firing and hiring.

Its exactly the same thing. You hire these temporary workers then Poopie can the strikers.

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Samo wrote:Kwasi Kwarteng announced that the Tories have changed the law to allow companies to hire "skilled, temporary workers" to mitigate disruption due to strike action.  This despite all the furore and faux outrage at P&O doing the same thing.

Running roughshod over workers rights.  

Strike action is not the same as firing and hiring.

Its exactly the same thing.  You hire these temporary workers then Poopie can the strikers.

No that's not at all true, you can hire temporary staff to mitigate for staff shortages during strike action. If industrial action is lawful you cannot fire staff who strike.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Samo wrote:Kwasi Kwarteng announced that the Tories have changed the law to allow companies to hire "skilled, temporary workers" to mitigate disruption due to strike action.  This despite all the furore and faux outrage at P&O doing the same thing.

Running roughshod over workers rights.  

Strike action is not the same as firing and hiring.

Its exactly the same thing.  You hire these temporary workers then Poopie can the strikers.

No that's not at all true, you can hire temporary staff to mitigate for staff shortages during strike action. If industrial action is lawful you cannot fire staff who strike.

It renders strike action completely redundant if your employer can just hire cheap staff to plugs the gaps.

Strike action is a fundamental component of a democracy. If you support this change you can hand in your democrat card now.

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Samo wrote:Kwasi Kwarteng announced that the Tories have changed the law to allow companies to hire "skilled, temporary workers" to mitigate disruption due to strike action.  This despite all the furore and faux outrage at P&O doing the same thing.

Running roughshod over workers rights.  

Strike action is not the same as firing and hiring.

Its exactly the same thing.  You hire these temporary workers then Poopie can the strikers.

No that's not at all true, you can hire temporary staff to mitigate for staff shortages during strike action. If industrial action is lawful you cannot fire staff who strike.

It renders strike action completely redundant if your employer can just hire cheap staff to plugs the gaps.

Strike action is a fundamental component of a democracy. If you support this change you can hand in your democrat card now.

It doesn't render strike action redundant at all, it allows a company to mitigate it's losses during that period. Short term untrained staff will not completely plug the gaps as you make out.

So it isn't actually anything like P&O after all then.

Yes I do support this change, democracy is not all about employee rights, democracy is also their to protect employers.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Samo wrote:Kwasi Kwarteng announced that the Tories have changed the law to allow companies to hire "skilled, temporary workers" to mitigate disruption due to strike action.  This despite all the furore and faux outrage at P&O doing the same thing.

Running roughshod over workers rights.  

Strike action is not the same as firing and hiring.

Its exactly the same thing.  You hire these temporary workers then Poopie can the strikers.

No that's not at all true, you can hire temporary staff to mitigate for staff shortages during strike action. If industrial action is lawful you cannot fire staff who strike.

It renders strike action completely redundant if your employer can just hire cheap staff to plugs the gaps.

Strike action is a fundamental component of a democracy. If you support this change you can hand in your democrat card now.

It doesn't render strike action redundant at all, it allows a company to mitigate it's losses during that period. Short term untrained staff will not completely plug the gaps as you make out.

So it isn't actually anything like P&O after all then.

Yes I do support this change, democracy is not all about employee rights, democracy is also their to protect employers.

You cant have a properly functioning democracy when the ones with more money have more power. Thats why workers rights are so important because it levels the playing field a bit.

It definitely renders strike action redundant, because employers have no incentive to negotiate with their staff, which unlevels the playing field, which harms democracy. I never said democracy is solely based on workers rights, but its hard for one to funtion properly when things are unequal.

I thought you Brexity types were against workers being undercut and losing wages.

There is still incentive to negotiate with staff when you do not have your full trained workforce, this isn't going to suddenly render trained jobs obsolete. I don't really have an issue with the democratic processes of the UK and it works as it should do, do not confuse not getting what you want with democracy failing.

Us Brexity types? I voted leave but it's never been a hill to die on for me, it's becoming the Godwin's Law of the 2020's.

So how's it going over all, SR? Still happy with your vote?

Any advantages at all you can come up with?

New YouGov poll has Truss beating Sunak 49%-31%, with only 15% being DK and 5% abstaining - leads to an overall figure of 62%-38% in Truss' favour.

Snookers required for Sunak.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Us Brexity types? I voted leave but it's never been a hill to die on for me, it's becoming the Godwin's Law of the 2020's.

Pr4wn wrote:So how's it going over all, SR? Still happy with your vote?

Any advantages at all you can come up with?

Nice to see Truss and Sunak telling each other they're idiots.

Didn't watch it (can't have too much of a good thing) but the snap poll from Opinium has Sunak performing best by 39%-38%, which isn't enough for him to shift the dial.

Duty281 wrote:Didn't watch it (can't have too much of a good thing) but the snap poll from Opinium has Sunak performing best by 39%-38%, which isn't enough for him to shift the dial.

And that was only among 'regular voters'. a Tory-only poll had Truss quite a way ahead.

I really do think it's funny that the right of the party have found themselves with Liz Truss - Liz Truss! - as their best bet at winning the next election. They're pretending to be enthusiastic, she's pretending to be authoritative, it's great.

Well it was their choice. The right of the party could have united themselves behind Badenoch, a genuine Conservative and a move away from the centre ground that the Tories have been going towards for the last thirty years, but they've decided to back a former Liberal Democrat.

And now the members have to back her, because Sunak is highly unlikely to win a GE, but Truss can actually do it.

ComRes preferred PM polling - Truss 38-37 Starmer; Starmer 40-36 Sunak.

Starmer's having an atrocious start to the week, fortunately for him it's mostly masked by the Tory leadership debate. His shadow cabinet have had open disagreements on nationalisation of various public services, his ten leadership pledges are in tatters, and some woman in Liverpool took him to task yesterday.

https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1551594412781846530

Very frustrating stuff for Labour. 2015 and 2017 were very winnable elections for Labour, but Miliband and Corbyn were both duds, now 2024 is shaping up the same way with Rodney-you-plonker at the helm.

The IMF has said that the UK is set for the slowest economic growth in the G7 this year.

But fear not, people. More unfunded tax cuts will dig us out. No problem.

What is the Brexit teat sucking view on this stupendous growth forecast?

Labour falling apart again as Starmer's week gets worse. Oh how many Labour members now wish that Starmer did get fined.

Truss a 1/6 favourite to beat Sunak. But the circus will be dragged out.

Shot himself in the foot but he was between a rock and a hard place. If Tarry hadn't done media and just stayed on the picket line he'd've got a slap on the wrist and kept his job. Starmer had to show strong leadership and sack him, but its coming across as him being sacked for supporting the Unions. Starmer needs to come out and clear this up as an act of damage limitation.

Still cant fathom why Starmer would try and stop his MP's from standing with pickets anyway.

There is a false equivalence between Starmer imposing discipline and the Tories f*cking the whole country as they are. It is important we keep a sense of proportion here.

The Tories are going to fan the flames of this for all they're worth - and why wouldn't they? - but I don't think Starmer should worry too much. These strikes will damage the Government more than they'll damage Labour. It is frustrating though that some in the Labour party can't see the bigger picture, and the common enemy.

Starmer's action yesterday reminded me much of lyrics from America Pie (with a slight change). The day the Labour Party died (not the music died).

He sacked a MP standing alongside workers standing up for their rights - something that the Labour Party once stood for. Not anymore. A vote now for Labour is a vote for a red Tory.

Except that's not why he was sacked. Can we please not do the Tories' work for them? He was sacked for booking himself onto live national news, in one instance declaring himself to be the shadow transport secretary, and making up policy on the hoof. Why should that be tolerated?

Several other Labour MPs have joined picket lines recently, and haven't been similarly disciplined, because they didn't do what Sam Tarry did.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Except that's not why he was sacked. Can we please not do the Tories' work for them? He was sacked for booking himself onto life national news, declaring himself to be the shadow transport secretary, and making up policy on the hoof. Why should that be tolerated?

Starmer chose to sack him for it. The sacking came out of the blue (pardon the pun) so Starmer could have given him a dressing down for what he did. To sack him tells every worker out there that Labour are no longer fighting in their corner.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Except that's not why he was sacked. Can we please not do the Tories' work for them? He was sacked for booking himself onto life national news, declaring himself to be the shadow transport secretary, and making up policy on the hoof. Why should that be tolerated?

Starmer chose to sack him for it. The sacking came out of the blue (pardon the pun) so Starmer could have given him a dressing down for what he did. To sack him tells every worker out there that Labour are no longer fighting in their corner.

No it doesn't.

Soul Requiem wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Except that's not why he was sacked. Can we please not do the Tories' work for them? He was sacked for booking himself onto life national news, declaring himself to be the shadow transport secretary, and making up policy on the hoof. Why should that be tolerated?

Starmer chose to sack him for it. The sacking came out of the blue (pardon the pun) so Starmer could have given him a dressing down for what he did. To sack him tells every worker out there that Labour are no longer fighting in their corner.

No it doesn't.

Come on. Labour once stood for workers' rights and depend on unions backing their party. The unions today are furious with his sacking. Clues have been there in recent years (probably from Blair years who had a lot of Tory policies in him) that Labour had transformed from what they once were and yesterday's actions is just more evidence that the Labour Party is unrecognisable now from what it once was and stood for.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Except that's not why he was sacked. Can we please not do the Tories' work for them? He was sacked for booking himself onto life national news, declaring himself to be the shadow transport secretary, and making up policy on the hoof. Why should that be tolerated?

Starmer chose to sack him for it. The sacking came out of the blue (pardon the pun) so Starmer could have given him a dressing down for what he did. To sack him tells every worker out there that Labour are no longer fighting in their corner.

No it doesn't.

Come on. Labour once stood for workers' rights and depend on unions backing their party. The unions today are furious with his sacking. Clues have been there in recent years (probably from Blair years who had a lot of Tory policies in him) that Labour had transformed from what they once were and yesterday's actions is just more evidence that the Labour Party is unrecognisable now from what it once was and stood for.

Yesterdays sacking has nothing to do with the unions (they'll be furious about anything and everything anyway) but everything to do with a Labour MP going rogue on his own party. The only person to blame in this situation is Sam Tarry, there is a right and a wrong way of doing things.

So what if Blair adopted Torylite policies and who cares if the Tories do likewise, it's about adapting to the current climate not stagnating.

Soul Requiem wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Except that's not why he was sacked. Can we please not do the Tories' work for them? He was sacked for booking himself onto life national news, declaring himself to be the shadow transport secretary, and making up policy on the hoof. Why should that be tolerated?

Starmer chose to sack him for it. The sacking came out of the blue (pardon the pun) so Starmer could have given him a dressing down for what he did. To sack him tells every worker out there that Labour are no longer fighting in their corner.

No it doesn't.

Come on. Labour once stood for workers' rights and depend on unions backing their party. The unions today are furious with his sacking. Clues have been there in recent years (probably from Blair years who had a lot of Tory policies in him) that Labour had transformed from what they once were and yesterday's actions is just more evidence that the Labour Party is unrecognisable now from what it once was and stood for.

Yesterdays sacking has nothing to do with the unions (they'll be furious about anything and everything anyway) but everything to do with a Labour MP going rogue on his own party. The only person to blame in this situation is Sam Tarry, there is a right and a wrong way of doing things.

So what if Blair adopted Torylite policies and who cares if the Tories do likewise, it's about adapting to the current climate not stagnating.

And so you do agree that Labour have changed? You call it adapting. Labour will suffer from this move in the long run.

Yes Labour have changed from the party that was founded in 1900, i'd be disappointed if a party didn't adapt throughout the years. No one will care about Sam Tarry in a weeks time let alone in the long run, who exactly are Labour voters going to vote for instead?

Soul Requiem wrote:Yes Labour have changed from the party that was founded in 1900, i'd be disappointed if a party didn't adapt throughout the years. No one will care about Sam Tarry in a weeks time let alone in the long run, who exactly are Labour voters going to vote for instead?

What Blair did is compromise on some things to get into power, where he then made a difference. You can be as ideologically pure as you like, shouting proudly on the sidelines and 'on the right side of history', but that kind of behaviour is what keeps the Tories in power.

lostinwales wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Yes Labour have changed from the party that was founded in 1900, i'd be disappointed if a party didn't adapt throughout the years. No one will care about Sam Tarry in a weeks time let alone in the long run, who exactly are Labour voters going to vote for instead?

What Blair did is compromise on some things to get into power, where he then made a difference. You can be as ideologically pure as you like, shouting proudly on the sidelines and 'on the right side of history', but that kind of behaviour is what keeps the Tories in power.

It's a pity that Blair's legacy is completely tarnished by Iraq, as the early stages of his time in power showed initiative and a desire to do the right thing with regards to public services and infrastructure. You can argue whether PPP / PFI were the right approaches and whether the Government (and local authorities) got good deals out of them, but it was a creative way of essentially 'buy now, pay later' to rebuild things that had stagnated under Thatcher and Major. Of course, that Blair had a massive Messianic streak only became really obvious later.

dummy_half wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Yes Labour have changed from the party that was founded in 1900, i'd be disappointed if a party didn't adapt throughout the years. No one will care about Sam Tarry in a weeks time let alone in the long run, who exactly are Labour voters going to vote for instead?

What Blair did is compromise on some things to get into power, where he then made a difference. You can be as ideologically pure as you like, shouting proudly on the sidelines and 'on the right side of history', but that kind of behaviour is what keeps the Tories in power.

It's a pity that Blair's legacy is completely tarnished by Iraq, as the early stages of his time in power showed initiative and a desire to do the right thing with regards to public services and infrastructure. You can argue whether PPP / PFI were the right approaches and whether the Government (and local authorities) got good deals out of them, but it was a creative way of essentially 'buy now, pay later' to rebuild things that had stagnated under Thatcher and Major. Of course, that Blair had a massive Messianic streak only became really obvious later.

Power corrupts. It is not just the leader. Blair 1st term was a genuinely great government, not least because it combined so many talented people from different factions of the Labour party, but they slowly disappeared over the years, replaced by 'yes' men. It is a really important feature of our parliamentary system is that governments change and renew in opposition, because they get exhausted in government.

Step 1: announce plan to cut public sector pay in certain areas “to reflect the current living standards of that area”.

Step 2: perform embarassing and immediate u-turn when people call you out on this cowpat.

Step 3: claim you were “willfully and egregiously misrepresented” despite people just reading out what you had written down.

And to think we were worried about Sunak being a continuation of Johnson. Liz Truss having a mare.

The Times claims that some 'private polling' has Sunak only a bit behind Truss, 48-43, but YouGov's latest poll has the race at 60-26 (the rest DKs) in Truss' favour.

Truss now a 1/14 favourite. Voting has commenced.

I think Liz Truss has the potential to be a complete disaster. I suppose if Sunak had a paler complexion and didn't have a wife that avoided paying British tax (but then again don't most have off shore based investments?) he would be an easy winner.

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.php?t=70813