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

[Genie]

38 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

**** off Lammy. Most of us are feeling the pinch. Not you on your 84k, eh? Have you taken a 10% pay cut? Have you ****.

I'd rather shit on the ballot paper than vote for this Labour party.

£84k goes a lot further when you don’t need to spend much of it on general living costs too. 

[Davkaus]

The reality is as the election approaches I might just find myself having to  hold my nose to get my tory backbencher out, but I'd just love one **** reason to vote *for* Labour instead of against the tories. What do they stand for? Anything at all? 

They seem to have one policy - don't rock the boat, or commit to anything, in case it loses us a vote. 

[Jareth]

The Times had an article saying 6 Tories were thinking of defecting to Labour. Says it all about the illusion that we get to choose a government. It's the same lot, the colour they wear can change if necessary. Only way a Labour win at the next GE doesn't stink to high heaven is if they go PR. I have such a horrible nagging feeling that they are opposed to the idea. 

[blandy]

59 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

The reality is as the election approaches I might just find myself having to  hold my nose to get my tory backbencher out, but I'd just love one **** reason to vote *for* Labour instead of against the tories. What do they stand for? Anything at all? 

They seem to have one policy - don't rock the boat, or commit to anything, in case it loses us a vote. 

They're doing actual politics by numbers at the moment. Just before by elections last week, don't say anything to upset anyone, let the tories self destruction help them and the LDs to a seat each.

Currently we're nowhere near a gen election, they don't (yet) need to lay down a ton of stuff for the tories and their press baron mates to lay into. What they say or propose doesn't really matter much until there's an election, or run up to one.

In essence they're just being tactical. They lost the large election in large part because of 3 things - Corbyn, Brexit and a massive hotchpotch of policies which had no real credible theme or message (or at least that's what their post election analysis told them).

So they've spent the last however long since Starmer took over sorting their act out in terms of those weaknesses. "Under new management", Not Corbyn, and not Corbynite and repair relations with Jewish community. Then during Covid try and act with some unity with the Gov't where possible, in a crisis.

To normal voters it's all dull and uninspiring and there's no glaring reason to vote "for" them. But there's no election...so...whatever. It doesn't (yet) actually matter.

But the next thing they need to do is to start being clearer about what their offer is. "Not the tories" is not enough.

Things nationally will get worse with inflation and stuff over the next year, so the terrain is ripe for them to sort their act out and show us what they actually can and will do, and what they stand for.

[chrisp65]

Be nice if they stood for BA workers getting their 10% back.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Be nice if they stood for BA workers getting their 10% back.

Maybe nice for those people. Maybe not so nice for people with cancelled holidays is (I assume) the calculation Labour is making. As there are more and more strikes and everything goes to shit, Labour won’t want to be seen to be making it all worse. I guess they want to stay above the fray and point at Tory economic incompetence and mismanagement and stuff as being to blame. They want to be grown up and say “look the government and employers need to get their act together, protect jobs, give people a decent wage…blah blah”.

what I really don’t like is the idea of individual Labour MPs being punished for showing support to their constituents who are striking. I can live with Starmer or whoever not coming out in support of everyone who ever goes on strike about anything.

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

Maybe nice for those people. Maybe not so nice for people with cancelled holidays is (I assume) the calculation Labour is making. As there are more and more strikes and everything goes to shit, Labour won’t want to be seen to be making it all worse. I guess they want to stay above the fray and point at Tory economic incompetence and mismanagement and stuff as being to blame. They want to be grown up and say “look the government and employers need to get their act together, protect jobs, give people a decent wage…blah blah”.

what I really don’t like is the idea of individual Labour MPs being punished for showing support to their constituents who are striking. I can live with Starmer or whoever not coming out in support of everyone who ever goes on strike about anything.

 

I’m sure that’s the calculation being made.

What worries me, is the depth of Labour talent that sees this as a trade off between cheated worker voters, and disgruntled holidaymaker voters.

How difficult would it be to articulate an argument that BA are causing holidaymakers grief, by ripping off employees?

It really doesn’t bode well if that is either their belief, or their chosen route to power for the sake of power. Because to say shit like that in order to gain power to then magically turn in to the Labour that could actually help workers ripped off by employers really isn’t a very likely outcome. However appealing it is to cling on to as a hope.

Tories think workers just need to spend within their new straightened means.

LibDems think we need to call in the army to break strikes.

Labour think people shouldn’t strike if it inconveniences swing voters.

I’m not seeing a box to put an ‘x’ in there. But I can see why people would cling on to the idea Labour would change once they were in power.

[Jareth]

Lammy thinks BA workers are vastly different to other unionised workers. The inconsistency of his position stinks. Doesn’t matter how loudly he shouts at folks. 

[ml1dch]

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

what I really don’t like is the idea of individual Labour MPs being punished for showing support to their constituents who are striking. I can live with Starmer or whoever not coming out in support of everyone who ever goes on strike about anything.

Rank-and-file MPs won't be, because they weren't under any instruction. 

Shadow Cabinet members were asked to stay away, so I guess the calculation is "party discipline vs. wider party optics"

I'd hope that those who "ignored" the instruction to stay away, were told not to do it with a nod and a wink and nothing more happens. I don't think it's really going to help Starmer in the long run if there are two days of stories about sacking front-benchers for supporting striking constituents.

[blandy]

58 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

How difficult would it be to articulate an argument that BA are causing holidaymakers grief, by ripping off employees?

Pretty difficult. And that’s part of the problem. The airlines pretty much had their income shut down overnight across the world. But not their costs. And now fuel costs have rocketed. Where do they get the money from to pay their staff 10% extra? By putting up fares thus “ripping off” customers instead.

Look, they’re rocket polishing knobhead employers, most airlines and my sympathy is totally with the baggage handlers, flight crew, check in staff and all the rest of the workers, but I’m not a political party trying to get elected.

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Pretty difficult. And that’s part of the problem. The airlines pretty much had their income shut down overnight across the world. But not their costs. And now fuel costs have rocketed. Where do they get the money from to pay their staff 10% extra? By putting up fares thus “ripping off” customers instead.

Look, they’re rocket polishing knobhead employers, most airlines and my sympathy is totally with the baggage handlers, flight crew, check in staff and all the rest of the workers, but I’m not a political party trying to get elected.

It’s really easy.

It’s not an extra 10% It’s the money that was taken off them during covid.

Fuel costs are a new problem, also not caused by the staff. Perhaps Lammy could go all in and suggest another 10% cut to help with fuel costs and shareholder dividends and management bonuses?

 

 

[Demitri_C]

Ia there anyone more unlikeable in the labour party than lammy?

Dont know why starmer is sending him out to do these kind of interviews as he is ruining labour. Its just like when lammy refused to say labour would reverse the NI increase that johnsons implementing

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

10 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Ia there anyone more unlikeable in the labour party than lammy?

Dont know why starmer is sending him out to do these kind of interviews as he is ruining labour. Its just like when lammy refused to say labour would reverse the NI increase that johnsons implementing

Their problem is that you say everything is the Tories do is wrong or corrupt if they ever get into power then they have to reverse where possible or they will just look like idiots.  

As soon as Labour talk about Brexit,  boat crossings, Scotland or pay rises then we will see what's what.  The cost of living is all Johnsons fault according the Starmer (its not),  it should be a flick of a switch to fix and  to reverse then ?

 

[foreveryoung]

So what really increases inflation, is it the consistantly increasing company profits or pay increases. Genuine question?

[bickster]

56 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

So what really increases inflation, is it the consistantly increasing company profits or pay increases. Genuine question?

Company profits don't affect inflation. They have nothing to do with the Retail Price Index or whichever measure they use this week

[blandy]

9 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

The cost of living is all Johnsons fault according the Starmer

I don't think Starmer's said that at all.

The cost of living crisis is a consequence of a number of things. Some are international, some domestic. The war in Ukraine has massively impacted oil and gas prices, which have a knock on effect on everything else. The easing of covid restrictions has led to an increase in demand for goods, travel and raw materials. China's handling of their Covid outbreaks by shutting down whole towns and ports has caused shortages of all kinds stuff, which means price rises. And then there's Brexit, which is a UK unique thing - worker shortages particularly. And then there's the actions gov'ts take to deal with these things. The UK has done almost nothing, whereas abroad there's been much more Gov't support for people via capping energy prices, and other direct interventions like reducing taxes on petrol or gas and so on.

The Government did (eventually) adopt Starmer's windfall tax idea, which was good. But unfortunately they've avoided other things they could do to help people  - obviously decent pay for the NHS nurses is one example, but there ae many others. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I don't think Starmer's said that at all.

I think you are correct,  It was Nandy.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

obviously decent pay for the NHS nurses is one example, but there ae many others. 

On pay for nurses as an example,  it would need a re-jig of loads of jobs but Nurses increase in pay is definitely required by a New Labour government I would guess. 

Nurses and the job that they do and how it is viewed (As in who said they should be paid such low amounts,  Pay people what they deserve in jobs like this,  same as care home workers).  How this is paid for,  I have no idea.

It could win on 2 counts as it makes the job become a lot more attractive to school leavers etc.

How train drivers are on strike before nurses is amazing to me.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

How train drivers are on strike before nurses is amazing to me.

Train Drivers aren't on strike. The train drivers union is ASLEF not the RMT

[Wainy316]

The Tories are still in power on a perception of Labour causing a global financial crash so serves them right if they take blame for aspects out of their control. 

[Genie]

Did the investigation into a potential breach of lockdown rules by Keir Starmer ever conclude? Or is it still going?