Join the Labour Party and save your country!

pblakeney

secretsqirrel said:

If they get too specific the Tories will pinch their ideas.

Best for the country as a whole if whoever is in power use the best ideas regardless of source. It's up to the source to make it clear that they were the source though.

Stevo_666

And after b*****ing up loads of peoples' Christmases, Mick Lynch feels compelled to go public and say that he is not The Grinch...
https://msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/i-m-not-the-grinch-mick-lynch-defends-christmas-rail-strikes-as-talks-called/ar-AA14sstw?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=6fdf172c995c4144f57a576d18051cfa

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

I think will need to see what Labour policies are once they are past the empty rhetoric stage.

From the front page of their website.

1. Create good, green jobs and new high-tech green industries across the UK via our climate investment pledge.

2. Scrap business rates and replace them with a system that will incentivise investment and level the playing field between high street businesses and global giants.

3. Create a new Industrial Strategy Council to embed long-termism into our economic strategy and form a new partnership with business.

4. Buy, make and sell more in Britain to strengthen the foundations of our economy and strengthen supply chains. Our plan will create jobs and growth in all parts of the country and help to secure Britain’s economy against future shocks.

5. Introduce a new deal for working people boosting jobs security and securing fair pay.

2 seems the most specific, although it doesn't really say what the replacement would be. Would agree the rest is pretty vague.

A lot of it does sound very similar to what Johnson was saying.

Yep, a lot of it is pretty vague. I guess they don't want to be too specific as they will then scare a lot of voters and get stick over censored policies. I look forward to the details...

Bit like Brexit then.

Let's deal with what's ahead of us rather than crying over spilt milk - and there's plenty of that in the appropriate thread.

Says the man harking back to Maradona's cheating 36 years ago.

morstar

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

I think will need to see what Labour policies are once they are past the empty rhetoric stage.

From the front page of their website.

1. Create good, green jobs and new high-tech green industries across the UK via our climate investment pledge.

2. Scrap business rates and replace them with a system that will incentivise investment and level the playing field between high street businesses and global giants.

3. Create a new Industrial Strategy Council to embed long-termism into our economic strategy and form a new partnership with business.

4. Buy, make and sell more in Britain to strengthen the foundations of our economy and strengthen supply chains. Our plan will create jobs and growth in all parts of the country and help to secure Britain’s economy against future shocks.

5. Introduce a new deal for working people boosting jobs security and securing fair pay.

2 seems the most specific, although it doesn't really say what the replacement would be. Would agree the rest is pretty vague.

A lot of it does sound very similar to what Johnson was saying.

Yep, a lot of it is pretty vague. I guess they don't want to be too specific as they will then scare a lot of voters and get stick over censored policies. I look forward to the details...

Bit like Brexit then.

Let's deal with what's ahead of us rather than crying over spilt milk - and there's plenty of that in the appropriate thread.

So, just to be clear. When/if labour are elected, you will have nothing to say about it as that is what the electorate voted for.

tailwindhome

I wonder what the Labour policy on the 45p rate will be

Will they abolish it, like the Tories or drag more people into it, like the Tories

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Would it be possible to berate the Labour party for their actual bad ideas - like nationalising energy generation - rather than (gasp) running a raffle to raise funds like every other party? I mean it's not as though there's a lack of targets.

Probably makes more sense than a 70% tax on carbon free generation,

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Would it be possible to berate the Labour party for their actual bad ideas - like nationalising energy generation - rather than (gasp) running a raffle to raise funds like every other party? I mean it's not as though there's a lack of targets.

Probably makes more sense than a 70% tax on carbon free generation,

Bad ideas don't cancel each other out. They just accumulate.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Would it be possible to berate the Labour party for their actual bad ideas - like nationalising energy generation - rather than (gasp) running a raffle to raise funds like every other party? I mean it's not as though there's a lack of targets.

Probably makes more sense than a 70% tax on carbon free generation,

Bad ideas don't cancel each other out. They just accumulate.

I'm not really sure whether a private power sector is better though. The market is dominated by state owned companies.

Stevo_666

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

I think will need to see what Labour policies are once they are past the empty rhetoric stage.

From the front page of their website.

1. Create good, green jobs and new high-tech green industries across the UK via our climate investment pledge.

2. Scrap business rates and replace them with a system that will incentivise investment and level the playing field between high street businesses and global giants.

3. Create a new Industrial Strategy Council to embed long-termism into our economic strategy and form a new partnership with business.

4. Buy, make and sell more in Britain to strengthen the foundations of our economy and strengthen supply chains. Our plan will create jobs and growth in all parts of the country and help to secure Britain’s economy against future shocks.

5. Introduce a new deal for working people boosting jobs security and securing fair pay.

2 seems the most specific, although it doesn't really say what the replacement would be. Would agree the rest is pretty vague.

A lot of it does sound very similar to what Johnson was saying.

Yep, a lot of it is pretty vague. I guess they don't want to be too specific as they will then scare a lot of voters and get stick over censored policies. I look forward to the details...

Bit like Brexit then.

Let's deal with what's ahead of us rather than crying over spilt milk - and there's plenty of that in the appropriate thread.

So, just to be clear. When/if labour are elected, you will have nothing to say about it as that is what the electorate voted for.

There's a subtle difference in that general elections happen on a regular basis whereas the Brexit referendum was a one off

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

I wonder what the Labour policy on the 45p rate will be

Will they abolish it, like the Tories or drag more people into it, like the Tories

The last Labour govt made it 50p as a parting 'gift'.

briantrumpet

After the Chester by-election and the latest opinion polls, I think this isn't too wide of the mark:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/02/politics-keir-starmer-labour-tories-number-10

Pro-European liberals crave a tilt back towards the single market, but party strategists are firm on this point. The effort to coax Brexit supporters back to Labour is working, they say, but only just. The bridge would collapse under any suspicion that Starmer’s real destination was Brussels by way of open-door immigration.

Take stock of what is happening here. When parts of the Labour tribe are restive and there is no surge of national enthusiasm for the leader, it is tempting to conclude that his advantage is ephemeral and not his own work; that a donkey wearing a red rosette could trample the Tories in their current state.

But that conflates cause and effect. Starmer’s technique of denying the Conservatives easy targets, refusing to be the enemy they want to fight, is one reason why they are giving up. His single-minded focus on winning is not perfumed with charisma, but that doesn’t mean it lacks potency.

There are ways to account for Labour’s lead without giving Starmer the credit, and anyone can list ways an opposition leader might be better. But it is also easy to imagine the scenario where a worse leader squanders the present advantages. What evidence might show that Starmer was actually good at his job? How would politics look if he had a plan and it was working? It would look as it does.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

After the Chester by-election and the latest opinion polls, I think this isn't too wide of the mark:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/02/politics-keir-starmer-labour-tories-number-10

Pro-European liberals crave a tilt back towards the single market, but party strategists are firm on this point. The effort to coax Brexit supporters back to Labour is working, they say, but only just. The bridge would collapse under any suspicion that Starmer’s real destination was Brussels by way of open-door immigration.

Take stock of what is happening here. When parts of the Labour tribe are restive and there is no surge of national enthusiasm for the leader, it is tempting to conclude that his advantage is ephemeral and not his own work; that a donkey wearing a red rosette could trample the Tories in their current state.

But that conflates cause and effect. Starmer’s technique of denying the Conservatives easy targets, refusing to be the enemy they want to fight, is one reason why they are giving up. His single-minded focus on winning is not perfumed with charisma, but that doesn’t mean it lacks potency.

There are ways to account for Labour’s lead without giving Starmer the credit, and anyone can list ways an opposition leader might be better. But it is also easy to imagine the scenario where a worse leader squanders the present advantages. What evidence might show that Starmer was actually good at his job? How would politics look if he had a plan and it was working? It would look as it does.

It is interesting that the Tories are looking to neutralise the opposition leader by chosing as their own leader somebody who mirrors or surpasses their main attributes.

JC was a tvvat so the appointed a complete tvvat.
Starmer is a lawyer so they have chosen an MBA holding GS banker

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

It is interesting that the Tories are looking to neutralise the opposition leader by chosing as their own leader somebody who mirrors or surpasses their main attributes.

JC was a tvvat so the appointed a complete tvvat.
Starmer is a lawyer so they have chosen an MBA holding GS banker

I mean, eventually. May was the first choice when Corbyn was there and Truss had first go against Starmer.

Pross

Listening to Starmer on the TV this morning and he came across pretty well talking about his plans to give Councils more autonomy when it comes to managing their budgets and House of Lords reform. The interviewer then mentioned the Tories has said how they are getting on with dealing with the difficulty issues whilst Starmer plays politics. I really felt like he missed an open goal when replying. Surely it was a perfect chance to reiterate that the Tories have been in Government for 12 years and have helped create the difficult issues and, as the current Party of Government it is up to them to sort those issues out. Chuck in a bit about supporting any sensible solutions the Tories come up with and then finish with "we're happy to take on trying to resolve the problems they've created if they don't feel able, all they have to do is call an election".

briantrumpet

Haha, the Corbynists still bleating about JC's brilliance. I'd think that if Starmer reads this, it'll only reinforce his resolve to keep them well and truly sidelined.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/14/labour-keir-starmer-polls-jeremy-corbyn

morstar

briantrumpet said:

Haha, the Corbynists still bleating about JC's brilliance. I'd think that if Starmer reads this, it'll only reinforce his resolve to keep them well and truly sidelined.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/14/labour-keir-starmer-polls-jeremy-corbyn

Had a quick skim out of curiosity.

They completely ignore the Stevos which is very naive when considering dropping membership.

I think a lot can be laid at Starmers door for lack of excitement but also this seems like a marketing issue.
If the marketing department can’t or won’t shout about their vision, they’re sitting on their hands.

Why not shout about how they are going to represent workers if that isn’t in the form of being just being beholden to the unions. No danger of Tories stealing those policies. I don’t know how they propose to meet that remit.

briantrumpet

morstar said:

briantrumpet said:

Haha, the Corbynists still bleating about JC's brilliance. I'd think that if Starmer reads this, it'll only reinforce his resolve to keep them well and truly sidelined.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/14/labour-keir-starmer-polls-jeremy-corbyn

Had a quick skim out of curiosity.

They completely ignore the Stevos which is very naive when considering dropping membership.

I think a lot can be laid at Starmers door for lack of excitement but also this seems like a marketing issue.
If the marketing department can’t or won’t shout about their vision, they’re sitting on their hands.

Why not shout about how they are going to represent workers if that isn’t in the form of being just being beholden to the unions. No danger of Tories stealing those policies. I don’t know how they propose to meet that remit.

I think at present that it's a deliberate ploy not to say anything exciting that might be picked apart.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

briantrumpet said:

Haha, the Corbynists still bleating about JC's brilliance. I'd think that if Starmer reads this, it'll only reinforce his resolve to keep them well and truly sidelined.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/14/labour-keir-starmer-polls-jeremy-corbyn

Had a quick skim out of curiosity.

They completely ignore the Stevos which is very naive when considering dropping membership.

I think a lot can be laid at Starmers door for lack of excitement but also this seems like a marketing issue.
If the marketing department can’t or won’t shout about their vision, they’re sitting on their hands.

Why not shout about how they are going to represent workers if that isn’t in the form of being just being beholden to the unions. No danger of Tories stealing those policies. I don’t know how they propose to meet that remit.

I think at present that it's a deliberate ploy not to say anything exciting that might be picked apart.

Seems to be the case. Our main advisor has a partner who is the main point of contact with the Labour party and he said pretty much the same. A good example was Rachel Reeves saying Labour would scrap business rates and replace them with a fairer system, but without saying what that fairer system would be.

That said, it is fairly normal for opposition parties to keep their cards close to their chest until much closer to election time.

Stevo_666

Looks like Lynch the Grinch is under pressure
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/20/mick-lynch-holds-secret-talks-network-rail-support-train-strikes/

Deservedly so.

Stevo_666

And some strikers accidentally demonstrate why they probably shouldn't get a pay rise if it's related to performance...
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/23/airports-running-better-usual-embarrassing-blow-border-force/

Quote:
"Passengers have said they wish the Army could man the borders permanently after airports ran smoothly on Friday in an “embarrassing” blow to striking Border Force workers.

The Government had been braced for disruption as a week-long strike by 1,000 passport staff at six airports began.

Families with young children, who cannot use electronic gates, were expected to bear the brunt of delays at border control, but there was no widespread disruption as travellers arrived home.

Military personnel and civil servants filled in for Border Force at major airports, including Gatwick and Heathrow, with passengers who had expected “carnage” suggesting border checks were quicker than normal.

Oliver Cohen, 31, from London, whose flight from Antigua to Heathrow landed at 9am, said the “military precision” of passport control was “embarrassing” for striking Border Force officers.

“It was probably the best experience I’ve had – no more than five minutes,” he told The Telegraph. “The e-gates were all open and the Army on all the border control desks were rapidly getting people through – far better than usual, to be honest."

Oopsie

Pross

Hmm but how many got in who shouldn’t have?

You may get away with it on an ad hoc basis like this but people would soon cotton on if it was the norm. Think how quickly people would go through with no-one there.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Hmm but how many got in who shouldn’t have?

You may get away with it on an ad hoc basis like this but people would soon cotton on if it was the norm. Think how quickly people would go through with no-one there.

Based on the above performance, possibly less than normal.

pangolin

Was it as busy as it would have been?

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Hmm but how many got in who shouldn’t have?

You may get away with it on an ad hoc basis like this but people would soon cotton on if it was the norm. Think how quickly people would go through with no-one there.

Based on the above performance, possibly less than normal.

I’m not sure how you work that out. People without training handling people more quickly suggests a lack of thoroughness to me.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Hmm but how many got in who shouldn’t have?

You may get away with it on an ad hoc basis like this but people would soon cotton on if it was the norm. Think how quickly people would go through with no-one there.

Based on the above performance, possibly less than normal.

I’m not sure how you work that out. People without training handling people more quickly suggests a lack of thoroughness to me.

You suggsted they may have let more in than normal who shouldn't have. How did you work that out?

In any event, bit embarrassing that others can come in and do the job you're paid to do day in day out, with very little experience and do it better. Let's get them driving trains in January

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Hmm but how many got in who shouldn’t have?

You may get away with it on an ad hoc basis like this but people would soon cotton on if it was the norm. Think how quickly people would go through with no-one there.

Based on the above performance, possibly less than normal.

I’m not sure how you work that out. People without training handling people more quickly suggests a lack of thoroughness to me.

You suggsted they may have let more in than normal who shouldn't have. How did you work that out?

In any event, bit embarrassing that others can come in and do the job you're paid to do day in day out, with very little experience and do it better. Let's get them driving trains in January

Better ≠ quicker.

If the only measure of performance for border security was speed then we wouldn't have any border security.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Hmm but how many got in who shouldn’t have?

You may get away with it on an ad hoc basis like this but people would soon cotton on if it was the norm. Think how quickly people would go through with no-one there.

Based on the above performance, possibly less than normal.

I’m not sure how you work that out. People without training handling people more quickly suggests a lack of thoroughness to me.

You suggsted they may have let more in than normal who shouldn't have. How did you work that out?

In any event, bit embarrassing that others can come in and do the job you're paid to do day in day out, with very little experience and do it better. Let's get them driving trains in January

Better ≠ quicker.

If the only measure of performance for border security was speed then we wouldn't have any border security.

I'm just going on what the passengers said. Any evidence to suggest that they were less diligent?

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Hmm but how many got in who shouldn’t have?

You may get away with it on an ad hoc basis like this but people would soon cotton on if it was the norm. Think how quickly people would go through with no-one there.

Based on the above performance, possibly less than normal.

I’m not sure how you work that out. People without training handling people more quickly suggests a lack of thoroughness to me.

You suggsted they may have let more in than normal who shouldn't have. How did you work that out?

In any event, bit embarrassing that others can come in and do the job you're paid to do day in day out, with very little experience and do it better. Let's get them driving trains in January

Better ≠ quicker.

If the only measure of performance for border security was speed then we wouldn't have any border security.

I'm just going on what the passengers said. Any evidence to suggest that they were less diligent?

Yes apparently they were much quicker

I think it's a bit odd the article doesn't say whether the airports were running at normal capacity.

Pross

Their job isn’t to make it easy for people entering the country, it is to ensure that those coming in are entitled to be entering the country. Considering the Tory stance on illegal immigration I’m not sure how less thorough checking can be seen as a sign the job is being done as well by others. As I said, if the aim is to get as many people into the country without delaying them then just do away with border control altogether

Stevo_666

No evidence then.