Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Definitely. As TBB said, it's hard for small employers to deal with and they need some assistance to avoid any thoughts of illegally avoiding employing females of a certain age.rick_chasey said:
The gov't could help soften the blow...TheBigBean said:
That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.Longshot said:
Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.ballysmate said:
Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.Longshot said:
You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:ballysmate said:
Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.rick_chasey said:
This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.ballysmate said:
So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?bompington said:ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.
I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
Exactly, and probably doesn't help encourage them to recruit women in their 20s or 30s thus continuing the gender bias that the policies are trying to prevent.TheBigBean said:
That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.Longshot said:
Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.ballysmate said:
Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.Longshot said:
You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:ballysmate said:
Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.rick_chasey said:
This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.ballysmate said:
So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?bompington said:ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.
I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.0 -
Shared parental rights helps this a bit as it means men of pretty much any age could also be off for a while.Longshot said:
Definitely. As TBB said, it's hard for small employers to deal with and they need some assistance to avoid any thoughts of illegally avoiding employing females of a certain age.rick_chasey said:
The gov't could help soften the blow...TheBigBean said:
That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.Longshot said:
Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.ballysmate said:
Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.Longshot said:
You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:ballysmate said:
Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.rick_chasey said:
This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.ballysmate said:
So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?bompington said:ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.
I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.0 -
TheBigBean said:
Shared parental rights helps this a bit as it means men of pretty much any age could also be off for a while.Longshot said:
Definitely. As TBB said, it's hard for small employers to deal with and they need some assistance to avoid any thoughts of illegally avoiding employing females of a certain age.rick_chasey said:
The gov't could help soften the blow...TheBigBean said:
That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.Longshot said:
Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.ballysmate said:
Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.Longshot said:
You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:ballysmate said:
Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.rick_chasey said:
This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.ballysmate said:
So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?bompington said:ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.
I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
True but that just makes the original issue even worse!You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
They could deal with the cost part, or they could remove the benefits from people on leave, but there is little appetite for either.rick_chasey said:
The gov't could help soften the blow...TheBigBean said:
That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.Longshot said:
Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.ballysmate said:
Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.Longshot said:
You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:ballysmate said:
Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.rick_chasey said:
This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.ballysmate said:
So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?bompington said:ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.
I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
Not sure how they could solve the problem of replacing a specialist with another specialist on the same salary without any recruitment fees and no premium for the short-term contract. Well, I suppose they could just pay more e.g. person on £100k goes on paternity/maternity leave, and the government chips in £30k for a recruitment consultant, £30k for contract premium, £15k for the holiday, £5k for the company car, and a bit more for statutory pay. Not sure it is one that would get a government elected!0 -
Very similar experience here. And agree that this is mostly about good HR - talking to your staff and planning ahead. Having an ethos that this is something the business wants to offer as part of the deal helps, rather than just seeing it as a burden. This may be an over-generalisation, but I get the impression public sector employers interpret the requirement to offer flexible working significantly more generously than in the private sector.Longshot said:
I know. Been there, got the t-shirt. In a previous role I had to deal with 4 coincidental maternity leaves out of a total workforce of 22 people. It's difficult and expensive but not unforeseeable if you have a number of female employees of a certain age.TheBigBean said:
That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.Longshot said:
Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.ballysmate said:
Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.Longshot said:
You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:ballysmate said:
Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.rick_chasey said:
This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.ballysmate said:
So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?bompington said:ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.
I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'll probably get shot for saying this, but my feeling is that there is less requirement to be at work on any given day in the public sector. There aren't as many demanding clients, so the work can be scheduled for another time.rjsterry said:
Very similar experience here. And agree that this is mostly about good HR - talking to your staff and planning ahead. Having an ethos that this is something the business wants to offer as part of the deal helps, rather than just seeing it as a burden. This may be an over-generalisation, but I get the impression public sector employers interpret the requirement to offer flexible working significantly more generously than in the private sector.Longshot said:
I know. Been there, got the t-shirt. In a previous role I had to deal with 4 coincidental maternity leaves out of a total workforce of 22 people. It's difficult and expensive but not unforeseeable if you have a number of female employees of a certain age.TheBigBean said:
That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.Longshot said:
Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.ballysmate said:
Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.Longshot said:
You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:ballysmate said:
Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.rick_chasey said:
This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.ballysmate said:
So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?bompington said:ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.
I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.
0 -
You might want to restrict that to certain parts of the public sector.TheBigBean said:
I'll probably get shot for saying this, but my feeling is that there is less requirement to be at work on any given day in the public sector. There aren't as many demanding clients, so the work can be scheduled for another time.rjsterry said:
Very similar experience here. And agree that this is mostly about good HR - talking to your staff and planning ahead. Having an ethos that this is something the business wants to offer as part of the deal helps, rather than just seeing it as a burden. This may be an over-generalisation, but I get the impression public sector employers interpret the requirement to offer flexible working significantly more generously than in the private sector.Longshot said:
I know. Been there, got the t-shirt. In a previous role I had to deal with 4 coincidental maternity leaves out of a total workforce of 22 people. It's difficult and expensive but not unforeseeable if you have a number of female employees of a certain age.TheBigBean said:
That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.Longshot said:
Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.ballysmate said:
Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.Longshot said:
You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:ballysmate said:
Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.rick_chasey said:
This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.ballysmate said:
So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?bompington said:ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.
I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.0 -
I imagine the cabinet office has some annoying clients.kingstongraham said:
You might want to restrict that to certain parts of the public sector.TheBigBean said:
I'll probably get shot for saying this, but my feeling is that there is less requirement to be at work on any given day in the public sector. There aren't as many demanding clients, so the work can be scheduled for another time.rjsterry said:
Very similar experience here. And agree that this is mostly about good HR - talking to your staff and planning ahead. Having an ethos that this is something the business wants to offer as part of the deal helps, rather than just seeing it as a burden. This may be an over-generalisation, but I get the impression public sector employers interpret the requirement to offer flexible working significantly more generously than in the private sector.Longshot said:
I know. Been there, got the t-shirt. In a previous role I had to deal with 4 coincidental maternity leaves out of a total workforce of 22 people. It's difficult and expensive but not unforeseeable if you have a number of female employees of a certain age.TheBigBean said:
That's fine if you are a large company. It's a lot less easy if you are a small company.Longshot said:
Then blame the employer for not recruiting temporary resource to cover the situation. Yeah, I get it's expensive but so are a lot of things that can be forecast or assumed. It's a cost of business; financial forecasting should reasonably take that it into account and some provision made for it.ballysmate said:
Not disputing the legal requirement, just pointing out that sometimes accommodating one member of a team means that their colleagues are the ones unfairly penalised.Longshot said:
You're blaming the wrong people. Providing flexible working arrangements for parents is a legal requirement on the employer. If the employer is doing this by increasing the workload of other employees then there are basically two possibilities:ballysmate said:
Sick and holidays are relatively short term problems. Flexible working to allow for childcare is much longer term.rick_chasey said:
This happens all the time anyway for all sorts of other reasons. Sick, holiday, all sorts. Part of being a junior is getting lumped with the rubbish work.ballysmate said:
So people should have their shifts arbitrarily changed to their detriment without negotiation or consent?bompington said:ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
Yeah, only people who are actual stakeholders should be asked to adapt for the benefit of parents.ballysmate said:
Where practicable, but where it impacts significantly on others, there should be a level of consent.rick_chasey said:Only because that’s how the bosses run it.
You don’t agree with offering up more flexible working to account for families?
It should strictly be limited to people who have been children at some point in their life.
What other solution do you propose? The parents give up the job because their job won’t flex to let them do both?
I'm not talking of abusing juniors' working conditions, I am talking about people of equal standing having their shifts changed to accommodate one individual.
I have no magic solutions. Years ago, it was accepted that a parent (I know, usually the mother but it doesn't have to be) stayed at home to raise the kids. Today, people feel they have the right to work and in some instances, farm out child care.
It is not for me to say which way is the best way, although both ways have societal benefits.
1) The employer is doing this incorrectly and should be called out on it via HR or union or direct discussion
2) Other employees' contracts allow for such changes to their working hours/practices in which case the problem was caused by accepting that contract in the first place.0 -
If Jess Phillips quits the leadership race and nobody cares, does it still make a noise?0
-
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leadership-election-ian-lavery-keir-starmer-female-leader-1371977
Imagine being leader and everyone knowing you only got the job because you are a woman.0 -
Keir might need to change his image slightly.ballysmate said:https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leadership-election-ian-lavery-keir-starmer-female-leader-1371977
Imagine being leader and everyone knowing you only got the job because you are a woman.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Cant imagine there woud be any issue asking all the women to stand aside and let the male win. Poor man is outnumbered currently.0
-
Yeah it’s never happened the other way around 🙄ballysmate said:https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leadership-election-ian-lavery-keir-starmer-female-leader-1371977
Imagine being leader and everyone knowing you only got the job because you are a woman.0 -
How about if Keir Starmer just identifies as a woman then everyone's happy?0
-
Well not Mrs Starmer obviously, not if Kier keeps borrowing her best frock.shortfall said:How about if Keir Starmer just identifies as a woman then everyone's happy?
0 -
Only a problem if the same dress size. Starmer is a big fella I think so possibly not an issue. Just being practical here.ballysmate said:
Well not Mrs Starmer obviously, not if Kier keeps borrowing her best frock.shortfall said:How about if Keir Starmer just identifies as a woman then everyone's happy?
0 -
Not that anyone's listening, but:
https://capx.co/why-conservatives-should-oppose-continuity-corbyn/0 -
Not nobody, but I think there are good counter arguments.bompington said:Not that anyone's listening, but:
https://capx.co/why-conservatives-should-oppose-continuity-corbyn/
For starters the hard left has such a grip on the lever of power and the party machinery (backed up by the membership) that just electing someone a bit more palatable like Starmer or Nandy will not solve the issue of Labour being a hard left protest party.
Second, a continuity Corbyn candidate and the prospect of many more years in opposition could trigger a bigger break away by more moderate Labour MP's than Chukka and his chums did not so long ago.
Thirdly, it'll be more fun seeing a bunch of hopeless Trots make idiots of themselves again.
That's all I can think of for now."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
You've missed the polling that shows that Momentum isn't quite the monolith people think it is there is significant support for Starmer within the movement. As of today, Starmer and Nandy are the only two to have met the threshold for nominations.Stevo_666 said:
Not nobody, but I think there are good counter arguments.bompington said:Not that anyone's listening, but:
https://capx.co/why-conservatives-should-oppose-continuity-corbyn/
For starters the hard left has such a grip on the lever of power and the party machinery (backed up by the membership) that just electing someone a bit more palatable like Starmer or Nandy will not solve the issue of Labour being a hard left protest party.
Second, a continuity Corbyn candidate and the prospect of many more years in opposition could trigger a bigger break away by more moderate Labour MP's than Chukka and his chums did not so long ago.
Thirdly, it'll be more fun seeing a bunch of hopeless Trots make idiots of themselves again.
That's all I can think of for now.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
A few situations justify monopolies - as the recently broken political impasse over Brexit demonstrates.rick_chasey said:Still not coming round to the 'pro-competition' thinking, Stevo?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I take your point that Rebecca Long ('in opposition') Bailey has not yet got the required nominations but it's likely she will. My gut feel is that once it is a down to a vote of the membership, if RLB is in the running then the membership will back her.rjsterry said:
You've missed the polling that shows that Momentum isn't quite the monolith people think it is there is significant support for Starmer within the movement. As of today, Starmer and Nandy are the only two to have met the threshold for nominations.Stevo_666 said:
Not nobody, but I think there are good counter arguments.bompington said:Not that anyone's listening, but:
https://capx.co/why-conservatives-should-oppose-continuity-corbyn/
For starters the hard left has such a grip on the lever of power and the party machinery (backed up by the membership) that just electing someone a bit more palatable like Starmer or Nandy will not solve the issue of Labour being a hard left protest party.
Second, a continuity Corbyn candidate and the prospect of many more years in opposition could trigger a bigger break away by more moderate Labour MP's than Chukka and his chums did not so long ago.
Thirdly, it'll be more fun seeing a bunch of hopeless Trots make idiots of themselves again.
That's all I can think of for now."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm intrigued you think you know the minds of half a million people better than the polling companies. The only one RLB came top of was a poll of Labourlist readers. Given the editor slagged off Starmer as "calculated" (OMG he's actually trying to win!) and "not left wing" I think that's a bit like polling the ERG about their thoughts on Dominic Grieve.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I don't - as I said clearly above, it's only gut feel.rjsterry said:I'm intrigued you think you know the minds of half a million people better than the polling companies. The only one RLB came top of was a poll of Labourlist readers. Given the editor slagged off Starmer as "calculated" (OMG he's actually trying to win!) and "not left wing" I think that's a bit like polling the ERG about their thoughts on Dominic Grieve.
Do you know any better?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Just what I've seen and heard. The YouGov poll of members put Starmer comfortably ahead. One of Andrew Neil's guests today (at home after root canal) was talking about how Momentum is not wholly behind RLB. Jess Phillips's supporters are unlikely to go to RLB either.Stevo_666 said:
I don't - as I said clearly above, it's only gut feel.rjsterry said:I'm intrigued you think you know the minds of half a million people better than the polling companies. The only one RLB came top of was a poll of Labourlist readers. Given the editor slagged off Starmer as "calculated" (OMG he's actually trying to win!) and "not left wing" I think that's a bit like polling the ERG about their thoughts on Dominic Grieve.
Do you know any better?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Curious how the Tories insist privatised railways are the way forward, yet they have already renationalised one franchise and they're looking into renationalising another two franchises0
-
rick_chasey said:
Curious how the Tories insist privatised railways are the way forward, yet they have already renationalised one franchise and they're looking into renationalising another two franchises
0 -
With zero sarcasm, what is the point you are illustrating with that graph? I can think of a number of possibilities.TheBigBean said:rick_chasey said:Curious how the Tories insist privatised railways are the way forward, yet they have already renationalised one franchise and they're looking into renationalising another two franchises
You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
Right, so why are they renationalising Virgin, and are looking to renationalise Great Northern and South Western?0