Jump to content

What is the point of Labour ?


pawpar

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, G51 said:

Maybe the unions would get more support if they were more reasonable in their demands? Asking for record pay increases when we have to balance the books after COVID - selfish much??

The less said about your animal abuse, the better.

It's not animal abuse...it's maybe what you need to calm you down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, G51 said:

I don't want Mick Lynch to be Labour leader. He's shouty, aggressive and doesn't really seem to understand the rules of the game. Plus he's from Northern England, which means he's racist. And he's a man - it's high time that Labour got the girlboss treatment!

I want someone who understands that politics is less about ideals, and more about what's possible. Someone like Rachel Reeves, or Jess Phillips. Dream candidate? Nigella Lawson. 

Jess Phillips has usually come across well for me.  Rachel Reeves…meh.

ETA Jess doesn’t seem to be in the public eye much these days though.

Edited by Left Back
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, G51 said:

I don't want Mick Lynch to be Labour leader. He's shouty, aggressive and doesn't really seem to understand the rules of the game. Plus he's from Northern England, which means he's racist. And he's a man - it's high time that Labour got the girlboss treatment!

I want someone who understands that politics is less about ideals, and more about what's possible. Someone like Rachel Reeves, or Jess Phillips. Dream candidate? Nigella Lawson. 

Jess Phillips?  Are you on drugs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the unions would get more support if they were more reasonable in their demands? Asking for record pay increases when we have to balance the books after COVID - selfish much??
The less said about your animal abuse, the better.
Even 10% is nowhere near a "record pay increase" and anything less is a real terms pay cut. There is no unfair demands being made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:
1 hour ago, G51 said:
Maybe the unions would get more support if they were more reasonable in their demands? Asking for record pay increases when we have to balance the books after COVID - selfish much??
The less said about your animal abuse, the better.

Even 10% is nowhere near a "record pay increase" and anything less is a real terms pay cut. There is no unfair demands being made.

The real reason.....Just take a minute to read the post below, from a Rail Worker, that gives a different perspective to the hyperbole being flung out by HMG's client journalists...

 

Three years ago we accepted a 0% pay rise, two years ago we accepted a 0% pay rise. But this year they came to us with a 0% pay rise plus over 2500 redundancies, changes to terms and conditions. An increase from 28 weeks of nights to 39 weeks of nights. An increase from 32 weekends worked to 39 weekends worked. Currently for a night shift we get time and a quarter, for a weekend turn we get time and a half. They wish to cut both of these to time and a tenth. So that’s a 15% pay cut on every night shift and a 40% pay cut on every weekend turn. But they want us to work more of them. This is their modernisation they talk about. Not technology, we embrace technology and have seen more and more of it in recent years. They also wish to fire and re-hire the operative grades and bring them back under a new job title but on £9000 a year less. They also want them to use their own vehicles to get to work sites, this when fuel is at its highest. They will also be pooled when currently they are part of the team. The press are painting this to be about pay above all else. It is not. But now we’ve said sod them we are going to demand better. I wish everyone could see past the government controlled media smear. #OneRuleForThem

Edited by guinness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, guinness said:

The real reason.....Just take a minute to read the post below, from a Rail Worker, that gives a different perspective to the hyperbole being flung out by HMG's client journalists...

 

Three years ago we accepted a 0% pay rise, two years ago we accepted a 0% pay rise. But this year they came to us with a 0% pay rise plus over 2500 redundancies, changes to terms and conditions. An increase from 28 weeks of nights to 39 weeks of nights. An increase from 32 weekends worked to 39 weekends worked. Currently for a night shift we get time and a quarter, for a weekend turn we get time and a half. They wish to cut both of these to time and a tenth. So that’s a 15% pay cut on every night shift and a 40% pay cut on every weekend turn. But they want us to work more of them. This is their modernisation they talk about. Not technology, we embrace technology and have seen more and more of it in recent years. They also wish to fire and re-hire the operative grades and bring them back under a new job title but on £9000 a year less. They also want them to use their own vehicles to get to work sites, this when fuel is at its highest. They will also be pooled when currently they are part of the team. The press are painting this to be about pay above all else. It is not. But now we’ve said sod them we are going to demand better. I wish everyone could see past the government controlled media smear. #OneRuleForThem

Just because some random posts something on the internet that doesn’t make it true.

For all you know it could have been a postie that wrote it.  Even if it was a rail worker it doesn’t mean it’s true.

The nature of disputes is that both sides exaggerate their own grievance/position.  Actual facts are usually in short supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Just because some random posts something on the internet that doesn’t make it true.

For all you know it could have been a postie that wrote it.  Even if it was a rail worker it doesn’t mean it’s true.

The nature of disputes is that both sides exaggerate their own grievance/position.  Actual facts are usually in short supply.

If you watched Mick Lynch mention about the T's&C's, pay plus the the pensions. The spokesman of network rail & the tories never denied it. Grant Shapps actually said with the pensionable age is at 62 they should put it up to 65....honestly 😟

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, guinness said:

If you watched Mick Lynch mention about the T's&C's, pay plus the the pensions. The spokesman of network rail & the tories never denied it. Grant Shapps actually said with the pensionable age is at 62 they should put it up to 65....honestly 😟

Do you fancy trying your next post in English so I have a chance of understanding the point you’re trying to make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Lisa Nandy hitting the nail on the head as per usual.

How is this an election bid, Labour have had a miserable time in the last 2 elections in Scotland so can see why they want to avoid another one just now but I'm not sure anyone reads independence as an election bid.

 

And perhaps if Nanfy was serious about resolving the issues in the NHS she would be campaigning to get us back in the EU so we can attract staff from the EU again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 101 said:

How is this an election bid, Labour have had a miserable time in the last 2 elections in Scotland so can see why they want to avoid another one just now but I'm not sure anyone reads independence as an election bid.

 

And perhaps if Nanfy was serious about resolving the issues in the NHS she would be campaigning to get us back in the EU so we can attract staff from the EU again.

It's an election bid because as Nicola said herself these are the terms she will fight the general election over if she fails at getting a S30.

If she was confident she'd get a section 30 or win the SC case she wouldn't already be setting out their stall for the next GE. She's understandably setting up her position to fight yet another GE after failing to have an actual referendum. At best it's contingency planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

It's an election bid because as Nicola said herself these are the terms she will fight the general election over if she fails at getting a S30.

If she was confident she'd get a section 30 or win the SC case she wouldn't already be setting out their stall for the next GE. She's understandably setting up her position to fight yet another GE after failing to have an actual referendum. At best it's contingency planning.

I think demonstrating all the options is essential, it cost the last independence vote and meant Brexit was so vague that it is impossible to implement.

When the Westminster politicians find themselves telling Scotland what they should be focusing on they have to also say how they can focus on it, are the Labour party suggesting that the £20m being spend over the next 5 years on Independence should be put into the NHS to clear the backlog? If they are serious about Scotland staying in the UK they can't just have sound bites but proper logical arguments that staying in a Tory Brexit Britain is better than Independence.

Perhaps if we weren't spending so much cash mitigating Tory policies our NHS would be supercharged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 101 said:

I think demonstrating all the options is essential, it cost the last independence vote and meant Brexit was so vague that it is impossible to implement.

When the Westminster politicians find themselves telling Scotland what they should be focusing on they have to also say how they can focus on it, are the Labour party suggesting that the £20m being spend over the next 5 years on Independence should be put into the NHS to clear the backlog? If they are serious about Scotland staying in the UK they can't just have sound bites but proper logical arguments that staying in a Tory Brexit Britain is better than Independence.

Perhaps if we weren't spending so much cash mitigating Tory policies our NHS would be supercharged.

Its actually worse than that. What we have here are unionist politicians in Westminster saying that they know better about what the Scottish electorate want than the majority of MSPs elected to the Scottish Parliament and/or the overwhelming majority of Scottish constituency MPs in the Commons.  Utterly bizarre thinking.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zern said:

This will be them finally admitting that they are no longer a left wing party, and haven't been for a long time.

Their new manifesto would probably get flagged for plagiarism* if ran through the software universities etc use for submissions.

 

*Not hard to guess which party they'd be copying many ideas from

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in Edinburgh, and giving a stunning indication of Labour's determination to oppose the Tories having any role in Scottish public life, 2 Edinburgh Labour Councillors have been suspended for opposing the deal to give Labour power. They opposed the deal because, well, erm... it handed Tories paid positions of authority in the new Council. 

BTW, so desperate were the voters in Edinburgh to have the Tories in positions of authority in their City that they reduced the number of Tory Councillors from 18 to 9 at the recent election.  That's the point of Labour... keeping Tories in power. 

Edited by Salt n Vinegar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...