• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Candidates hoping to succeed Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader have questioned the party's manifesto choices while opening up dividing lines on Brexit.

Sir Keir Starmer said its election offer was "over-loaded" while both Lisa Nandy and Jess Phillips said voters did not trust its free broadband pledge.

Ms Phillips also said she would not rule out rejoining the EU if Brexit turned out not to be a success.

She said she would not change her view that the UK was "better off" in the EU.

Sir Keir and shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry - both strong supporters of another referendum before the election - said Labour's focus as an opposition should now be on ensuring Boris Johnson negotiated the best economic and trade partnership with the EU.

Five candidates, also including Clive Lewis, have so far entered the race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn.

Labour's ruling body is due to meet on Monday to decide the timetable for the election. Would-be candidates have to be nominated by more than 20 MPs and must also get the backing of at least 5% of constituency parties or three affiliated bodies - two of which must be trade unions.

Shadow business secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey is also expected to officially declare her candidacy in the coming days.

The contest was called after Mr Corbyn announced he would stand down as leader after Labour's heavy election defeat.

Both Sir Keir and Ms Phillips told the BBC's Andrew Marr the party must learn the lessons of the defeat and why some many previously rock-solid Labour seats in the Midlands and the North of England turned to the Conservatives.

p07zks2g.jpg


Media captionJess Phillips: "The country didn't trust us to govern"
Sir Keir said the manifesto was one of a number of "cumulative" factors that eroded trust, on top of concerns over the party's Brexit policy, its leadership and its record on tackling anti-Semitism.

"There was a general feeling the manifesto was over-loaded. We lost the public's trust in the Labour Party as a force for good and a force for change," he said. "After four general election losses we have to address that straight away."

But he warned Labour against "unpicking" the last manifesto when it should be focused on its offer to voters in five years time. He also said it would be wrong to "retreat" from Mr Corbyn's focus on reducing inequality and protecting the public services.

While not the sole reason for its defeat, Ms Phillips also identified the manifesto - which pledged to bring rail, mail, water and energy into public ownership and extend the role of the state into new areas - as one of Labour's weak points.

"The fundamental thing is that the country did not trust us to govern," she said. "They did not trust to deliver on the things we were saying."

_110396128_7682c7e5-d51d-4866-afe2-b0f6540c5b9d.jpg
Image copyrightREUTERS
Image captionRebecca Long-Bailey is expected to join the race
While there was a strong case for nationalising the railways and ending private involvement in the prison and probation services, she suggested tackling deep-seated social problems, such as homelessness and social care, were more important than public control of key utilities.

"We lost them on some of the basics. My son does not go to school five days a week. Lots of people in the country can give you their own example. While that was the case, offering free broadband was just not believable."

The Birmingham Yardley MP said the party must stop obsessing with factionalism and internal positioning and speak honestly to people.

"People have to feel a connection with us again. People have to feel we are on their side."

Ms Nandy also distanced herself from the broadband pledge, telling BBC Radio 5 Live's Pienaar's Politics: "People said to us, 'It's all very well promising free broadband but can you sort out the buses?' and that was the more pressing issue in their lives. It's not about whether you're radical or not it's about whether you're relevant."

Brexit
Ms Thornberry said Labour had been wrong to allow the Conservatives to fight the election on the "single issue" of Brexit.

She told Sky News that the opposition's focus should now be on ensuring the UK had a relationship with Europe in the coming years that's "going to work for jobs and the economy".

Sir Keir, who like Ms Thornberry was a supporter of another referendum, suggested the issue of EU membership was now closed and the party needed to move on from an argument between Remain and Leave.

Asked whether she would support, as leader, the UK going back into the EU, Ms Phillips said it was sensible to "wait and see".

"If we are living in an absolute paradise of trade and totally safe in the world...then maybe I will be proven wrong. But if the reality is if if our country is safer and more economically viable to be in the EU, I will fight for that regardless of how difficult that argument is to make."

_105894347_grey_line-nc.png

_110136972_labour_leadership_election_inf2_640-nc.png

_109028083_1px_white_line-nc.png

The candidates have also been pressed on the UK's relationship with the US following the killing of Iran's top military leader, Qasem Soleimani, in Iraq.

Ms Phillips said people were "not shedding any tears" over the Iranian general's death and, while she opposed the Iraq War, she would always support the deployment of British forces abroad if there was a "moral case" for it.

"What we have to make sure is that when we take action, it is lawful, proportionate and there is a moral case for it. If those questions can be answered, then I would absolutely take action to protect British lives."

However, Sir Keir said the UK should never find itself in the position of "blindly following the Americans".

If he became prime minister, he said he would pass legislation to circumscribe the ability of governments to take military action. He suggested it would have to pass three tests - if it was lawful, had been supported by Parliament and was part of a viable plan.
 
markysimmo said:
Candidates hoping to succeed Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader have questioned the party's manifesto choices while opening up dividing lines on Brexit.

Sir Keir Starmer said its election offer was "over-loaded" while both Lisa Nandy and Jess Phillips said voters did not trust its free broadband pledge.

Ms Phillips also said she would not rule out rejoining the EU if Brexit turned out not to be a success.

She said she would not change her view that the UK was "better off" in the EU.

Sir Keir and shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry - both strong supporters of another referendum before the election - said Labour's focus as an opposition should now be on ensuring Boris Johnson negotiated the best economic and trade partnership with the EU.

Five candidates, also including Clive Lewis, have so far entered the race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn.

Labour's ruling body is due to meet on Monday to decide the timetable for the election. Would-be candidates have to be nominated by more than 20 MPs and must also get the backing of at least 5% of constituency parties or three affiliated bodies - two of which must be trade unions.

Shadow business secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey is also expected to officially declare her candidacy in the coming days.

The contest was called after Mr Corbyn announced he would stand down as leader after Labour's heavy election defeat.

Both Sir Keir and Ms Phillips told the BBC's Andrew Marr the party must learn the lessons of the defeat and why some many previously rock-solid Labour seats in the Midlands and the North of England turned to the Conservatives.

p07zks2g.jpg


Media captionJess Phillips: "The country didn't trust us to govern"
Sir Keir said the manifesto was one of a number of "cumulative" factors that eroded trust, on top of concerns over the party's Brexit policy, its leadership and its record on tackling anti-Semitism.

"There was a general feeling the manifesto was over-loaded. We lost the public's trust in the Labour Party as a force for good and a force for change," he said. "After four general election losses we have to address that straight away."

But he warned Labour against "unpicking" the last manifesto when it should be focused on its offer to voters in five years time. He also said it would be wrong to "retreat" from Mr Corbyn's focus on reducing inequality and protecting the public services.

While not the sole reason for its defeat, Ms Phillips also identified the manifesto - which pledged to bring rail, mail, water and energy into public ownership and extend the role of the state into new areas - as one of Labour's weak points.

"The fundamental thing is that the country did not trust us to govern," she said. "They did not trust to deliver on the things we were saying."

_110396128_7682c7e5-d51d-4866-afe2-b0f6540c5b9d.jpg
Image copyrightREUTERS
Image captionRebecca Long-Bailey is expected to join the race
While there was a strong case for nationalising the railways and ending private involvement in the prison and probation services, she suggested tackling deep-seated social problems, such as homelessness and social care, were more important than public control of key utilities.

"We lost them on some of the basics. My son does not go to school five days a week. Lots of people in the country can give you their own example. While that was the case, offering free broadband was just not believable."

The Birmingham Yardley MP said the party must stop obsessing with factionalism and internal positioning and speak honestly to people.

"People have to feel a connection with us again. People have to feel we are on their side."

Ms Nandy also distanced herself from the broadband pledge, telling BBC Radio 5 Live's Pienaar's Politics: "People said to us, 'It's all very well promising free broadband but can you sort out the buses?' and that was the more pressing issue in their lives. It's not about whether you're radical or not it's about whether you're relevant."

Brexit
Ms Thornberry said Labour had been wrong to allow the Conservatives to fight the election on the "single issue" of Brexit.

She told Sky News that the opposition's focus should now be on ensuring the UK had a relationship with Europe in the coming years that's "going to work for jobs and the economy".

Sir Keir, who like Ms Thornberry was a supporter of another referendum, suggested the issue of EU membership was now closed and the party needed to move on from an argument between Remain and Leave.

Asked whether she would support, as leader, the UK going back into the EU, Ms Phillips said it was sensible to "wait and see".

"If we are living in an absolute paradise of trade and totally safe in the world...then maybe I will be proven wrong. But if the reality is if if our country is safer and more economically viable to be in the EU, I will fight for that regardless of how difficult that argument is to make."

_105894347_grey_line-nc.png

_110136972_labour_leadership_election_inf2_640-nc.png

_109028083_1px_white_line-nc.png

The candidates have also been pressed on the UK's relationship with the US following the killing of Iran's top military leader, Qasem Soleimani, in Iraq.

Ms Phillips said people were "not shedding any tears" over the Iranian general's death and, while she opposed the Iraq War, she would always support the deployment of British forces abroad if there was a "moral case" for it.

"What we have to make sure is that when we take action, it is lawful, proportionate and there is a moral case for it. If those questions can be answered, then I would absolutely take action to protect British lives."

However, Sir Keir said the UK should never find itself in the position of "blindly following the Americans".

If he became prime minister, he said he would pass legislation to circumscribe the ability of governments to take military action. He suggested it would have to pass three tests - if it was lawful, had been supported by Parliament and was part of a viable plan.
Click to expand...
WTF is all this "overloaded manifesto" flimflam?

They lost the election because Corbyn jumped further to the left than anyone in any kind of serious politics in this country has gone in two generations. He promoted policies that are so out dated some kids grandparents were the last to refuse them.
 
Your double think is amazing. On the one hand, you declare that Labour are so incompetent that they have no hope of achieving power, but on the other hannd the rabid anti Labour rhetoric betrays you. You have form when it comes to this. Yous state that unions are irrelevant, yet at the same time want even further restrictions on their activity. if Labour and the unions are so irrelevant, why do you agitate against them so much? Surely neither should pose any great threat to you self interest. Sorry Scara your petty coat is showing...again!
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Your double think is amazing. On the one hand, you declare that Labour are so incompetent that they have no hope of achieving power, but on the other hannd the rabid anti Labour rhetoric betrays you. You have form when it comes to this. Yous state that unions are irrelevant, yet at the same time want even further restrictions on their activity. if Labour and the unions are so irrelevant, why do you agitate against them so much? Surely neither should pose any great threat to you self interest. Sorry Scara your petty coat is showing...again!
Click to expand...
Unions are irrelevant to me - there isn't a single unionised member of my workforce.

Protection rackets have no relevance to me either but if there were laws protecting them I'd want them abolished.
 
The fact unions have such control over a party is mental.

Unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities. Unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy.
 
Grays_1890 said:
The fact unions have such control over a party is mental.

Unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities. Unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy.
Click to expand...
Collective bargaining is the natural counterbalance to government overreach.
Like them or hate them, they are necessary. Like trident is necessary.
It would be better if neither needed to exist. But there are too many dingdongheads in power for them not to.

I am very uncomfortable how intertwined they are in labour however. Conversely, I'm uncomfortable how big business keeps the Tories afloat
 
monkeybarry said:
Collective bargaining is the natural counterbalance to government overreach.
Like them or hate them, they are necessary. Like trident is necessary.
It would be better if neither needed to exist. But there are too many dingdongheads in power for them not to.

I am very uncomfortable how intertwined they are in labour however. Conversely, I'm uncomfortable how big business keeps the Tories afloat
Click to expand...
There's no need at all for collective bargaining.

If terms are not good enough, employers won't be able to find employees.
 
scaramanga said:
There's no need at all for collective bargaining.

If terms are not good enough, employers won't be able to find employees.
Click to expand...
This genuinely left me speechless.

Its It's really basic economics to know this isn't true and that in a competitive market both parties are price takers.
 
monkeybarry said:
This genuinely left me speechless.

Its It's really basic economics to know this isn't true and that in a competitive market both parties are price takers.
Click to expand...
No individual (unless supremely talented) can change the practices of a business but market forces will do precisely what collective bargaining does but in a fair manner and without the thuggery.
 
Unions can have the power to impede a company's ability to compete and thrive. A firm might be in desperate trouble, yet its unions may be unwilling to bend or compromise in order to help the company survive. Many employers find themselves left very inflexible when they have union contracts to abide by. Meanwhile, if a union negotiates high wages for workers at a company, it may lead the company to charge higher prices for its offerings, which can make it less competitive with rivals.

unions have led to a decline in the value of merit. In many union settings, workers can't advance much or at all on their merits, but rather they must generally progress within the limits defined by union contracts (where advances might be based on seniority, for example). Employers may have trouble weeding out ineffective employees if they belong to unions. In theory, at least, unionized workers might become so comfortable and protected that they lose the incentive to work hard for their employer. And outstanding employees might lose their get-up-and-go if there's no incentive to excel -- or worse, if they're pressured by the union not to go the extra mile.
 
Grays_1890 said:
The fact unions have such control over a party is mental.

Unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities. Unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy.
Click to expand...

But it's quite okay for big corporations to run the Tory party... more double think and double standards.
 
Where did anyone explicitly state its ok for corporations to run the Tory party?

Nearest mention was actually the opposite "Conversely, I'm uncomfortable how big business keeps the Tories afloat".

But do crack on talking to yourself, dont let the actual conversation get in the way of your rhetoric.
 
In Scara's warped right wing world, working people should not be allowed to organise and should not have any political representation. They should just doff their caps and be grateful for the meager offering that their betters deign to allow them.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Where did anyone explicitly state its ok for corporations to run the Tory party?

Nearest mention was actually the opposite "Conversely, I'm uncomfortable how big business keeps the Tories afloat".

But do crack on talking to yourself, dont let the actual conversation get in the way of your rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Political parties represent particular interest groups and have done for at least two hundred years. Do keep up! As for having a conversation with myself, well you answered so...? What a joke! Not very bright are you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back