Hans Gruber Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 So that's a Conservative Majority in 2020 pretty much in the bag then, good work Labour Party members!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Corbyn's immigration policy is more or less the same as the rest of the Labour Party. It's really not. The Labour Party promised in the election to be tough on immigration. They even had mugs made talking about how tough they would be! http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/immigration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted September 14, 2015 Author Share Posted September 14, 2015 It's really not. The Labour Party promised in the election to be tough on immigration. They even had mugs made talking about how tough they would be! http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/immigration And it was on the EdStone as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deedles Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 So how do we feel on the proposed legislation on the right to strike? Personally, I think it goes a bit too far in general. I can see how some limitations could be brought in in essential areas, but not in all. Transport is possibly the only one I'd be in favour of some additional restrictions in. There is an essential staff in health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCracken Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Yeah but the getting tough on immigration was all talk. They were going to get tough by........ making sure employers didn't exploit immigrant labour. The only change here is the rhetoric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 So how do we feel on the proposed legislation on the right to strike? Personally, I think it goes a bit too far in general. I can see how some limitations could be brought in in essential areas, but not in all. Transport is possibly the only one I'd be in favour of some additional restrictions in. There is an essential staff in health. If the Tory proposal that public sector strike votes need at least 40% approval of all eligible voters (including long term sick/suspended?) applied to the general election, then they wouldnt be in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The BlackBear Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 So that's a Conservative Majority in 2020 pretty much in the bag then, good work Labour Party members!. With the uninspiring others it would have been a Con victory anyway, Corbyn at least is different and isn't just offering more uninspiring policies as did Labour at the last GE. Plus he might be able to lure a few voters back from the other left leaning parties, unlike his more centralist opponents. It's no chance with the others, and a slight chance with Corbyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebble thats Stubby Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 So how do we feel on the proposed legislation on the right to strike? Personally, I think it goes a bit too far in general. I can see how some limitations could be brought in in essential areas, but not in all. Transport is possibly the only one I'd be in favour of some additional restrictions in. There is an essential staff in health. An absolute disgrace. It will make organised strikes almost impossible. To strike now you need +50% of the returned ballots. a large proportion of Ballots are sent out and never returned. Some people never even receive their ballot papers - often because their records are not up to date since they moved and didn't inform their union. Before striking the Unions have to give 7 days notice to the company before they can even ballot their members. We already have some of the toughest anti-strike laws in Europe Of course what will happen if we can't strike legally will be illegal strikes and walkouts. these will be far more disruptive since alternatives and warnings can't be put in place. oh and mean that the strikers who are just exercising there right to withdraw labour. but hey what the hell has the unions and the right to strike ever done for us other then brought untold misery on hard working people? Oh that's of course not including mandatory PAID holiday, Paid Maternity leave, the 8 hour day, weekends. Paid sick pay, end of child labour, equal pay, increased health and safety. ending no-fault sacking (although I think the this one is under attack) This is the stuff that Unions fought for and won for everyone in the past, not just union members. edit The last time I was balloted to strike was 2 years ago. We had already voted to reject the pay deal with 75% voting No. (ok thats only counting the people who where in work that day, not those out sick). The company would not re-enter negotiations and after a while the union notified the company of our intention to ballot for a strike. The company then wrote a letter to everyone home address but addressed to Mrs (for the male Employee's and Mr for the Female employees) which heavily implied that unless we voted to accept the pay deal then it would be unlikely the company would continue operations in our location and emphasizing the financial hardship this could cause. I also know a lot of people complained that they never received their ballot (again this is because they never updated their address but does not help) out of the returned ballots 80% of people voted not to strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northernmonkey Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 It's really not. The Labour Party promised in the election to be tough on immigration. They even had mugs made talking about how tough they would be! http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/immigration Being tough on immigration was one of their key pledges but all they were really suggesting was a two-year ban on immigrants claiming benefits. I guess they differ from Corbyn in that matter but that's pretty much the only difference. It comes down to appearances - Corbyn refuses to say anything bad about immigration while the rest of the Labour Party talk tough without actually doing anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valandil Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 I'm not sure the Schengen arrangement will still be in place by this time next year. Indeed it seems schengen is de facto no longer in place as we speak.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/13/germany-to-close-borders-exit-schengen-emergency-measures Watching the Corbyn issues from across Irish Sea it seems like a spectacular own goal by Labour Party. 90% of the parliamentary wing seem to openly despise him. He will be given time to hoist himself on his own petard and if this doesn't happen quickly enough will be dispatched by his own colleagues in time to have a new leader in place for 2020. David milliband returns from new york anyone? Or perhaps he comes after convincing 2020 defeat as the saviour of a party riven by schism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northernmonkey Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 So how do we feel on the proposed legislation on the right to strike? Personally, I think it goes a bit too far in general. I can see how some limitations could be brought in in essential areas, but not in all. Transport is possibly the only one I'd be in favour of some additional restrictions in. There is an essential staff in health. It's ruthless. I heard someone say that there are less days lost to strikes today than there were during World War 2. There are even crazy rules saying that picketers will have to give their names and details to the police and wear special armbands or badges. The French wouldn't put up with this shit. God I love the French and their love of strikes. Even their football team went on strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 90% of the parliamentary wing seem to openly despise him. Alternatively, Corbyn is adored by the ordinary members. Being too blatant about undermining him is a recipe for deselection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna Stark Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I think that Folkhemmet can only work in a society that is both ethnically homogeneous, and socially conservative. That's a challenge to both right and left. If we look at "Folkhemmet" ("the people's home" for those without google translate :p ) as a narrative or an idea that can permeate a nation, I don't think it necessarily needs to be tied to ethnic homogeneity. While most European countries were certainly more ethnically homogeneous some 60-70 years ago, it seems to me countries like the US was able to create a common narrative (the American Dream, American nationalsm/patriotism etc) with a far more diverse population, and a population made up to a large degree of immigrants. Hence with that example in mind, it seems the ethnicity part is not necessary for a common idea/narrative to be functional. Regarding your claim that society needs to be socially conservative for it to work, I am uncertain why you claim this, but genuinely intrigued as to why. Are there specific values in the stance to be opposed to progressive agendas that enables a common narrative in a way that a progressive stance cannot? It's really not. The Labour Party promised in the election to be tough on immigration. They even had mugs made talking about how tough they would be! http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/immigration Isn't this another example of what you mentioned earlier, how the Left has totally lost its narrative. It seems to me they are doomed to fail if they keep shifting right-ward to become "Tories light" since it shifts the entire debate towards the right. After all, if you have two alternatives, one the original and one the weaker copy, you would rather take the original. Our journalists are quite fascinated with what is going on in the UK now, since we have a similar party to Ukip and a Labour party that has shifted strongly towards the middle during the last 15-20 years, and now faces similar issues as Labour in the UK. I suppose you will need to plant more potatoes in the south fields. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Being tough on immigration was one of their key pledges but all they were really suggesting was a two-year ban on immigrants claiming benefits. I guess they differ from Corbyn in that matter but that's pretty much the only difference. It comes down to appearances - Corbyn refuses to say anything bad about immigration while the rest of the Labour Party talk tough without actually doing anything about it. Sounds like the Conservative Party policy. In that case, Corbyn's policy is the same as the Tories. Glad we got that sorted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 So how do we feel on the proposed legislation on the right to strike? Personally, I think it goes a bit too far in general. How about way, way too far. Even the CIPD, not noted trade union supporters, think this is a bad bill. The 'threshold' requirement is dressed up to sound reasonable, but goes along with a flat refusal by the government to consider any measure that might help trade unions to increase turnout (workplace ballots, online voting). They insist on postal balloting, knowing that this has a low turnout. In addition, the permission to replace striking workers with agency staff is designed to stop strikes from having an impact and make striking workers fear for their job security: the requirement for pickets to given their names and wear official armbands so police can identify them is seen as intimidatory: in general, the whole bill is designed to try to scare anyone considering participating in a strike. It's a nasty piece of work, and completely gratuitous. It's not like the country is riven by spurious strike action. Strikes are rare, and we already have some of the strongest anti-strike legislation in Europe. It's just appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 It's not only a bad bill, it's an incredibly stupid bill. Strikes are so rare that they cause essentially zero economic damage, so there's no real problem looking for a solution. On top of that, strikes annoy many people, making them less sympathetic to the Labour Party. Also, this bill gives Corbyn a straight off opportunity to be clearly in the right and on the side of the vast majority of the population. Terrible politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCracken Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Is it terrible politics? By making the unions essentially pointless the Conservative are reducing a power source of the left even further. I think long term this is very smart politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I don't agree. This will gain the unions extra public support, combined with the extra influence they now have in the Labour Party, and there's even potential for a transparently vindictive law to give them a mandate to take extra-legal action, which will increase their ability to exert influence on employers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I'm guessing it's intended as a bit of red meat (no pun intended) for the right-wing backbenchers who chafed at being in coalition for five years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gasp of Many Reeds Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Is it terrible politics? By making the unions essentially pointless the Conservative are reducing a power source of the left even further. I think long term this is very smart politics. No, it's pretty damn short-term. You remove workers' legitimate right to protest by making it nearly impossible to organise a legal strike, then some workers will just go 'fuck it', and hold wildcat strikes, irrespective of whether they have much backing from the overall workforce. And once people stop caring about keeping their actions legal because they see the law as unfair, they're more easily swayed by radicals who might favour 'direct action' (i.e. violence) as opposed to peaceful protest. So hamstringing the unions may well just encourage radicalisation. And yes, the Tories can then play divide and rule as they always do, but if there's a sense that the legislation is preventing legitimate avenues of protest, then they'll also get their fair portion of blame for any violence and disorder. Of course, they can then send in the police or army, but that increases the risk of injuries and deaths, which again makes them look bad for curtailing union freedoms if there's a sense that such conflicts could have been avoidable. Also, you know, it doesn't look becoming for a liberal democracy that is supposedly 'beyond' class warfare if you're sending in the troops to quell wildcat strikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.