Fire and rehire should absolutely be banned. But zero hour contracts? Surely they're handy for students, carers,.parents ... People whose lifestyle is varied and might not be able to commit to a rota, but still want work?

Like, before I started work at the school I'm at now, I'd do supply work through an agency. If I couldn't be bothered or just wanted to go away, I'd just have to update my online calendar (or ignore my phone lol). Would that flexibility still exist if zero hour contracts were banned?

And I think the NHS has the same thing? My mum calls it the "Nurse Bank", but as far as I know it's for all NHS roles?

i don't understand this obsession with banning zero hours contracts either. There are many situations where its advantageous to both the employer and worker

Personally, I would permit zero hours contracts for those who want them, on a voluntary basis.
Not zero hours contracts enforced.

No one should be forced to have to accept one.

I concede there's groupings who like zero hours contracts.
However, of those I've learned who are on them or have been on one, well I've yet to find anyone who would not prefer them gone.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

yeah, i can go with that. The aim, i believe, is to stop exploitation, if it's the workers personal choice, there is no exploitation

Oh I can see the benefits of them bots.
I agree with your last lines completely.

Owen Jones
on BBCnewsHD
claims Labour are at war.

And he hates Starmer.

Who cares what that sanctimonious cntu thinks or says?

The lad needs to get a proper job, like the rest of us. Time to muck in, Owen.

i can see kids being impressed

but not adults

Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop changes to the way Labour elects its leaders after they were rejected by the party's left wing.

He had wanted to scrap one-member-one vote - but opponents said that would give Labour MPs too much say over who gets the top job.

Sir Keir is now hoping to get members to back a watered-down package of reforms in a conference vote on Sunday.

He says they will help the party win the next general election.

The row over Labour's constitution began earlier this week, when the leader proposed changing the way his successors would be chosen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58689884

------------------------

Failing miserably is not a good look. Rule number 1 as a leader, don't make a stand if you are not certain to win

You may be surprised here bots but I agree with you.
He has in my opinion ill advisedly created overshadowing his first major conference as leader with this leadership farce.

It is a fact Labour leaders do lose policies and votes at party conferences.
This leadership one however is what the media have instantly picked up on, and are unlikely to let go of it.

It is as you said, a fail, not to have got it how he really wanted it to go.
Sadly a lot of good that will be presented at this conference, will more than likely find itself lost amidst his, to me anyway, unnecessary and puzzling leadership nomination and voting change issue.

Never hand over the control of the narrative. When Angela Raynor finished a speech by calling Tory MPs scum, everything else she said was instantly obselete. Her speech before may well have been brill, but the apparent inappropriateness of calling a spade a spade is all that people remembered...

Apart from being completely inappropriate. Boris won a landslide election and labour were all but annihilated, so she is by association calling all the people who voted conservative scum. Bet that works out well for her :laugh:

Remember how well it went for Hillary and her deplorables comment

Deplorables, I forgot all about that :joker: : joker: wasn't there an event called the DeploraBall? :laugh:

But anyway, I can't feel too put out over an MP getting impassioned. I didn't vote for either party, so them exchanging barbed remarks means next to nothing to me :joker:

Cons have called Labour worse than scum in conference speeches in the past.

I'd go further, in MY VIEW, before I get pounced on as usual.

My view is, of voters who actually vote, I'd say around 30% of them are extreme hardline, heartless and selfish who all vote for the Cons.

They are the hard base of Con votes now in my opinion.
The other percentage who take the Cons votes to higher 30s or on or over 40%
They are less firm Con voters.
They are who Starmer and Labour should be aiming for.

It's a waste of time trying to reason with the hardliners who don't give a jot for the most vulnerable, poorest, sick and disabled.

The Con party has listened to the harder extreme of its party since Michael Howard resigned as leader.

I'm like a broken record here but even in the last election, around 57% voted AGAINST having this Con government.
A ridiculously antiquated electoral system put this lot in to dismiss and rule out those near 57% of voters.

Labour has to find any way to maximise gaining most of those 57% of anti Con voters.
Which is why I still wish, the voices now rising in Labour for PR, among members, unions and MPs, would push harder to get it debated and made policy.

Yes, it would mean Labour would never be a majority government again after doing so.
However it would ensure too, we never get again, a heartless, rotten from the core hardline government with absolute power like this current Con one.
Who treat the most vulnerable, poorest, sick and disabled with suspicion, ridicule and contempt only.

[Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner brands
them ‘bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic,
absolute pile’ – before insisting she ‘held back a little’ in rant
Angela Rayner reportedly launched an outspoken
attack on the Conservatives
MP described the Tories as 'a bunch of scum,
homophobic, racist, misogynistic'
Government minister Amanda Milling
called the Labour MP's remarks 'shocking']



She is Rough.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ands-scum.html

what a shambles of a conference and that vile attack by that woman just shows you what Labour really are

The GBP will not be fooled by this one little bit

Angela playing to the gallery

Not that long ago she called for a kinder form of politics :idc:

She could have held back a bit but what the Cons and their supporters have called Labour senior figures, and Labour supporters too, this pales into near significance compared to their vile comments and false accusations.

I can't disagree they are scum for the heartless, discriminatory, unnecessary persecution almost of the poorest, most vulnerable, sick and disabled in society.

The humiliation of terminal cancer patients with limited time left, having to go to court to win back benefits wrongly taken off them by this cruel government's heartless assessments procedures.

Yeah, pretty much, only scum could do actions as heartless as that.

I love me a bit of Angela and she didn’t utter a single lie, it’s probably not ‘professional’ but then when you’re up against a bunch of lying, cheating, charlatans who have spent the last 10 years or so deliberately destroying everything that that is good about the country and purposefully attacking the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable of our society, I think a little bit of unprofessionalism is the least of our worries, especially when she’s just telling the truth.

As i said earlier, the tories won the election with a landslide. Angela is taking a shot at everyone who voted for them and that will not improve her party's chances.

Labour should be on the front foot, they should lead by example, without needing to resort to inappropriate abuse. They should be way ahead with the complete shambles there has been over the last couple of years, but if anything, they are even less likely to win an election now. Labour have had tough times in the past, but nothing compares to the way they are now. I think it's entirely feasible that they drop to being as inconsequential as the lib dems at the next election.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer told the BBC's Andrew Marr show: "Angela and I take a different approach and that is not the language I would have used."

Pressed on whether he would asking her to apologise, he said that was a matter for her but added: "I will talk to her later."