[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

If the aim is to win back the red wall, that won’t help

They are literally the gift that keeps on giving to the Tory’s currently

They're trying to cater to the hard left, the left of centre, and progressives all at the same time with apparently no insight into the fact that those groups do not overlap in the ways they thought and are perhaps also not as large as they imagined. I genuinely think that Labour has in part fallen for the "social media illusion" - which to be succinct, I would sum up as, the mistaken belief that the groups shouting the loudest are actually large in number. They often are not. They are just passionate and quick to cluster. This applies on both the left and right; the best interests of the centre (80% of people fall only slightly to the left or right) are being lost in a lot of very loud voices from the extremes of both sides. The problem Labour has there is that the voices from the left want more drastic changes, and when you're hearing bellowing from the extremes from both sides, the old "better the devil you know" comes into play. Tories, at least on the surface, offer something closer to "what people are used to". It's an illusion of course and what they actually offer is a descent into neoliberal capitalism and privitisation that benefits only the rich, but they don't openly admit that. Whereas at this point all the left seems to offer these days is banal identity politics and whiney hyperindividualism. The choices are truly grim.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They're trying to cater to the hard left, the left of centre, and progressives all at the same time with apparently no insight into the fact that those groups do not overlap in the ways they thought and are perhaps also not as large as they imagined. I genuinely think that Labour has in part fallen for the "social media illusion" - which to be succinct, I would sum up as, the mistaken belief that the groups shouting the loudest are actually large in number. They often are not. They are just passionate and quick to cluster. This applies on both the left and right; the best interests of the centre (80% of people fall only slightly to the left or right) are being lost in a lot of very loud voices from the extremes of both sides. The problem Labour has there is that the voices from the left want more drastic changes, and when you're hearing bellowing from the extremes from both sides, the old "better the devil you know" comes into play. Tories, at least on the surface, offer something closer to "what people are used to". It's an illusion of course and what they actually offer is a descent into neoliberal capitalism and privitisation that benefits only the rich, but they don't openly admit that. Whereas at this point all the left seems to offer these days is banal identity politics and whiney hyperindividualism. The choices are truly grim.

Well said! Identity politics appeals to such a small amount of people, and it's at best off-putting to basically everyone else ...

[arista]

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They're trying to cater to the hard left, the left of centre, and progressives all at the same time with apparently no insight into the fact that those groups do not overlap in the ways they thought and are perhaps also not as large as they imagined. I genuinely think that Labour has in part fallen for the "social media illusion" - which to be succinct, I would sum up as, the mistaken belief that the groups shouting the loudest are actually large in number. They often are not. They are just passionate and quick to cluster. This applies on both the left and right; the best interests of the centre (80% of people fall only slightly to the left or right) are being lost in a lot of very loud voices from the extremes of both sides. The problem Labour has there is that the voices from the left want more drastic changes, and when you're hearing bellowing from the extremes from both sides, the old "better the devil you know" comes into play. Tories, at least on the surface, offer something closer to "what people are used to". It's an illusion of course and what they actually offer is a descent into neoliberal capitalism and privitisation that benefits only the rich, but they don't openly admit that. Whereas at this point all the left seems to offer these days is banal identity politics and whiney hyperindividualism. The choices are truly grim.

Great post

[arista]

[Livia]

At least this time Labour haven't had to arrange security for members of their party who have been threatened with violence and death. No need for security this time because the woman being threatened has stayed away for her own safety.

They are a ****ing shambles.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They're trying to cater to the hard left, the left of centre, and progressives all at the same time with apparently no insight into the fact that those groups do not overlap in the ways they thought and are perhaps also not as large as they imagined. I genuinely think that Labour has in part fallen for the "social media illusion" - which to be succinct, I would sum up as, the mistaken belief that the groups shouting the loudest are actually large in number. They often are not. They are just passionate and quick to cluster. This applies on both the left and right; the best interests of the centre (80% of people fall only slightly to the left or right) are being lost in a lot of very loud voices from the extremes of both sides. The problem Labour has there is that the voices from the left want more drastic changes, and when you're hearing bellowing from the extremes from both sides, the old "better the devil you know" comes into play. Tories, at least on the surface, offer something closer to "what people are used to". It's an illusion of course and what they actually offer is a descent into neoliberal capitalism and privitisation that benefits only the rich, but they don't openly admit that. Whereas at this point all the left seems to offer these days is banal identity politics and whiney hyperindividualism. The choices are truly grim.

Excellent post, TS.

[arista]

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[joeysteele]

Well yes, he did believe that at the time
We have had a pandemic and other things going on since then.

It's foolish to say a figure until the general election is near.
No one has any idea really, the position we'll be in, in 2 to near 3 years time.
What will inflation be like.
Plus what else may throw itself up as a crisis or issue needing addressing.

He didn't want a £15 min wage debated and voted on at this time.

He's calling for a £ 10 one now.
Which makes sense as to where things are now.

If he was advocating only a £10 min wage in say near 3 years time, then with this government's increases to it, he's barely adding pence to it.

This is the minimum he would set it at now surely if he was in government.
It will be meaningless as a figure of £10 by the time of the next election however.

The desire to aim for a £15 min wage is fine.
Putting it in place from now not so wise with all the uncertainty.

However I think it should be higher than £10 but there's many workers who warrant so much more wage rates anyhow, especially any who have been hardworking and demonstrated endless efforts during this pandemic.

I don't see a contradiction from Starmer here re McDonalds.
However he should be still saying that £15 min wage rate is his aim.

Why on earth do political leaders, Johnson is the same, as was the hopeless Jo Swinson, get themselves into crazy confusing messaging, as to their real aims and beliefs too.
Such as Starmer has here.
Starmer is not the person I wanted as leader, I haven't changed my mind.
I hoped to see him show some passion and really take on this disaster of a government this week.

I'm almost left thinking Starmer doesn't really want to even try to win the next election, let alone actually do so.

We really do have a set of the worst possible leaders of Parties in the UK at present.
Except for Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland and Mark Drakeford in Wales.

I have to say, in Manchester for me, is the man I believe was always and remains so, the best candidate for leader of Labour, namely Andy Burnham.

How MPs and members seem to have lost the ability to elect as leaders, their best talents, is beyond me honestly.

[Oliver_W]

Well yeah, the current minimum wage may be pathetic, but to try to rocket it all the way to £15 right now just isn't realistic. Make it clear that's what he's building toward, sure, but acting like a £15 minimum wage at this point is or should be a priority? Not happening.

[bitontheslide]

nobody can make financial commitments for 6 months time at the moment let alone 2 or 3 years in the future

The tories messaging is awful, labours messaging is awful and that is actually the problem. Everyone knows that labour will increase workers rights/benefits ... it's what they do so they shouldn't even be talking about it. If Stammer was to commit to a huge minimum wage, in a covid hit economy, it would likely mean a huge tax rise which would lose them the next election. So why would he commit to it now. You commit to things when you have won the election, that is the biggest lesson labour need to learn

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

nobody can make financial commitments for 6 months time at the moment let alone 2 or 3 years in the future

The tories messaging is awful, labours messaging is awful and that is actually the problem. Everyone knows that labour will increase workers rights/benefits ... it's what they do so they shouldn't even be talking about it. If Stammer was to commit to a huge minimum wage, in a covid hit economy, it would likely mean a huge tax rise which would lose them the next election. So why would he commit to it now. You commit to things when you have won the election, that is the biggest lesson labour need to learn

I agree with all that.

[arista]

The Bakers Union has Disaffiliated
with the Labour Party.

Live on BBCnewsHD
in Brighton



Fighting over the £15 an hour
that Starmer no longer wants

[Oliver_W]

Also coming out of a pandemic with a commitment to massive payrise for burger-flippers when frontline care workers get paid the bare minimum isn't a good look.

Fast food isn't a necessity, and bloated companies like McDonalds just contribute to the destruction of the environment, and the homogenisation of high streets threatening smaller businesses. So on that hand I'd be happy for them to have to spend more of their income on staff wages.

But on the other, their workers aren't who we should be fighting for right now*. If anyone's gonna be given higher wages, it should be our health workers.

[Marsh.]

Frontline health care workers are, of course, important and that can be addressed without needing to be derogatory towards staff who work in fast food as "burger flippers" or any other inane insult. It isn't a good look.

[arista]

The Floor Voted for £15 an hour,
against Starmer's wishes.

Tomorrow midday is Keir Starmer's long speech.

Ch4HDnews report.

[LeatherTrumpet]

one word:

car

crash

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

The Floor Voted for £15 an hour,
against Starmer's wishes.

Tomorrow midday is Keir Starmer's long speech.

Ch4HDnews report.

I agreed with bots you can't make figures now at this time stick really.
As no one knows what the situation will be in months never mind years.

With an election up to 18 months to near 3 years away.
Any figure could be obsolete.

This government planned by the time of the next election to have the min wage of around £9.50.

In fact, by the time we get to 2023 or 2024, depending on inflation and other elements.
It could be £15 could amount to a pay cut, not rise.

We are years off an election.
This vote today may have no meaning at all in a couple of years time.

Plus were Labour to be in a position to be a minority or coalition with the SNP.
Even a £15 min wage level, would only need to be implemented 'sometime' from the first year of government to the fifth.

All this furore over £5, is ridiculous.

My guess would be a figure of more like £12 to £13: would make more sense by the next election, if no more unexpected events occur that is.

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

one word:

car

crash

There is a Split
Corbynistas Vs the Starmers

[bitontheslide]

Keir doesn't need to implement anything so the vote was quite meaningless. All it did was expose the divisions there are in the party. People can call it democracy, but all it does is create a bad impression. This conference has been a complete disaster for labour, and I will guarantee that the Tory conference next week will present a united front, whether the members agree or not. Perception is everything. Will the public vote for a rabble that cant agree on anything or a party with a plan. It's a no brainer

[arista]

"the vote was quite meaningless.
All it did was expose the divisions there are in the party."


Yes very true.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Keir doesn't need to implement anything so the vote was quite meaningless. All it did was expose the divisions there are in the party. People can call it democracy, but all it does is create a bad impression. This conference has been a complete disaster for labour, and I will guarantee that the Tory conference next week will present a united front, whether the members agree or not. Perception is everything. Will the public vote for a rabble that cant agree on anything or a party with a plan. It's a no brainer

There's divisions in all Parties, the only difference is Labour's aren't hidden.
If they were of course we'd be called being deceitful.

All through it's history Labour has been in conflict with its differing wings.

George Brown was a thorn in the side of Harold Wilson apparently.
He was his Deputy PM even all that time ago in the 60s.

Somehow eventually they do and can come together.
It takes however a strong sort of leader.
Even Kinnock has his conflicts with a lot in his party.

Corbyn couldn't unite and neither is Starmer.
We've the wrong leader.

Then again I think all Parties except for the SNP have the wrong leader anyhow.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I agreed with bots you can't make figures now at this time stick really.
As no one knows what the situation will be in months never mind years.

With an election up to 18 months to near 3 years away.
Any figure could be obsolete.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Keir doesn't need to implement anything so the vote was quite meaningless.

I think the term "virtue signal" is overused, but in this case it literally is a virtue signal.

Although if we're being technical, anything said by the party at this point is a virtue signal, as they won't potentially be in a position to implement anything for years : joker: but it's easy to say PAY MCDONALD'S STAFF FIFTEEN QUID when they're miles away from being able to do anything about it.

[arista]

Labour plans to put Police Hubs across the UK.