Topic: General political discussion Part II

[Indomitable_Carp]

I'd like to work a four day week myself. Some of my more senior colleagues already do.

Not sure what the suggestion is though. Is it something imposed on all organisations, like minimum wage, or is there more nuance to it?

If imposed, there's a lot of international sectors that'd be moving their jobs to Europe I'd imagine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49672757

Despite what the headline says, the Labour-commissioned report basically came back saying it could work on a sector-by-sector basis, but that a blanket 4-day week is (perhaps unsurprisingly) unrealistic.

Either way, I think any unorthodox yet potentailly constructive thinking is to be lauded.

[ShakaHislop]

I've just been going through the Register of MPs Financial Interests, and from there found out that the FBU (who had given her £17,000 in the financial year just gone) cut ties with Kate Hoey after she appeared at the pro-Brexit rally in Westminster on the 29th of March.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/190902/hoey_kate.htm

Nigel Frottage has cost Kate Hoey her position as parliamentary chair of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU). The Labour Brextremist and Vauxhall MP agreed to quit after the union objected to her sharing a platform with the purple Thatcherite in London. FBU general secretary Matt Wrack complained that Frottage’s Leave means Leave mob are right-wing, anti-union Tories and that their flute band paraded the US Confederate flag – “a symbol of slavery, racism and lynching”. Wrack’s wrathful email concluded: “The day ended with groups of fascists threatening, abusing and assaulting media workers (also trade union members).” Best buddy Nige has burned Hoey’s union bridges.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/04/commons-confidential-kate-hoey-counts-cost-Frottage

Paul Embery, a pro-Brexit, "Blue Labour" general twat lost his place on the FBU's executive council (and was banned from office from 2 years) for the same reason too. What a shame.

[TepidT2O]

Why is Wilsman still in the Labour Party?

He made an antisemitic rant that was clearly recorded.

Simple.  Get rid the next day, we all know that’s possible.

[ShakaHislop]

Former Khan adviser moves to Lib Dems over knife crime

Sadiq Khan's former policing adviser has joined the Liberal Democrats, saying his children were no longer safe in London due to rising violence.

Leroy Logan, a former police superintendent, said he quit the Labour Party over the London mayor's failure to "grasp" knife crime.

Mr Logan will now become policing adviser to the Lib Dem mayoral candidate Siobhan Benita.

Mr Khan has been approached for comment.

Speaking at the Lib Dem's conference he said: "I've seen my children and their generation grow up in fear.

"It's so tangible. It's been normalised to such an extent it can happen anywhere, not just small pockets of deprived areas."

Mr Logan said the mayor of London "doesn't really understand" knife crime, and has "isolated himself" on the issue.

"He's surrounded himself with people who think they are problem solvers, but are creating more problems on the street because they've lost touch with what is going on."

Mr Logan previously criticised the choice of Lib Peck to run London's Violence Reduction Unit - a role he had also applied for.

Ms Benita, who is running London's 2020 Mayoral election, said: "Sadiq has wasted his mayoral term in not addressing this issue with the urgency it needs.

"While he continues to blame other people, our young children in London continue to be traumatised, petrified and at risk. There is so, so much more we can do."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49712860#

[killer-heels]

I campaigned for Sadiq Khan in his mayoral bid but I have been disappointed with him. During a surge of high profile cases last year he went to ground and far too much of his grandstanding is in response to what that piece of shit across the pond is saying.

The Tories are to blame but Khan does have more power to do something than he makes out. He has been great for promoting London and its businesses but is found lacking around social policy.

[filopastry]

I campaigned for Sadiq Khan in his mayoral bid but I have been disappointed with him. During a surge of high profile cases last year he went to ground and far too much of his grandstanding is in response to what that piece of shit across the pond is saying.

The Tories are to blame but Khan does have more power to do something than he makes out. He has been great for promoting London and its businesses but is found lacking around social policy.

A lot of the issues London is facing come from central government, but I agree that I don't think Khan has been particularly effective even within those constraints, would still expect him to retain the mayorship next time around but probably a tougher fight, I wonder how close the LDs + Greens can get to the Tory vote.

[Trada]

Labour's NEC may shut down Labour Students organisation today and form another Student group about time they did this one of the last strongholds of Blairites and doesnt stand for what a lot of the members stand for in the last elections only 500 of the 30,000 members were allowed to vote because the Blairites wanted control of the results.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Labour's NEC may shut down Labour Students organisation today and form another Student group about time they did this one of the last strongholds of Blairites and doesnt stand for what a lot of the members stand for in the last elections only 500 of the 30,000 members were allowed to vote because the Blairites wanted control of the results.

Conspiracy spreading loons.

[classycarra]

Labour's NEC may shut down Labour Students organisation today and form another Student group about time they did this one of the last strongholds of Blairites and doesnt stand for what a lot of the members stand for in the last elections only 500 of the 30,000 members were allowed to vote because the Blairites wanted control of the results.

Amazing what counts as urgent to these losers

[bigbonedrawky]

Conspiracy spreading loons.

Amazing what counts as urgent to these losers

Good points well made, reminds me of Clinton and Trump slapping down their opponents.

[filopastry]

Britain Elects @britainelects

Public favourability towards Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson:

Favourable: 38% (+2)
Unfavourable: 54% (+1)


Public favourability towards Jeremy Corbyn:

Favourable: 21% (+2)
Unfavourable: 70% (+2)


Public favourability towards Jo Swinson:

Favourable: 26% (+9)
Unfavourable: 38% (+3)

via @YouGov, 16 - 17 Sep
Chgs. w/ 27 Aug

[ShakaHislop]

Liz Truss apologises over 'inadvertent' Saudi military sales

The UK's international trade secretary has apologised to a court for two breaches of a pledge not to licence exports to Saudi Arabia that could be used in the Yemen conflict.

Ministers promised to stop approving shipments in June after a challenge by campaigners at the Court of Appeal.

Liz Truss said the granting of licences for £435,000 of radio spares and a £200 air cooler for the Royal Saudi Land Forces had been "inadvertent".

An internal inquiry is taking place.

In a letter to the Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls, Ms Truss said routine analysis of statistics found a licence for the air cooler for a Renault Sherpa Light Scout vehicle had been issued just days after the ruling.

And a licence for the export of 260 items of radio spares had been issued in July. To date, the letter said, 180 items from that order - with a value of £261,450 - had been shipped.

Ms Truss said: "I have apologised to the court unreservedly for the error in granting these two licences."

Government lawyers had informed the court of the "breaches of the undertaking given", she added.

She said the internal investigation had been launched to establish whether other licences had been issued against the assurances to the court or Parliament, and to ensure there could be no further breaches.

The court case saw the Campaign Against Arms Trade argue that the UK decision to continue to license military equipment for export to the Gulf state was unlawful.

Under UK export policy, military equipment licences should not be granted if there is a "clear risk" that weapons might be used in a "serious violation of international humanitarian law".

Judges hearing the court case decided existing licences should be reviewed but they would not be immediately suspended.

But Ms Truss's predecessor Liam Fox had given an assurance that the government would not grant further export licences while it considered the ruling.

Responding to the government's apology, the campaign's Andrew Smith said: "We are always being told how rigorous and robust UK arms export controls supposedly are, but this shows that nothing could be further from the truth."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49722916

[TepidT2O]

Labour students has been wound up for being...too moderate...

So fucked up.

[ShakaHislop]

Labour students has been wound up for being...too moderate...

So fucked up.

Labour bosses vote to axe 'moderate' student body in major win for Momentum boss Jon Lansman

Labour officials have backed a move by the boss of Momentum to axe a moderate group representing student members of the party.

A marathon meeting of Labour's national executive committee agreed to pass a motion in the name of Jon Lansman calling for Labour Students to be disbanded.

Mr Lansman had claimed the NEC had never approved the group's affiliation to the Labour party.

In addition, the Momentum chief said Labour Students had never paid its affiliation fees - a claim denied by the group's chair, Rania Ramli.

Ms Ramli had written to Jennie Formby, Labour's general secretary, urging her to reject Mr Lansman's motion, which called for the NEC to "urgently devise a plan to establish a Labour Students organisation which does meet its obligations".

However, the motion was passed unanimously by the powerful body.

One party source told PoliticsHome: "It's another nail in the coffin for a sensible Labour party delivered by an old man who couldn’t lace the campaigning boots of Labour students."

In a statement issued before the NEC meeting, Labour Students said: "This motion is being brought forward as we approach a general election, with no alternative proposals for how the Labour party organises and engages with students.

"This chaotic Tory government is taking the country towards a disastrous no deal Brexit that would destroy jobs across the country. Poverty is on the rise and austerity has devastated communities. Racism is getting worse and the far-right are gaining ground in the UK and across the world.

"And we are on the eve of a general election that could tackle these issues and bring much needed change to people’s lives. That’s why Labour Students’ focus is on voter registration and making sure we are ready to mobilise students across the country.

"The organisation has been working with the Labour Party towards this goal for decades and that has not changed."

Several Labour MPs made clear their opposition to Mr Lansman's move.

Wes Streeting said: "The Labour Party should be focusing all its energies on winning the next general election, not Jon Lansman’s factional vendettas against Labour Students. It is literally student politicking, when we’re in the fight our lives for the future of the country."

Stella Creasy said: "Why at such a critical time in our country and with an election on the horizon does anyone who wants Labour to be an effective force for good think this is the time for such attempts to silence parts of our youth movement when we need them to be seen and heard campaigning?”

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/106610/labour-bosses-vote-axe-moderate-student-body

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Where is Lansmans' seat/borough,i mean he is an MP and was voted in right ?

Did you vote for him Trada ? 

[The Gulleysucker]

I expect this was likely their crime.

[ShakaHislop]

The NEC notes that the organisation which currently describes itself as “Labour Students” claims to be an organisation affiliated to the Labour Party and appears to claim both the rights and the autonomy associated with that status in spite of the following:

1) The NEC appears never to have made its final and binding decision to approve that affiliation in respect of “Labour Students” as presently constituted as required under the rule Chapter 1.II.3.

2) “Labour Students” appears not to have submitted its political rules to the NEC as required under Rule 1.II.4.

3) “Labour Students” appears not to have paid affiliation fees required under Rule 1.II.6.b.i in recent years.

4) The organisation calling itself “Labour Students” therefore is neither an affiliate, nor meets the requirements of Rule 1.II.2.G which requires that (all) student members of the Labour Party (whether or not they are members of Labour Clubs, affiliated to “Labour Students” or not) are organised nationally as “Labour Students”.

The NEC therefore asks General Secretary to urgently devise a plan to establish a Labour Students organisation which does meet its obligations under rule 1.II.2.G.

https://labourlist.org/2019/09/nec-approves-lansmans-motion-to-scrap-labour-students



https://twitter.com/LabourStudents/status/1173927583836254214

[Circa1892]

This is why everyone thinks Labour is shit. More interested in fighting the factional battles of the 80s than confront problems. Bag of shit the lot of them.

[Zeb]

Old turf war that one. Was still running a long while back. Wisdom of hard left wanting to do it with an election ahead seems dubious but besides the point. Lansman's having some cracking ideas at the moment.

https://twitter.com/jonlansman/status/1173931485629493248

"Welcome to Salma Yaqoob who is a great addition to the male candidates to become West Midlands mayoral Labour candidate - and has my full personal support."

Respect co-founder Yaqoob ran as the anti-Labour pro-Corbyn independent candidate against Naz Shah, in a really nasty campaign, in 2017 which followed Galloway's efforts in 2015. Not the first time this has happened, aware of similar situation with a hard left independent now a councillor close to me. Rules waived and all that.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

This is why everyone thinks Labour is shit. More interested in fighting the factional battles of the 80s than confront problems. Bag of shit the lot of them.

this, and it’s why people who utterly detest the Tories have no interest in voting for these charlatans

[TepidT2O]

Who do the lions share of Labour Party electioneering donkey work.

Students!

I know, let’s fuck them off just before an election.

These wealthy ex public school boys have labour by the short and curlies

[ShakaHislop]

Old turf war that one. Was still running a long while back. Wisdom of hard left wanting to do it with an election ahead seems dubious but besides the point. Lansman's having some cracking ideas at the moment.

https://twitter.com/jonlansman/status/1173931485629493248

"Welcome to Salma Yaqoob who is a great addition to the male candidates to become West Midlands mayoral Labour candidate - and has my full personal support."

Respect co-founder Yaqoob ran as the anti-Labour pro-Corbyn independent candidate against Naz Shah, in a really nasty campaign, in 2017 which followed Galloway's efforts in 2015. Not the first time this has happened, aware of similar situation with a hard left independent now a councillor close to me. Rules waived and all that.

I see what you mean.

(Page 10)

Chapter 2
Membership rules

Clause I.
Conditions of membership

...

4.Exclusions

...

B. A member of the Party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member, subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.I.2 below of the disciplinary rules.

(Page 31)

Chapter 6
Disciplinary rules

Clause I.
National action by the Party

...

2. When a person applies for re-admission to the Party following an expulsion by the NCC on whatever basis or by automatic exclusion under Chapter 2.4 above of the membership rules, the application shall be submitted to the NEC for consideration and decision. Such applications shall not normally be considered by the NEC until a minimum of five years has elapsed. The decision of the NEC shall be binding on the individual concerned and on the CLP relevant to the application.

http://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-RULE-BOOK.pdf

[Zeb]

I see what you mean.

Load of stuff sneaking through NEC at the moment. Like decisions on trigger ballots (deffo need them apparently - members should choose their MPs!) vs full selection procedures (nah, let an NEC sub-committee choose candidates - might be an election tomorrow). But not my circus, not my monkeys.

edit: Heh. Stephen Bush spotting similar peculiarities.

""Labour leadership scrapping an antidemocratic bulwark of the right” [ie scrap Student group] on the one hand and taking a large chunk of Welsh Labour’s power [ie ability to choose their own candidates] at the same NEC meeting is the most perfect encapsulation of where the Corbyn project is at"

edit2: kant spel

[Circa1892]

Add to this Corbyn declaring his neutrality on Brexit. What a waste of space he is.

[No666]

At least he's been more honest this time, rather than declaring for Remain and hiding on the allotment or wherever he went for the referendum.

[Jiminy Cricket]

At least he's been more honest this time, rather than declaring for Remain and hiding on the allotment or wherever he went for the referendum.

Nope. He will be truthful when he admits to being a Brexiteer. No way is he 'neutral'.

[TepidT2O]

What do we think of this article in the times?


It really made me think.... but I’m not sure what!

There is no doubt that universal credit has got a bad reputation. Over the past 18 months, I’ve run dozens of focus groups up and down the country on what ordinary voters think about UC.

It’s rare to find anyone with a good word to say about it. As UC spread across the country, everyone who had not themselves been treated unfairly by the DWP seemed to know someone who had. Employers said staff still thought they would be clobbered if they worked more hours.

So one might think Labour’s apparent suggestion this week that it planned to scrap UC would be a smart move. Except that it isn’t. The reason is that the basic idea of UC — and of most recent benefits reform — is amazingly popular.

Put simply, the British public don’t like those who are perceived as scroungers. It is a widely held belief that many people claim benefits because they choose to, and this belief is held even among those who themselves have had a bad experience as UC clients, or who know someone who has.

A young working-class woman in a West Midlands focus group said: “My friend’s parents have got eight kids. They’ve never worked. He had ‘an accident’ when he was 18. And they’ve got iPads. They’ve got phones on contracts. And we have to pay this money.”


It may come as a surprise to many, but the lower down the social scale you go, the more passionate is this view.

 

Confused about politics?
Sign up to receive our brilliant Red Box newsletter, Matt Chorley's poke at politics delivered every weekday morning at 8am.

Nick Clegg was mocked for using the phrase “alarm clock Britain”. But these people exist in large numbers, and many of them claim to know neighbours or even family members who live off benefits while they trudge off to work every morning. The greater their proximity to benefit claimants, the greater their scorn.


Anyone who looks at Corbynite social media can see that austerity and benefit cuts loom very large — often as a result of direct personal experience. So a pledge to abolish UC goes down well with Labour partisans.

But the most severe danger to Labour’s electoral hopes is that being “soft on scroungers” is toxic to the lower-middle and working-class voters in provincial England where Labour is most exposed on Brexit.

The most powerful phrase in popular English discourse may be “it’s not fair”. People don’t like how UC has been delivered. They bridle at outrages such as forcing the terminally ill to find a job.

But that shouldn’t be confused with a softer attitude towards those who could work but allegedly choose not to — even if the work available is hard, nasty and currently performed by immigrants.

Reform UC, make it work properly, drop some of the more egregious sanctions. But abolishing it would be a recipe for driving even more Labour voters into the arms of the Tories and the Brexit Party.

Gabriel Milland is a partner at communications, research and policy consultancy Public First

[Zeb]

Milland is right on the politics with some voters - tend to be socially quite conservative whether left or right wing. (Same goes with rhetoric on austerity btw - similar/same set of voters hate it when it touches them, not so much when it touches people they think deserve it.) Part Labour need to have figured out is what replaces UC, how it improves things for people using it over UC, and trying to find that balance between a sane and rational system and not making (a lot of) people think the system is helping people they don't believe deserve it. Reality of UC is whether it *can* be reformed to something which works properly so Milland's point there on abolishing may be more about how the replacement is sold to different voters.

[stewil007]

The way I see UC is the same way I see VAR, fundamentally its a good idea but the roll outsand the people implementing and supporting it don't appear to have a clue.

[bigbonedrawky]

What do we think of this article in the times?


It really made me think.... but I’m not sure what!

Howling Mad Murdock speaking for the people ?

[TepidT2O]

Howling Mad Murdock speaking for the people ?

No, not at all.  It was a suggestion as to how labour could make better policy.

[Zeb]

Milland used to be Gove's comms person at the Department of Education. Point he makes isn't controversial though - there's a long thread where I've posted similar from those with no axe to grind. It was a huge thing when the Tories were selling austerity to start with, remember 'skivers vs strivers' they used to sell benefits cuts which included those for disabled people like me?

[TepidT2O]

Milland used to be Gove's comms person at the Department of Education. Point he makes isn't controversial though - there's a long thread where I've posted similar from those with no axe to grind. It was a huge thing when the Tories were selling austerity to start with, remember 'skivers vs strivers' they used to sell benefits cuts which included those for disabled people like me?

But is his idea wrong?

Could you make UC work with better funding and more care?

I genuinely don't know, I’m just interested in people’s views really

[ShakaHislop]

Keeping UC and being seen to be "tough on scroungers" (if that is how you want to be seen) aren't mutually exclusive.

Sounds like this Milland bloke wants UC to kept for "legacy" reasons/an "achievement" the Tories can point to in future election campaigns.

[Zeb]

But is his idea wrong?

Could you make UC work with better funding and more care?

I genuinely don't know, I’m just interested in people’s views really

Think we may have discussed it in the UC thread in the past? My take on it is that in conception UC is fundamentally flawed by the underlying assumptions made in it and pouring even more money in may prove costlier (cos you're effectively going to end up running at least two concurrent systems...) than scrapping in favour of something which works better and is designed around the needs of those who will use it. Milland's point is about perceptions so it's how they are shaped and managed, isn't it? 'Reform' as he describes it would seem to be to keep the name and not much else. edit: Shaka has a point with 'legacy', where it may prove favourable to Labour is that it keeps the perception of those voters as being a 'Tory' thing, whether that's desirable with voters who have to experience the mess it has made on the other hand...

[TepidT2O]

Think we may have discussed it in the UC thread in the past? My take on it is that in conception UC is fundamentally flawed by the underlying assumptions made in it and pouring even more money in may prove costlier (cos you're effectively going to end up running at least two concurrent systems...) than scrapping in favour of something which works better and is designed around the needs of those who will use it. Milland's point is about perceptions so it's how they are shaped and managed, isn't it? 'Reform' as he describes it would seem to be to keep the name and not much else.

That’s a fair response I think ...billions wasted on a system that will never actually do want it needs to do?

[Zeb]

That’s a fair response I think ...billions wasted on a system that will never actually do want it needs to do?

Think the problem from the start was that IDS and co. weren't interested in what it needed to do from a claimant's perspective, just in what they wanted it to do in changing claimants' behaviour. There's a mismatch there from the start. Not saying enough money won't fix problems and create a better system but there has to be a point where you question the assumptions you're working towards, yeah.

[bigbonedrawky]

No, not at all.  It was a suggestion as to how labour could make better policy.

Murdock telling you UC is great while centralising the argument around ( and ultimately highlighting ) Murdocks scrounger narrative. Then pointing at the very people who have been conned by Murdocks  scrounger narrative in order to validate Murdocks scrounger narrative... 

[killer-heels]

Joanna Cherry of the SNP having a go at the Lib Dems on Peston.

Fair play to the Lib Dems and Swinson for them being hated by all other parties now. Its good to be known and hated rather than not given a shit about.

[ShakaHislop]

Joanna Cherry of the SNP having a go at the Lib Dems on Peston.

Fair play to the Lib Dems and Swinson for them being hated by all other parties now. Its good to be known and hated rather than not given a shit about.

YouGov/Times has the Lib Dems in 2nd place...

https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1174444940572680193

A new YouGov poll for The Times puts the Lib Dems on 23 per cent, up four points on last week and ahead of Labour, which is down two points at 21 per cent. It is the first time Labour has been in third place since July. The Conservatives are on 32 per cent, unchanged on a week ago.

Just half of those who backed Labour in the 2017 election are sticking with the party, with a quarter going to the Lib Dems and a further 9 per cent backing the Brexit Party. The boost for the Lib Dems is fuelled by support among Remainers, with 41 per cent of those who voted against Brexit in 2016 backing the party, up eight points in a week.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-starts-to-reverse-tony-blairs-clause-4-reforms-j9lh2tnfg