Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[Nobby Reserve]

I would love to see a debate on what took us to where we are today.
People judge Labours past policys in isolation which doesn't explain how the politics forced them into similar positions on pay as the Torys.
The problem started when unemployment figures became a big political issue.
It lead to subsidised wages to encourage companies to employ more people which they gladly grabbed with both hands. we were in effect subsidizing those companies rather than workers as it encouraged more companies to reduce wages. then came the short term week subsidizes to keep the unemployment figures as low as possible, maybe others remember the same conversations, being told this job suits me down to the ground m8, only work 28 hours and government tops up my wage. happy with the money they were recieving.
This is what got us in this mess, many workers were happy enough on low wages and short term working as the pay packet gave them a decent enough standard of life, the problems started to hit when the Torys started chopping those subsidizes.
Finding the solutions is a different issue and a matter of opinion, this all should have been made a issue years ago.

Housing is the biggest single monthly outlay.

You index-link house prices and rents from 30 years ago, and they'd be less than half the cost now.

It all comes down to low interest rates. Buyers were willing to pay more for houses because monthly mortgage payments were still low at the higher price (and more and more people were basing their 'what can I afford' calculation not on the price of the house but the monthly mortgage). But also, people with money behind them looked for better RoI's than a building society account, so lumped on the BtL train, adding a lot of demand for buying houses. As more people were priced out of buying houses (especially after lending rules were tightened in the wake of the GFC), so demand for rental properties surged, spiking prices. That just encouraged more BtL'ers, so perpetuating the demand.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I see other people have had a go explaining but let's have another try.

The minimum wage is just that. It was introduced by Labour in the 1998 act and has since been adopted as policy by the Tories. It's not what every low paid worker should be earning. It's just the baseline, the minimum that any worker should be earning. The current level equates to around 18k for a 40 hour week. That's the sort of wage you get as a shelf stacker in a local store, a window cleaner with a local round, road sweeper and the like. Raising the minimum wage to £15pw would make the lowest possible yearly wage for any job in the country £30,000.

It's a great idea but it's ridiculous in practice.

And then you have a completely separate issue - a dispute about pay, job security and working conditions between one employer and their employees, supported by the Bakers, Food and Allied Works’ Union.

It's not hypocritical to suggest that a multi-national company making billions could do better for its work force, but the same salary and conditions might not be affordable for the man who runs the local chippy.

Your logic is that the outcome of every industrial dispute over pay & conditions should then be applied to every single worker with lower conditions and pay.

Im fully aware of what the minimum wage is, but thanks anyway


If you worked for another multinational making billions and you see Starmer campaign for workers at another multinational to get 15p/h you might think , id like some of that
If you then see on the news that KS wants to argue against you earning 15 p/h at your multinational, they you might feel a bit aggrieved

I can see a few 9.50 p/h Amazon  workers feeling aggrieved. If you cant then theres little in this discussion

[Elmo!]

Housing is the biggest single monthly outlay.

You index-link house prices and rents from 30 years ago, and they'd be less than half the cost now.

It all comes down to low interest rates. Buyers were willing to pay more for houses because monthly mortgage payments were still low at the higher price (and more and more people were basing their 'what can I afford' calculation not on the price of the house but the monthly mortgage). But also, people with money behind them looked for better RoI's than a building society account, so lumped on the BtL train, adding a lot of demand for buying houses. As more people were priced out of buying houses (especially after lending rules were tightened in the wake of the GFC), so demand for rental properties surged, spiking prices. That just encouraged more BtL'ers, so perpetuating the demand.

There's no easy way out of it either. Any large interest rate rise will cause havoc as people are up their ears in debt, and any crash in prices just allows seculators to jump in and buy up properties - as the lenders tend to make borrowing more restrictive with higher deposit requirements when things are uncertain so a price drop doesn't even really benefit low earners and first time buyers. The only way out I can see is to plan for a long stagnation in prices (by increasing supply carefully) over many years while waiting for wages to catch up. Not easy to sell to the public though.

[killer-heels]

Andy Macdonald is utterly mad. Very surprising for a boring MP like him.

[oldfordie]

Housing is the biggest single monthly outlay.

You index-link house prices and rents from 30 years ago, and they'd be less than half the cost now.

It all comes down to low interest rates. Buyers were willing to pay more for houses because monthly mortgage payments were still low at the higher price (and more and more people were basing their 'what can I afford' calculation not on the price of the house but the monthly mortgage). But also, people with money behind them looked for better RoI's than a building society account, so lumped on the BtL train, adding a lot of demand for buying houses. As more people were priced out of buying houses (especially after lending rules were tightened in the wake of the GFC), so demand for rental properties surged, spiking prices. That just encouraged more BtL'ers, so perpetuating the demand.

Awful period, mid 70s onwards, not long married, I remember saving for a deposit for a house but the deposit needed was raising monthly as house prices shot up. finished up asking for a loan off parents so we could buy, then came inflation and the rise in interest rates something people haven't experienced today. letter from building society literally month after month telling me my payments had increased. Think I was paying 22%-25% for a while but always a very high rate for years. Labour did pee me off at the time as well, ignoring this when discussing the Winter of Discontent.

[Elmo!]

This is why - however much you might agree with her - it was bad idea for Raynor to use the language she did.

[Kenny's Jacket]

This is why - however much you might agree with her - it was bad idea for Raynor to use the language she did.

Interesting, thanks - a little surprised at the 18-24 year olds

[Machae]

This is why - however much you might agree with her - it was bad idea for Raynor to use the language she did.

That may well be true, however quite bizarre that Tories can almost say anything yet suffer no consequence as a result.

[Nobby Reserve]

There's no easy way out of it either. Any large interest rate rise will cause havoc as people are up their ears in debt, and any crash in prices just allows seculators to jump in and buy up properties - as the lenders tend to make borrowing more restrictive with higher deposit requirements when things are uncertain so a price drop doesn't even really benefit low earners and first time buyers. The only way out I can see is to plan for a long stagnation in prices (by increasing supply carefully) over many years while waiting for wages to catch up. Not easy to sell to the public though.

I said some time ago that IMO the best way to do this is embark on a huge programme of building social housing that rent out at prices to cover costs. Aim for 250k-500k per year. Subvert the market by removing a huge chunk of demand from predominantly the private rental sector. This should feed through gradually to house prices as BtL'ers sell properties due to a decreased RoI. A prolonged mild correction rather than a slump.

[Nobby Reserve]

That may well be true, however quite bizarre that Tories can almost say anything yet suffer no consequence as a result.

That's the mystery.

They're held to different standards than other parties.

[oldfordie]

This is why - however much you might agree with her - it was bad idea for Raynor to use the language she did.

It's done now so and am sure the Torys will bring it up and have a pop during the election run up.
 Remain MPs think you are all idiots. booooooo
Labour voters thinks anyone who supports the Torys are Scum. boooooooooo.
I don't think a apology will repair the damage it will justify the Torys attacks.
Mind you am surprised the Torys aren't making more of it, maybe more worried about the focus being switched to Johnsons history. then again it could be more about Johnson +co keeping their heads down until the current chaos calms down.
 good luck with that.
Apologies or not what needs to be said is Raynor left no doubt over who the insult was aimed at, Johnson 100% unless of course 10s of millions of those Tory supporters went to Eton. the insult to Johnson will be forgotten, just make sure it's not used to wind up the public.

[Zeb]

"I didn't come into politics to vote over and over in Parliament and lose and then go and tweet about it."

Feisty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58718835

[Bobsackamano]

It's done now so and am sure the Torys will bring it up and have a pop during the election run up.
 Remain MPs think you are all idiots. booooooo
Labour voters thinks anyone who supports the Torys are Scum. boooooooooo.
I don't think a apology will repair the damage it will justify the Torys attacks.
Mind you am surprised the Torys aren't making more of it, maybe more worried about the focus being switched to Johnsons history. then again it could be more about Johnson +co keeping their heads down until the current chaos calms down.
 good luck with that.
Apologies or not what needs to be said is Raynor left no doubt over who the insult was aimed at, Johnson 100% unless of course 10s of millions of those Tory supporters went to Eton. the insult to Johnson will be forgotten, just make sure it's not used to wind up the public.

They are quite clever at politics and know they have plenty of idiots within their ranks who will say equally foul things in the run up to the election. However now any attacks by Labour are easily neutralised by just pointing at Raynor. She has given them a get out of jail free card they can play time and again. So stupid and unnecessary.

[kopite77]

That's the mystery.

They're held to different standards than other parties.

And the only reason I can conclude to that is, the people who vote Tory in this Country are Racist, Xenophobic and Misogynistic pieces of filth!

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Bakers’ Union disaffiliates from Labour during 2021 party conference



The Bakers’ Union (BFAWU) has announced today that it has decided to disaffiliate from Labour during its annual party conference, accusing Keir Starmer of waging a “factional internal war” instead of focusing on “real change”.

In a statement, the union said: “We have a real crisis in the country and instead of leadership, the party’s leader chooses to divide the trade unions and the membership by proposing changes to the way elections for his successor will take place.

“We don’t see that as a political party with any expectations of winning an election. It’s just the leader trying to secure the right wing faction’s chosen successor.”

Reacting to the news, a Labour spokesperson said: “With Keir Starmer, the Labour Party is changing, to face the country, offer credible policies that will positively change the lives of working families, and to show that we are once again fit to govern.”

Momentum responded to BFAWU disaffiliation by saying: “The Bakers’ Union founded the Labour Party, and their decision to disaffiliate is a shocking consequence of Starmer’s failure to stand up for working people.”

The BFAWU has particularly drawn attention to the demand for setting a minimum wage of £15 per hour for all workers. Labour has called for £10, and this difference has been a key source of tension between the leadership and the unions.

Andy McDonald resigned from the shadow cabinet on Monday, saying it was because Starmer’s office told him to “argue against a national minimum wage of £15 an hour and against statutory sick pay at the living wage”.

The Bakers’ Union statement conclude: “The BFAWU will not be bullied by bosses or politicians. When you pick on one of us, you take on all of us. That’s what solidarity means.”

The small left-wing trade union lost its seat on Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) when conference union delegates voted for the Musicians’ Union to be included on the ruling body rather than BFAWU.

It is also understood that BFAWU president Ian Hodson had been warned by Labour that he faced possible expulsion because he was listed as a sponsor of the Labour Against the Witchhunt group, which the party proscribed.

Below is the full statement.

The decision taken by delegates who predominantly live in what’s regarded as Labour red wall seats shows how far the Labour Party has travelled away from the aims and hopes of working class organisations like ours.

The decision by the party to not engage with a union that levied its poorly paid members in 1902 to build a party that would bring about real change to their lives, is the culmination of a failure to deliver those changes during our 119 year relationship.

In 1902 we had thousands being fed by the king, while today the poor must feed themselves. We need footballers to campaign to ensure our schoolchildren get a hot meal. Workers in our sector, who keep the nation fed, are relying on charity and good will from family and friends to put food on their tables. They rely on help to feed their families, with 7.5% relying on food banks, according to our recent survey.

But instead of concentrating on these issues we have a factional internal war led by the leadership. We have a real crisis in the country and instead of leadership, the party’s leader chooses to divide the trade unions and the membership by proposing changes to the way elections for his successor will take place. We don’t see that as a political party with any expectations of winning an election. It’s just the leader trying to secure the right wing faction’s chosen successor.

The decision taken by our delegates doesn’t mean we are leaving the political scene, it means we will become more political and we will ensure our members’ political voice is heard as we did when we started the campaign for £10 per hour in 2014. Today we want to see £15 per hour for all workers, the abolition of zero hours contracts and ending discrimination of young people by dispensing with youth rates.

The BFAWU will not be bullied by bosses or politicians. When you pick on one of us you take on all of us. That’s what solidarity means.

[west_london_red]

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is scum, that’s the truth.

Telling the truth is never a bad thing.

[Dr. Beaker]

"I didn't come into politics to vote over and over in Parliament and lose and then go and tweet about it."

Feisty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58718835

He looked good v Kuenssberg. It's great that you know he isn't going to trip himself up or allow himself to be tripped up and that his self-confidence is genuine not transparently bogus. Johnson looks shell shocked by comparison now that he has finally materialised.

[Bobsackamano]

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is scum, that’s the truth.

Telling the truth is never a bad thing.

Depends if you are bothered about winning elections i suppose

This is why - however much you might agree with her - it was bad idea for Raynor to use the language she did.

[killer-heels]

Bakers’ Union disaffiliates from Labour during 2021 party conference

Does that mean Starmer will have to buy his own pastries for the team meetings?

[killer-heels]

Depends if you are bothered about winning elections i suppose

There is a difference in people not liking what you say and then voting for someone else though. A lot of those results would read the same on what Tories said but that doesn't mean that people who were going to vote Labour will now change their mind.

In the grand scheme of things, what Raynor said will have little impact in how people vote. She is still an asset for Labour in that, unlike a lot of people in Labour's top team, she is a bit distinguishable and is gathering a strong reaction in the wider public.

[TepidT2O]

This is why - however much you might agree with her - it was bad idea for Raynor to use the language she did.

But there’s a bigger reason.

Say you have a policy that as an opposition leader you want promoted.. something about women’s refuges for instance.

It might be a policy that you can get the government to support and pick up.
Imagine that you go and speak to the minster you need to convince, and it’s someone you’ve previously described as scum.  Are they likely to listen to you? No.  So the people who miss out are your own constituents.  It’s fine to think it, but it’s childish, lazy and downright incompetent to say it out loud.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t Tory MPs who have said the same or worse recently of course, but they’re in power, Labour need to change opinions.

[Zeb]

Bakers’ Union disaffiliates from Labour during 2021 party conference

The BFAWU will not be bullied by bosses or politicians. When you pick on one of us you take on all of us. That’s what solidarity means.

The leader of the union is a sponsor of the proscribed antisemitic group Labour Against the Witchhunt, that's why he is facing expulsion from the Labour party. It's telling that the announcement concludes on it and wanting to have solidarity with it. It's also somewhat perplexing that the straw which broke the camel's back was between losing their attempt to retain their seat on the NEC and this afternoon.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

"I didn't come into politics to vote over and over in Parliament and lose and then go and tweet about it."

Feisty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58718835

nice

[Zeb]

He looked good v Kuenssberg. It's great that you know he isn't going to trip himself up or allow himself to be tripped up and that his self-confidence is genuine not transparently bogus. Johnson looks shell shocked by comparison now that he has finally materialised.

I have doubts about things and details but he has surprised me again. Would have been easy to try to soft peddle things but he's gone for trying to get it over with now. Not quite the fence sitter I thought. He looks sharp in that interview, yeah.

[west_london_red]

Depends if you are bothered about winning elections i suppose

True. Johnson just spouts bullshit and seems to do him no harm but I’d like to think we’re a bit better then that.

Where I completely lose faith though is I can bet you that if you polled the reaction of the public to some of the disgusting things Johnson has said I doubt the public would view it as bad as what Raynor said.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

That interview was great

"I'm trying to turn our party from a party that spends too much time talking to itself to a party that talks to the country about issues that matter to the country"

He's right. The country couldn't give two fucks about all this internal wrangling.

[Welshred]

The leader of the union is a sponsor of the proscribed antisemitic group Labour Against the Witchhunt, that's why he is facing expulsion from the Labour party. It's telling that the announcement concludes on it and wanting to have solidarity with it. It's also somewhat perplexing that the straw which broke the camel's back was between losing their attempt to retain their seat on the NEC and this afternoon.

Was going to say it's very much a picking up their ball and going home tactic considering they lost their NEC seat yesterday

[Yorkykopite]

Interesting, thanks - a little surprised at the 18-24 year olds

You shouldn't be. On the whole people want their elected politicians to be better than them.

This is why....

a)....there is quite a durable feeling that those who win democratic contests must be virtuous and represent what we like most about ourselves. It can therefore be difficult being a politician. They are often judged by higher standards than anyone else - over sexual infidelity, expenses claims, past indiscretions, general behaviour and comportment.

b)....the defence that "I think the Tories are scum" is no defence of Raynor at all. It's beside the point.

c)....the apparent popularity of the cheating, lying, lazy, racist Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is a mystery.

In accounting for c) I can only imagine that Johnson is a successful anomaly. Because he has never pretended to be honest, and indeed made a fetish out of being a rogue (too put it kindly) the British public do not mind when evidence is uncovered showing Johnson's dishonesty and roguishness. On the contrary they applaud the fact that he is living up to his bad-boy reputation. Indeed they see him as unusually sincere. "He doesn't pretend to be someone he isn't (does he Mavis?)"

Labour politicians find it harder to be rogues for ideological reasons. Socialism, after all, is founded on a positive view of human nature (too positive say its critics). Unlike politicians defending capitalism they cannot make a virtue out of being greedy, selfish, and out for themselves. Nor, since socialism is also about universal love and mutual courtesy, can they go around describing people - even their opponents - as "scum."  It subtly undermines people's beliefs in their sincerity as well as the plausibility of the social system they champion.   

[Kenny's Jacket]

You shouldn't be. On the whole people want their elected politicians to be better than them.

This is why....

a)....there is quite a durable feeling that those who win democratic contests must be virtuous and represent what we like most about ourselves. It can therefore be difficult being a politician. They are often judged by higher standards than anyone else - over sexual infidelity, expenses claims, past indiscretions, general behaviour and comportment.

b)....the defence that "I think the Tories are scum" is no defence of Raynor at all. It's beside the point.

c)....the apparent popularity of the cheating, lying, lazy, racist Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is a mystery.

In accounting for c) I can only imagine that Johnson is a successful anomaly. Because he has never pretended to be honest, and indeed made a fetish out of being a rogue (too put it kindly) the British public do not mind when evidence is uncovered showing Johnson's dishonesty and roguishness. On the contrary they applaud the fact that he is living up to his bad-boy reputation. Indeed they see him as unusually sincere. "He doesn't pretend to be someone he isn't (does he Mavis?)"

Labour politicians find it harder to be rogues for ideological reasons. Socialism, after all, is founded on a positive view of human nature (too positive say its critics). Unlike politicians defending capitalism they cannot make a virtue out of being greedy, selfish, and out for themselves. Nor, since socialism is also about universal love and mutual courtesy, can they go around describing people - even their opponents - as "scum."  It subtly undermines people's beliefs in their sincerity as well as the plausibility of the social system they champion.

So populism is dead?

Id have bet that the last place it would die is amongst the young

[Sangria]

You shouldn't be. On the whole people want their elected politicians to be better than them.

This is why....

a)....there is quite a durable feeling that those who win democratic contests must be virtuous and represent what we like most about ourselves. It can therefore be difficult being a politician. They are often judged by higher standards than anyone else - over sexual infidelity, expenses claims, past indiscretions, general behaviour and comportment.

b)....the defence that "I think the Tories are scum" is no defence of Raynor at all. It's beside the point.

c)....the apparent popularity of the cheating, lying, lazy, racist Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is a mystery.

In accounting for c) I can only imagine that Johnson is a successful anomaly. Because he has never pretended to be honest, and indeed made a fetish out of being a rogue (too put it kindly) the British public do not mind when evidence is uncovered showing Johnson's dishonesty and roguishness. On the contrary they applaud the fact that he is living up to his bad-boy reputation. Indeed they see him as unusually sincere. "He doesn't pretend to be someone he isn't (does he Mavis?)"

Labour politicians find it harder to be rogues for ideological reasons. Socialism, after all, is founded on a positive view of human nature (too positive say its critics). Unlike politicians defending capitalism they cannot make a virtue out of being greedy, selfish, and out for themselves. Nor, since socialism is also about universal love and mutual courtesy, can they go around describing people - even their opponents - as "scum."  It subtly undermines people's beliefs in their sincerity as well as the plausibility of the social system they champion.   

Brexit.

[Yorkykopite]

The decision taken by delegates ....

Says it all. Fuck what the members of the union want. Not even a consultation, let alone a vote. Just a bunch of Trot delegates deciding on the spur of the moment. So much for effing democracy.

[So… Howard Philips]

So to summarise - The Bakers Union have got a cob on with Starmer?

They must be barmy!

[Yorkykopite]

So to summarise - The Bakers Union have got a cob on with Starmer?

They must be barmy!

They didn't use their loaf that's for sure.

[Dr. Beaker]

So to summarise - The Bakers Union have got a cob on with Starmer?

They must be barmy!

But we knead their dough.

[Zeb]

It's all very kneady.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It's all very kneady.

D'oh!

[Yorkykopite]

It's just a bun fight really isn't it?

[TepidT2O]

D'oh!

[Zeb]

D'oh!

Oh crumbs, yes, I hadn't refreshed the page.

[Elmo!]

D'oh!

The whole thing leaves a sour taste in the mouth.