Topic: Labour Thread

[PaulF]

And it can all be packaged under, 'Taking Back Control'.

Especially if they are owned by foreign companies.
That said, we'd have to be very careful.  I don't see how we can 'take' shares from companies without totally trashing inward investment.

[ljycb]

Why are we hating on Adrian Chiles?

I would love to know. He is great.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I would love to know. He is great.

That draw in 2014 cost us the title.

Fucking hell Kolo

[Yorkykopite]

And it can all be packaged under, 'Taking Back Control'.

Very smart. Very smart indeed Doc.

[Robinred]

Why are we hating on Adrian Chiles?

Not hating at all - he seems sound. But it’s doubtful his gig with the Guardian would have happened had it not been for his relationship with, and subsequent marriage to, Kath Viner. If you’ve read any of his columns, they’re lightweight random stuff, and imho more suited to a tabloid rather than a serious ‘broadsheet’.

So you can put the blame for my inclusion of him in that post, on my innate snobbery with regard to journalism.

[Jshooters]

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2022/05/30/adrian-chiles-funny-column-titles/

[PaulF]

Not hating at all - he seems sound. But it’s doubtful his gig with the Guardian would have happened had it not been for his relationship with, and subsequent marriage to, Kath Viner. If you’ve read any of his columns, they’re lightweight random stuff, and imho more suited to a tabloid rather than a serious ‘broadsheet’.

So you can put the blame for my inclusion of him in that post, on my innate snobbery with regard to journalism.

Thanks. I heard his piece about alcohol addiction and quite warmed to him. There's a lot of knowledge on these boards about people I don't know and I was fearing he was a Tory donor or something.

[ljycb]

Not hating at all - he seems sound. But it’s doubtful his gig with the Guardian would have happened had it not been for his relationship with, and subsequent marriage to, Kath Viner. If you’ve read any of his columns, they’re lightweight random stuff, and imho more suited to a tabloid rather than a serious ‘broadsheet’.

So you can put the blame for my inclusion of him in that post, on my innate snobbery with regard to journalism.

We’re talking about the Guardian here though. There’s been writing in that newspaper that you wouldn’t categorise as “serious” for as long as it’s been around.

[Dr. Beaker]

We’re talking about the Guardian here though. There’s been writing in that newspaper that you wouldn’t categorise as “serious” for as long as it’s been around.

That paper got me through the Thatcher years, and for that I will always be grateful.

[Circa1892]

We’re talking about the Guardian here though. There’s been writing in that newspaper that you wouldn’t categorise as “serious” for as long as it’s been around.

Owen Jones rinse and repeat “Labour must…” columns?

[Red-Soldier]

Keir Starmer warned by Labour peers not to waste political capital on Lords reform

Policy could distract party from pushing through other urgent measures, leader is told

Keir Starmer has been warned by Labour peers that he risks getting bogged down in a “constitutional quagmire” that will prevent him completing other urgent domestic reforms if he pushes ahead with plans to scrap the House of Lords in the first term of a Labour government.

Several senior Labour figures in the Lords have privately questioned the Labour leader’s commitment to drive through proposals to replace the Lords with an elected second chamber in his first term, warning that he could use up huge amounts of “political capital” on an issue that few voters mention on the doorstep.

The Observer revealed a fortnight ago that Starmer had told peers he wanted to move to an elected second chamber and strip politicians of the power to make appointments to the Lords, as part of sweeping first-term changes aimed at restoring voters’ faith in politics. This was confirmed by party officials.

But the issue has caused disquiet in the party and led some to urge caution. Last night, aides to Starmer denied that there were tensions between Starmer and the former party leader Gordon Brown, who will on Monday publish a review of the constitution that he hopes will be adopted in large part by the party.

Brown’s report will recommend moving to an elected second chamber to help restore faith in the political system. It will also include plans for radical devolution of powers to the regions in “the biggest transfer of power out of Westminster ever”. There will also be plans to restore faith in politics through a new system to govern ethics.

But some at high levels of the party have cautioned against a manifesto commitment to drive through Lords reform as soon as a Labour comes to power, were it to win the next general election. Previous attempts to reform the Lords, such as in the early years of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government, have ended in failure and deadlock.

One Labour peer with influence said: “I would not say it is a backlash, more that he has been made aware of the reality that he could use up a lot of political capital at the expense of other domestic reforms if he goes too fast on this.”

Another peer said: “It sounds a good idea but, in the past, attempts to reform the Lords have led into a political quagmire.”

In an article for this weekend’s Observer, Starmer, while not mentioning the House of Lords, promises to pursue a wide range of reforms to restore trust in politics and politicians. He writes: “Tomorrow, we will begin to set out exactly how the next Labour government will meet that challenge.

“The proposals published by Gordon Brown and the Commission on the UK’s Future will set the path for the biggest ever transfer of control from Westminster back to the British people. It means that at the next election, Labour will stand on a promise of new powers for towns, cities, regions and nations to reignite our economy, while scrapping unaccountable ones in Westminster to restore trust in our politics.

“This is a matter of personal conviction for me. I have always believed that the people best placed to decide what works in Stirling, Sunderland or Swansea are the people there. If we expect these places to drive growth we must first hand them the keys. But as well as bringing people closer to decision making, I want to change the very idea of who our politics serves. The way this Tory government keeps blithely putting up taxes, while endlessly pearl clutching over the prospect of oil companies or non-doms or Eton College paying their fair share leaves working people with one sense: that Britain is being run for someone, but that it isn’t them. That will change.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/04/keir-starmer-warned-by-labour-peers-not-to-waste-political-capital-on-lords-reform


There will always be pushback against change, especially ones that are 'radical' and significant

[So… Howard Philips]

Keir Starmer warned by Labour peers not to waste political capital on Lords reform

Policy could distract party from pushing through other urgent measures, leader is told

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/04/keir-starmer-warned-by-labour-peers-not-to-waste-political-capital-on-lords-reform


There will always be pushback against change, especially ones that are 'radical' and significant

No surprise that Labour peers are alarmed at losing their place in the trough. Once it was the toffs who stood in the way of change and, since their families came over with the Conqueror you can understand why. Seeing no one else will offer failed politicians jobs the HoL is their only option.

Another reason to get rid of them and let the electorate choose the second chamber.

[Indomitable_Carp]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/04/keir-starmer-warned-by-labour-peers-not-to-waste-political-capital-on-lords-reform

There will always be pushback against change, especially ones that are 'radical' and significant

If ever you wanted evidence that Starmer is on the right track for this one.....

Labour could win the next four elections and you´d still have peers spouting the same shite. Which is why the Lords is still sadly with us when it should have been consigned to the dustbin 100 years ago

[classycarra]

I'm in favour of widely reforming them too, but I'm wondering if i'm missing something here based on the last few posts.

That article doesn't seem to contain any controversial views from the two sources in the Lords, and what I saw doesn't imply they are against the reforms - seems they're more concerned with Labour using their potential early time in government in a more crrefully triaged way and not to get bogged down with something extremely complicated and wonkish before other more pressing things are improved

One Labour peer with influence said: “I would not say it is a backlash, more that he has been made aware of the reality that he could use up a lot of political capital at the expense of other domestic reforms if he goes too fast on this.”

Another peer said: “It sounds a good idea but, in the past, attempts to reform the Lords have led into a political quagmire.”

[rob1966]

I'm in favour of widely reforming them too, but I'm wondering if i'm missing something here based on the last few posts.

That article doesn't seem to contain any controversial views from the two sources in the Lords, and what I saw doesn't imply they are against the reforms - seems they're more concerned with Labour using their potential early time in government in a more crrefully triaged way and not to get bogged down with something extremely complicated and wonkish before other more pressing things are improved

Thats how I read it too, its a waste of time and energy when there are far more pressing matters that need attention.

Obviously some peers will just want the gravy train, but their time will come.

[Indomitable_Carp]

I'm in favour of widely reforming them too, but I'm wondering if i'm missing something here based on the last few posts.

That article doesn't seem to contain any controversial views from the two sources in the Lords, and what I saw doesn't imply they are against the reforms - seems they're more concerned with Labour using their potential early time in government in a more crrefully triaged way and not to get bogged down with something extremely complicated and wonkish before other more pressing things are improved

It seems to me that they were suggesting he should not be embarking on this project in Labour´s entire first term in government. To be repeated ad nauseum until the Tories are back in.

What this misses (aside from Lords wanting to stay on the gravy train) is that the future of the United Kingdom is still at stake, which is a very pressing issue indeed. If Lords abolition and the establishment of a Federal second chamber can throw a spanner in the works of Scottish Nationalism (and even increasingly Welsh nationalism), and even potentially wins Labour back more support within Scotland, then it is a very urgent and necessary change. The constitutional arrangement of the United Kingdom has never been in greater need of a reform. 

Many of the pressing issues that need to be addressed, requires addressing the heavily centralised framework that makes addressing such issues so difficult and ineffective in the first place.

The talk is also of "political capital". Yet if Labour win with anything like the sort of majorities that are predicted, then Labour should have plenty of political capital to spare.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I'm in favour of widely reforming them too, but I'm wondering if i'm missing something here based on the last few posts.

That article doesn't seem to contain any controversial views from the two sources in the Lords, and what I saw doesn't imply they are against the reforms - seems they're more concerned with Labour using their potential early time in government in a more crrefully triaged way and not to get bogged down with something extremely complicated and wonkish before other more pressing things are improved

Yes, based on experiencing the likes of Johnson, Im more concerned with HoC reform. 

[damomad]

Starmer was on BBC News this morning. His answers are well prepared but a little stiff. He just never comes across as relatable to me, they showed an image of him watching the England Sengal game. It would have been a perfect opportunity to be out mingling with the general public but instead he's hanging out with Gordon Brown.

I also think by making the reform of the House of Lords a key policy, they've taken their eye off the mood of the general public. It's an easy win for the Tories to say they aren't focusing on what matters to the voter.

[PaulF]

If it becomes an elected chamber. How is it much different to more MPs?

[ianburns252]

Starmer was on BBC News this morning. His answers are well prepared but a little stiff. He just never comes across as relatable to me, they showed an image of him watching the England Sengal game. It would have been a perfect opportunity to be out mingling with the general public but instead he's hanging out with Gordon Brown.

I also think by making the reform of the House of Lords a key policy, they've taken their eye off the mood of the general public. It's an easy win for the Tories to say they aren't focusing on what matters to the voter.

I can't think of anything more relatable than avoiding going out and spending an evening with a dour guy who likes numbers...but that may say more about me and my lack of friends!

In all seriousness though, Boris tried to play himself as "one of the lads" so I'll happily take boring and reserved right now

[Red-Soldier]

Starmer was on BBC News this morning. His answers are well prepared but a little stiff. He just never comes across as relatable to me, they showed an image of him watching the England Sengal game. It would have been a perfect opportunity to be out mingling with the general public but instead he's hanging out with Gordon Brown.

I also think by making the reform of the House of Lords a key policy, they've taken their eye off the mood of the general public. It's an easy win for the Tories to say they aren't focusing on what matters to the voter.

Would you rather see him pulling a pint 

[Red-Soldier]

Keir Starmer says he does not think rejoining single market would boost economic growth ‘at this stage’

Good morning. Keir Starmer has been doing interviews this morning ahead of the publication of the report from the party’s Commission on the UK’s Future, chaired by Gordon Brown. Most of the reporting in advance has focused on a recommendation in the report that the House of Lords should be abolished, partly because on Saturday the Times ran a story claiming “proposals to abolish the House of Lords are set to be watered down after an eleventh-hour row between Gordon Brown and Sir Keir Starmer’s advisers”. The paper claimed that Brown wanted a firm commitment from Starmer to abolish the Lords, while Starmer’s team just wanted to commit to consulting on reform. That is why when Starmer was on the Today programme a few minutes ago, the first question was about whether Starmer wanted to abolish the Lords.

Starmer said he did – but he said that when that would happen would be a matter for consultation.

But Starmer also stressed that the recomendations in the report go far beyond what should happen to the upper chamber. That was obvious in the overnight briefing released by the party ahead of the report which did not even mention the Lords, and instead stressed the party’s commitment to decentralisation, and the devolution of power to local government.

We’ll come back to those shortly, because in his Today interview Starmer was also asked about Brexit. He has repeatedly said that a Labour government would not take the UK back into the single market, but he put a particularly provocative spin on this when responding to a question from Mishal Husain, who asked if membership of the single market would boost economic growth. Starmer replied:

    No, at this stage, I don’t think it would. And there’s no case for going back to the EU, or going back into the single market.

    I do think there’s a case for a better Brexit. I do think there’s a very strong case for making Brexit work.

When Husain pressed him again on this, pointing out that economists say trade has suffered because the UK has been out of the single market, Starmer replied:

I think trade has gone down because the deal that we’ve got is not a very good deal. I think we can move from getting Brexit done, which is all that we’ve managed at the moment, to making Brexit work and I do think there’s a better deal.

But do I think … that going back into years of wrangling, years of uncertainty, is going to help the economy? No, I don’t.

I spent many, many years post-2016 talking to businesses who said to me, over and over again, the thing that’s hardest for us is all the uncertainty. And that for many years held us back.

[Red Beret]

I agree with him on the EU and single market. Being outside is rotten, but hopes of rejoining just creates ripples in a lake that's still not settled from having the Brexit boulder dropped in it.

A Labour government can foster closer ties with Europe, and hopefully we can ditch the antagonistic and confrontational "diplomacy"  of the Tories. It gives the country something to build on.

[Libertine]

If it becomes an elected chamber. How is it much different to more MPs?

It's a good question. Having democratic legitimacy will also make the Lords more forthright in challenging the Commons and its decisions. Its powers would need to be very clearly delineated.

The difference presumably would be that it would be elected by PR (I guess with list systems), so you get more balance overall, they don't have constituency links and you could get talented people (who could become government ministers also) that may not want to go through the standard political procedures, be dealing with potholes etc.

Ian Dunt makes the point that losing the appointed experts (scientists, business people etc) will lead to less efficient scrutiny which I think is a fair point - keeping it 20% or so appointed (if that was truly independent and based on actual merit) would be the best solution IMO. But then most of other countries do just fine with fully elected second chambers. Although most other countries aren't quite as dysfunctional as the UK is right now....

[rob1966]

I agree with him on the EU and single market. Being outside is rotten, but hopes of rejoining just creates ripples in a lake that's still not settled from having the Brexit boulder dropped in it.

A Labour government can foster closer ties with Europe, and hopefully we can ditch the antagonistic and confrontational "diplomacy"  of the Tories. It gives the country something to build on.

They can start to rejoin the single market and hide it all behind "trade deals", or "taking back control/cutting red tape". The majority of the Brexiteers are too thick to work it out.

[So… Howard Philips]

Would you rather see him pulling a pint 

Anything as long as he stays away from bacon sarnies.

[thaddeus]

I think it's great that Starmer has committed to replacing the House of Lords.  I'm sure I'll think it's doubly great when I see the shameless list of nefarious individuals Johnson puts forward as part of his "resignation".  I can think of no more damning assessment of a person's character than having them put forward for Lordship/Ladyship by Johnson.

Lord Bethell alone being against anything is generally a strong indicator that it's a good thing and, sure enough, he's already spoken out against even reforming the House of Lords.  I'd have thought he'd be keeping his head down since his mobile phone that housed all the evidence of his dodgy Covid dealings was lost broken given to a family member in his pocket all along but wiped of evidence.

The only negative is that it largely confirms, for me at least, that there won't be electoral reform of the House of Commons.  FPTP will live on.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I think it's great that Starmer has committed to replacing the House of Lords.  I'm sure I'll think it's doubly great when I see the shameless list of nefarious individuals Johnson puts forward as part of his "resignation".  I can think of no more damning assessment of a person's character than having them put forward for Lordship/Ladyship by Johnson.

Lord Bethell alone being against anything is generally a strong indicator that it's a good thing and, sure enough, he's already spoken out against even reforming the House of Lords.  I'd have thought he'd be keeping his head down since his mobile phone that housed all the evidence of his dodgy Covid dealings was lost broken given to a family member in his pocket all along but wiped of evidence.

The only negative is that it largely confirms, for me at least, that there won't be electoral reform of the House of Commons.  FPTP will live on.

There are more reforms required that just FPTP.  We cant have a situation where a PM constantly lies in the HoC and you need to rely on his good grace to resign

[Elmo!]

There are more reforms required that just FPTP.  We cant have a situation where a PM constantly lies in the HoC and you need to rely on his good grace to resign

PR would in most circumstances solve this, because it's far less likely to be a majority for the PMs party, so a VONC becomes much much easier.

[killer-heels]

Good stuff.

[Kenny's Jacket]

PR would in most circumstances solve this, because it's far less likely to be a majority for the PMs party, so a VONC becomes much much easier.

But what if they win the VONC?

[Elmo!]

But what if they win the VONC?

Then the PM stays, but it would be a lot easier to persuade the PMs coalition partners to vote for it, than enough of their own party. I did say "in most circumstances".

[thaddeus]

There are more reforms required that just FPTP.  We cant have a situation where a PM constantly lies in the HoC and you need to rely on his good grace to resign

I agree entirely.  We've hit a real low in terms of our democracy.  Johnson was evidentially elected on the back of a lot of lies (the Independent, amongst others, ran a series of articles during and after highlighting it).  As soon as the votes were tallied up we had a serial liar and his puppet masters given five years to run amok.  Many, many scandals and eye-watering incompetence later we're onto our third PM and all the opposition parties can do is say "can we have a general election, please?".  The electorate are fed up with them as all the opinion polls show but equally powerless to do anything about it.  Just about the only person that can intervene is the Monarch 

I imagine that 2019 playbook will be run time and again.  I don't know what the solution is as there does need to be some stability after each election.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I did say "in most circumstances".

Then it aint good enough

[Machae]

Should have lowered the age to vote to 16 too

[Elmo!]

Then it aint good enough

I'm not arguing against other reforms, just making the point that getting rid of FPTP would go a long way to solving the issue.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Should have lowered the age to vote to 16 too

Yeah, we have that in Wales for the Senedd

[Elmo!]

Yeah, we have that in Wales for the Senedd

Scotland too.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I'm not arguing against other reforms, just making the point that getting rid of FPTP would go a long way to solving the issue.

I know mate, I should have put a Christmas hat emoji on the end   

[PaulF]

So can Starmer get a PR elected HoL in that has powers to overrule a FPTOP HoC?
Any sense in giving the HoL the power to essentially sack a PM for being a sack of shit?