Topic: Labour Thread * No Gaza *

[CornerFlag]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/12/natalie-elphicke-anti-strike-stance-incompatible-with-labour-tuc-boss?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Natalie Elphicke’s anti-strike stance ‘incompatible’ with Labour, says TUC president
Exclusive: Matt Wrack describes ex-Tory’s views as ‘disgraceful’ after she blamed deaths on striking firefighters

Keir Starmer is under fresh pressure over the former Tory MP Natalie Elphicke’s defection to Labour after the president of the Trades Union Congress said her vocal support for anti-strike laws should be “incompatible” with the party whip.

Matt Wrack, who is also the general secretary of the Labour-affiliated Fire Brigades Union, has described the MP for Dover and Deal’s views as “disgraceful” after she used a parliamentary intervention in March to blame firefighters for the deaths of three people who perished during a national strike.

Wrack’s comments have been set out in a letter sent to Starmer this weekend, which has been seen by the Guardian.

Senior Labour figures have been forced to defend Elphicke amid claims she lobbied the justice secretary to interfere in her then husband’s rape case – claims her spokesperson has described as “nonsense”.

Wrack, who became president of the TUC in September, wrote in the letter that Labour’s decision to admit Elphicke was “alarming” because of the party’s promise to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, which effectively bans strike action across parts of the public sector.

“Labour’s pledge to repeal this authoritarian legislation within 100 days of taking office, alongside the 2016 Trade Union Act, is a crucial commitment. It is therefore alarming that Natalie Elphicke has been admitted to the parliamentary Labour party.

“Elphicke was a cheerleader for the minimum service levels act and has specifically targeted firefighters in her contributions in parliament.

“On Tuesday 12 March this year, she spoke in support of the new anti-union laws by blaming striking firefighters for the deaths of three people during a past national firefighters’ strike. This is a disgraceful attack on firefighters, who protect the public and save lives every day, sometimes at great personal cost,” he wrote.

“The Labour party is the political wing of the labour movement … Attacking trade union members in this way to justify support for draconian anti-worker laws ought to be incompatible with membership of the parliamentary Labour party.

“Natalie Elphicke should never have been given the Labour whip, but these remarks further undermine the decision to accept her into the party. There appears to have been little, if any, due diligence.”

Asked on Friday about unease from senior Labour figures about Elphicke’s defection, Starmer urged his party to be “less tribal”. “I am very pleased to welcome Natalie to the Labour party,” he said.

“Natalie’s conclusion, having thought about this profoundly, is that Rishi Sunak has effectively lost control of the borders, the Tory party is characterised by incompetence and the Labour party has changed. I think that is a very powerful thing to have said.”

The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, is facing a gradual bleeding of his parliamentary authority as Tory MPs line up to announce they are standing down at the next election while Labour works to secure more defections.

Elphicke, a rightwing Tory MP, shocked Westminster on Wednesday when she crossed the floor and joined Labour MPs at the beginning of prime minister’s questions.

The move initially delighted Starmer’s closest allies, showing that even anti-immigration MPs appear to have lost faith in Sunak’s Rwanda deportation plan and his ability to lead the Tories.

But Starmer’s decision to accept her into the party has caused upset on his own benches, given her long history of attacking Labour on immigration issues.

Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, told LBC she would “probably have said no” to Elphicke joining the party and there should be an independent inquiry into the latest claims.

Zarah Sultana, the Labour MP for Coventry South, who is from the left of the party, told the BBC: “[Elphicke] was a member of the [Eurosceptic] European Research Group; she voted for Liz Truss in the leadership; she’s at odds when it comes to fire and rehire; she has attacked trade unions and their activities; [she’s] not great on the environment either. So unless she’s had the biggest Damascene conversion ever, I just don’t buy it.”

Wrack’s letter, written on FBU-headed paper, said the union would be raising its concerns about Elphicke’s views and her admittance to the parliamentary party through formal channels.

During parliamentary scrutiny of strike regulations in March, Elphicke expressed her support for plans to allow fire and rescue authorities to issue work notices forcing firefighters to work during disputes.

She told the fire services minister, Chris Philp: “It may be helpful to the minister to note that actually three elderly people were reported to have died in the first national firefighters strike – the one that the minister is referring to – and indeed, more recently, the failure to respond to a call-out in the middle of a strike led to a serious incident that very nearly led to loss of life in Essex.

“That might be helpful to the minister, to expand on why it is so important that these measures are put in place to save lives.” The FBU has condemned the claims as unsubstantiated.

Union bosses and Starmer will discuss Labour’s pledges on workers’ rights in a meeting on Tuesday.

The Guardian disclosed on Wednesday that Unite and the FBU were among unions concerned that Labour was watering down proposals on “fire and rehire”, zero-hours contracts and plans for legislation.

Key to the criticism from trade unions were changes to the wording of plans to end fire and rehire – removing a direct promise to end the dismissal of workers for rejecting a worse contract.

A union source said: “Elphicke’s move across the floor looks like the direction of travel under Keir. He may have to be reminded on Tuesday that the unions will not be messed about.”

Going well, I see...

[west_london_red]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/12/natalie-elphicke-anti-strike-stance-incompatible-with-labour-tuc-boss?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Going well, I see...

Was just completely unnecessary, we’re riding high in the polls and had just had some good election results, those have already been forgotten and now all the focus is on this stupid mare and the shit she’s said over the last few years. Hopefully the party leadership learn a bit of humility as this entire episode wreaks to me of arrogance and believing your own hype.

[Sangria]

It’s a twisted ideology that aims to return the country to something akin to the 1800 when the country was the most powerful on the planet, as well as when it was at its most unequal. The problem with neoliberalism is that it sees a link between the two, as the country has become more equal over the last 100 years it’s become comparatively less prosperous (in gross terms), therefore the thinking is if you allow inequality to rise if not outright encourage it, the country overall will be wealthier and the 99% are sold a lie that this greater gross wealth of the country will of course trickle down to them in time because the ‘market’ wills it (it obviously doesn’t because the 1% will rig the market in their favour).

Neoliberalism doesn't aim to return the country to any time in the past. It aims to run the country according to a certain economic theory. It's the other side of Communism.

[Red-Soldier]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/12/natalie-elphicke-anti-strike-stance-incompatible-with-labour-tuc-boss?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Going well, I see...

Wrack, who became president of the TUC in September, wrote in the letter that Labour’s decision to admit Elphicke was “alarming” because of the party’s promise to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, which effectively bans strike action across parts of the public sector.

“Labour’s pledge to repeal this authoritarian legislation within 100 days of taking office, alongside the 2016 Trade Union Act, is a crucial commitment. It is therefore alarming that Natalie Elphicke has been admitted to the parliamentary Labour party.

“Elphicke was a cheerleader for the minimum service levels act and has specifically targeted firefighters in her contributions in parliament.

“On Tuesday 12 March this year, she spoke in support of the new anti-union laws by blaming striking firefighters for the deaths of three people during a past national firefighters’ strike. This is a disgraceful attack on firefighters, who protect the public and save lives every day, sometimes at great personal cost,” he wrote.

“The Labour party is the political wing of the labour movement … Attacking trade union members in this way to justify support for draconian anti-worker laws ought to be incompatible with membership of the parliamentary Labour party.

“Natalie Elphicke should never have been given the Labour whip, but these remarks further undermine the decision to accept her into the party. There appears to have been little, if any, due diligence.”

[west_london_red]

Neoliberalism doesn't aim to return the country to any time in the past. It aims to run the country according to a certain economic theory. It's the other side of Communism.

Do neoliberals support the progress made from the early 1900’s to the 1970’s in improving workers rights, or environmental protections since the 1990’s or the improvements in income equality since the 1940’s? It’s exactly about rolling all of this back and taking us to a time when these didn’t exist.

[ianburns252]

but he didnt say that, hence my post, All your doing mate is saying If he does this thing that he hasnt done then its great

They have previously suggested safe routes, but that seems to have changed.
Their previous statement on asylum seekers was pretty good, it wasn't liberal enough for me, but it was pretty good. That seems to have changed.   



-

Fair point - and yes I should have included "if he had gone on to say"

I guess in my head I'm seeing it as "say these bits now, and the 'good' bits once in power" but without the clarification from him/his team then we can only go on the literal words and they are not ideal. In line with what Killer says - the public overall is generally anti/further controlled immigration so it is a case of sounding tough on it but I hope it then pivots once in power. Little but of the "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" about it

@PaulF - my understanding with safe routes was that they are 'non legal but safer for those who need them'. Almost like decriminalisation whereby those who use them due to desperation are not criminalised so it gives the people fleeing their countries more protection and safety even if using "dangerous" means.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Fair point - and yes I should have included "if he had gone on to say"

I guess in my head I'm seeing it as "say these bits now, and the 'good' bits once in power" but without the clarification from him/his team then we can only go on the literal words and they are not ideal. In line with what Killer says - the public overall is generally anti/further controlled immigration so it is a case of sounding tough on it but I hope it then pivots once in power. Little but of the "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" about it

@PaulF - my understanding with safe routes was that they are 'non legal but safer for those who need them'. Almost like decriminalisation whereby those who use them due to desperation are not criminalised so it gives the people fleeing their countries more protection and safety even if using "dangerous" means.

Pretty sure they are legal, otherwise the British government are paying people to house illegal Ukrainians

[ianburns252]

Pretty sure they are legal, otherwise the British government are paying people to house illegal Ukrainians

I think I may be misinterpreting what is meant be safe routes - I saw it as a case of if we accept that there will always be those forced into non-legal transport to the country then ensuring that there are effectively decriminalised and protected routes to make those journeys less risky is what was meant.

Essentially - we don't approve of what you are doing but if you are going to do it please at least use these routes to prevent avoidable deaths and injuries from more treacherous crossing routes

This is different to Ukraine where we went "what is happening to their country is wrong so we are reducing red tape, paperwork, and other restrictions to just get you to safety"

[Kenny's Jacket]

I think I may be misinterpreting what is meant be safe routes - I saw it as a case of if we accept that there will always be those forced into non-legal transport to the country then ensuring that there are effectively decriminalised and protected routes to make those journeys less risky is what was meant.

Essentially - we don't approve of what you are doing but if you are going to do it please at least use these routes to prevent avoidable deaths and injuries from more treacherous crossing routes

This is different to Ukraine where we went "what is happening to their country is wrong so we are reducing red tape, paperwork, and other restrictions to just get you to safety"

I didnt quite understand your post above, A safe route would for example be a processing orifice located near certain areas, eg Syria where people can make applications'

https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/what-are-safe-routes-uk-four-common-myths-explained?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw0YGyBhByEiwAQmBEWlBtNmqJ8r6eXmgxUzeNd_zOA07fjdSlTpasgcXKKH7Qzg4j5NCUiRoCEz4QAvD_BwE



edit - sorry I dont know how to make links small 

[ianburns252]

I didnt quite understand your post above, A safe route would for example be a processing orifice located near certain areas, eg Syria where people can make applications'

https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/what-are-safe-routes-uk-four-common-myths-explained?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw0YGyBhByEiwAQmBEWlBtNmqJ8r6eXmgxUzeNd_zOA07fjdSlTpasgcXKKH7Qzg4j5NCUiRoCEz4QAvD_BwE



edit - sorry I dont know how to make links small 

Understood and thanks for the link - I made an interpretation of it but can see I was going down a different path.

[PaulF]

I didnt quite understand your post above, A safe route would for example be a processing orifice located near certain areas, eg Syria where people can make applications'

https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/what-are-safe-routes-uk-four-common-myths-explained?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw0YGyBhByEiwAQmBEWlBtNmqJ8r6eXmgxUzeNd_zOA07fjdSlTpasgcXKKH7Qzg4j5NCUiRoCEz4QAvD_BwE



edit - sorry I dont know how to make links small 

You might want to make another edit. I suspect predictive text got you.

[Kenny's Jacket]

You might want to make another edit. I suspect predictive text got you.

Just tried it again and got the same result

It does work though

[Sangria]

Do neoliberals support the progress made from the early 1900’s to the 1970’s in improving workers rights, or environmental protections since the 1990’s or the improvements in income equality since the 1940’s? It’s exactly about rolling all of this back and taking us to a time when these didn’t exist.

Like Communism, it doesn't aim to roll things back. It aims to work with a blank slate, on which their economic theory can be used to run all of society. Anything that's not by them, regardless of whether it's old or new, is to be discarded so they can make their theory work. Like Communism, people pollute the pure running of their system. The only good thing that can be said about it is that it's less deadly to people than Communism.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Understood and thanks for the link - I made an interpretation of it but can see I was going down a different path.

This article in the guardian might be of intertest

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/13/child-refugees-using-people-smugglers-to-reach-family-in-uk-report-warns

[Yorkykopite]

It’s a twisted ideology that aims to return the country to something akin to the 1800 when the country was the most powerful on the planet, as well as when it was at its most unequal. The problem with neoliberalism is that it sees a link between the two, as the country has become more equal over the last 100 years it’s become comparatively less prosperous (in gross terms), therefore the thinking is if you allow inequality to rise if not outright encourage it, the country overall will be wealthier and the 99% are sold a lie that this greater gross wealth of the country will of course trickle down to them in time because the ‘market’ wills it (it obviously doesn’t because the 1% will rig the market in their favour).

There may be some 'neoliberals' who wish to return us to 1800, but if this is indeed the age of 'neoliberalism' (and has been since Thatcher) then the ideology has been remarkably unsuccessful in achieving those aims.

Take the obvious economic indicator, which is the proportion of government spending in Britain's GDP. 1800 was actually a very unusual year in an atypical decade because Britain was at war with Napoleonic France and government expenditure skyrocketed (aided by the new innovation of income tax). As a result it reached a whopping 20 per cent of GDP. Following the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo (and the repeal of income tax) it settled back to about 7 per cent, which is where it remained more or less for the next 100 years. This was the age of classical liberalism of course where the state spent very little money and there was hardly a public sector at all (no standing army, tiny police force (after the 1840s), no state schools (until 1880s), no national insurance, no council housing, no state health provision or unemployment benefit, just the Poor Law for the destitute, no nationalised industries or services except for the Post Office, no government regulation of industry, no health and safety executive, no workmen's compensation for industrial injury or death, no legal aid etc)  - the classic nightwatchman state.

The contrast with the 'Neo-liberal age' we now live in is enormous. The result of 35-40 years of neoliberalism is that government expenditure fluctuates between 39 and 43 per cent of GDP - ie around 6 times as much as in the heyday of classical liberalism. If we went to war and fought an enemy as great as Napoleon that figure would probably climb to 80-85 per cent.

I don't underestimate the damage that the Tory governments of Thatcher-Major-Cameron-the current lot have done to British society, nor the missed opportunities of the Blair-Brown years, but it's wrong to suppose there's been a dramatic decline in public spending since the Attlee years and madness to suppose we could ever return to 19th century levels. Neo-liberalism so far has hardly made a dent on the balance of spending.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I didnt quite understand your post above, A safe route would for example be a processing orifice located near certain areas, eg Syria where people can make applications'

Sounds a little over-intrusive.

[west_london_red]

There may be some 'neoliberals' who wish to return us to 1800, but if this is indeed the age of 'neoliberalism' (and has been since Thatcher) then the ideology has been remarkably unsuccessful in achieving those aims.

Take the obvious economic indicator, which is the proportion of government spending in Britain's GDP. 1800 was actually a very unusual year in an atypical decade because Britain was at war with Napoleonic France and government expenditure skyrocketed (aided by the new innovation of income tax). As a result it reached a whopping 20 per cent of GDP. Following the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo (and the repeal of income tax) it settled back to about 7 per cent, which is where it remained more or less for the next 100 years. This was the age of classical liberalism of course where the state spent very little money and there was hardly a public sector at all (no standing army, tiny police force (after the 1840s), no state schools (until 1880s), no national insurance, no council housing, no state health provision or unemployment benefit, just the Poor Law for the destitute, no nationalised industries or services except for the Post Office, no government regulation of industry, no health and safety executive, no workmen's compensation for industrial injury or death, no legal aid etc)  - the classic nightwatchman state.

The contrast with the 'Neo-liberal age' we now live in is enormous. The result of 35-40 years of neoliberalism is that government expenditure fluctuates between 39 and 43 per cent of GDP - ie around 6 times as much as in the heyday of classical liberalism. If we went to war and fought an enemy as great as Napoleon that figure would probably climb to 80-85 per cent.

I don't underestimate the damage that the Tory governments of Thatcher-Major-Cameron-the current lot have done to British society, nor the missed opportunities of the Blair-Brown years, but it's wrong to suppose there's been a dramatic decline in public spending since the Attlee years and madness to suppose we could ever return to 19th century levels. Neo-liberalism so far has hardly made a dent on the balance of spending.

Isn’t that the point though, I’m not saying they have taken us back to the 1800’s in terms of the influence and size of the state, it’s what they would like to do, and just because they haven’t done it that doesn’t mean they don’t want to, there’s just a lot of obstacles in the way including their own failures to date and a lack of popularity for this kind of rolling back of the state among the electorate.

[oldfordie]

I wouldn't look at Neoliberalism as a economic Ideology. they called it Thatcherism in UK back in 80s. the Torys believe the less they spend the less they need to tax so that means they chop funding for as many things as possible. if people need help then they pay for it themselves. Reganomics is the same. Regan admitted it in one of his speeches. don't ask the government for help, we can't afford to help you, you have to look after yourselves. this applies to everything. no funding for schools. services etc. keep chopping as much as they can so they don't have to tax more.

Theres a obvious contradiction to what am saying. Fact, the Torys do end up putting us in more debt than Labour,  the Torys are forced to tax more today, IMO that's all down to false economies and incompetency, it's not so much about the bottom line on how much the Torys spend. it's where they money is spent. Labour are competent. the money goes where it's needed and makes a difference. the Torys chop but those cuts turn out to be false economies and they are forced to pay more for a worse service.
 
This is another area am more hopeful about for future generations. the link between cuts to care etc and the effect it has on our NHS is now accepted as fact.
This has only recently become public opinion. it's done my head in for decades, it was obvious what the problem was back in the 80s yet all the spiralling costs were put down to a bottomless pit NHS, how we have to find new ways to fund it. many of the public were swallowing this, many were thinking we have to bring in private insurance, they will find it harder to make that argument now people understand the affect cuts to care has on the NHS.  we have to put competent people in charge of care as well as the NHS. stop blowing billions and use the money on a system that runs better. one thing that never gets mentioned is how a lot of these services came about, someone came up with a cheap efficiant system to solve a problem. eg a nurse would drop in to see how someone vulnerable was coping at home and helped them. they could see many people during the week, weekly wage a couple of hundred, Torys chop them and the people who relied on their help end up in Hospital costing the country thousands a week. that's Thatcherism.
 I think this must apply across the board, the Torys cuts must hit other areas but the problems don't go away, we end up spending more in the end. so this is why the Torys always put us in more debt while making everything worse.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Sounds a little over-intrusive.

   How the fuck have I done that ?

[Yorkykopite]

Isn’t that the point though, I’m not saying they have taken us back to the 1800’s in terms of the influence and size of the state, it’s what they would like to do, and just because they haven’t done it that doesn’t mean they don’t want to, there’s just a lot of obstacles in the way including their own failures to date and a lack of popularity for this kind of rolling back of the state among the electorate.

 It isn’t more remarkable that several decades of Neo-Liberalism - both soft and hard versions - have hardly affected government spending?

[PaulF]

  How the fuck have I done that ?

I'm guessing you didn't understand my request to check your autocorrect on that

[LuverlyRita]

Was just completely unnecessary, we’re riding high in the polls and had just had some good election results, those have already been forgotten and now all the focus is on this stupid mare and the shit she’s said over the last few years. Hopefully the party leadership learn a bit of humility as this entire episode wreaks to me of arrogance and believing your own hype.

Totally agree with this. Even if it doesn't put a dent in the polls, it damages Starmer personally because it calls into question his judgement.
I sincerely hope that reports of him meeting with non-tax payer Jim Ratcliffe to discuss the redevelopment of Old Trafford are nonsense and just newspaper talk. If the Mancs want to play in the "Wembley of the North", then let them pay for it.

[Sangria]

I wouldn't look at Neoliberalism as a economic Ideology. they called it Thatcherism in UK back in 80s. the Torys believe the less they spend the less they need to tax so that means they chop funding for as many things as possible. if people need help then they pay for it themselves. Reganomics is the same. Regan admitted it in one of his speeches. don't ask the government for help, we can't afford to help you, you have to look after yourselves. this applies to everything. no funding for schools. services etc. keep chopping as much as they can so they don't have to tax more.

Theres a obvious contradiction to what am saying. Fact, the Torys do end up putting us in more debt than Labour,  the Torys are forced to tax more today, IMO that's all down to false economies and incompetency, it's not so much about the bottom line on how much the Torys spend. it's where they money is spent. Labour are competent. the money goes where it's needed and makes a difference. the Torys chop but those cuts turn out to be false economies and they are forced to pay more for a worse service.
 
This is another area am more hopeful about for future generations. the link between cuts to care etc and the effect it has on our NHS is now accepted as fact.
This has only recently become public opinion. it's done my head in for decades, it was obvious what the problem was back in the 80s yet all the spiralling costs were put down to a bottomless pit NHS, how we have to find new ways to fund it. many of the public were swallowing this, many were thinking we have to bring in private insurance, they will find it harder to make that argument now people understand the affect cuts to care has on the NHS.  we have to put competent people in charge of care as well as the NHS. stop blowing billions and use the money on a system that runs better. one thing that never gets mentioned is how a lot of these services came about, someone came up with a cheap efficiant system to solve a problem. eg a nurse would drop in to see how someone vulnerable was coping at home and helped them. they could see many people during the week, weekly wage a couple of hundred, Torys chop them and the people who relied on their help end up in Hospital costing the country thousands a week. that's Thatcherism.
 I think this must apply across the board, the Torys cuts must hit other areas but the problems don't go away, we end up spending more in the end. so this is why the Torys always put us in more debt while making everything worse.

It's an economic theory in the same way that Communism is an economic theory. They think the economy ought to work in that way, and that the rest of society can be run along the same theoretical lines. Like Communism, people are an inconvenient part of realising that theory. But the theory is what government is run on, not the people it affects. Hence you have the Brexit economist saying that agricultural and fishing industries don't fit within the theory, and thus should be cast away.

[oldfordie]

It's an economic theory in the same way that Communism is an economic theory. They think the economy ought to work in that way, and that the rest of society can be run along the same theoretical lines. Like Communism, people are an inconvenient part of realising that theory. But the theory is what government is run on, not the people it affects. Hence you have the Brexit economist saying that agricultural and fishing industries don't fit within the theory, and thus should be cast away.

Theres the running of the economy and the running of Society. both are run with the same mindset. don't expect public money to help. survival of the fittest for the businesses and am allright Jack running society.
The effect of starving society hurts the economy and businesses. I tried to make this argument to people back in the 80s/90s. hammering the workers and strikers also hurts the shops. that's another one of the most visual affect of the harm Thatcher's period. high streets full of boarded up shops. I doubt if the lesson was learned by all the shop owners who voted Tory though. that's the effect on the economy and businesses. the effect on society we see right now. services and NHS in collapse.

It's a question the Torys should face every time they come into power.
How can the put us in more debt by spending too much while making all our services far worse by making cuts they say save the country millions, it never gets asked, I think I understand the main reason, chopping services that solved problems doesn't mean those problems will go away, the government ends up paying far more for a far worse service, the Torys have no control over a lot of this spending , they can't stop people going the hospital etc.

I agree 100% about the reasons why Communism will never work. human nature.
I suppose you could say the same with Neoliberalism but I don't think supporters of Neoliberalism in society think that deep.  I think it's just selfish short sighted people who think people should pay their own way in this world, why should they pay more taxes just to give other people things free. the Torys MPs know this is how people have thought for generations and campaign for it. if that's all there was to it then every cost cutting chop would mean the Torys save the country money, that doesn't happen, we end up spending more.

[TepidT2O]

I follow a well connected former labour staffer …has just posted a picture of Sajid Javid …. Saying no reason for posting this …..

I wonder if he’s the next one considering jumping ship. Would be a huuuuge defection

[filopastry]

The Elphicke thing is rather bizzare.

The Tories seem to be so scared of the whole thing that they are actually showing themselves willing to damage themselves briefing damaging shit against anyone who leaves.

[filopastry]

I follow a well connected former labour staffer …has just posted a picture of Sajid Javid …. Saying no reason for posting this …..

I wonder if he’s the next one considering jumping ship. Would be a huuuuge defection

That one really would be massive, is Javid stepping down at the end of this Parliament?

[killer-heels]

That one really would be massive, is Javid stepping down at the end of this Parliament?

Yep, was one of the earliest high profile announcement's

[Lisan Al Gaib]

So Parliament voted 170-169 in favour of MP's being banned from parliament if arrested for serious sexual offences or violent offences following a risk assessment held by committee. The government wanted it to be if charged. Guess which MP swung the vote...

[west_london_red]

So Parliament voted 170-169 in favour of MP's being banned from parliament if arrested for serious sexual offences or violent offences following a risk assessment held by committee. The government wanted it to be if charged. Guess which MP swung the vote...

Not sure I agree with that, someone getting arrested, charged and found guilty of a crime are three very different things and people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, even MPs.

[Lisan Al Gaib]

Not sure I agree with that, someone getting arrested, charged and found guilty of a crime are three very different things and people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, even MPs.

Its about safeguarding women, the ban is just on their presence on the Parliamentary estate and they can still vote via proxy and do their constituency work. Jess Phillips said she knows two women who have been raped by current MPs who had told her they wanted the threshold to be arrest because why should women who have reported sexual assault cases to police that have led to an arrest have to share the same place of work as the person being investigated for the crime?

[TepidT2O]

Not sure I agree with that, someone getting arrested, charged and found guilty of a crime are three very different things and people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, even MPs.

the same for literally any public facing public servant though. It’s just consistent.
If your kid’s teacher was arrested for rape, you’d not want them teaching your kid would you?

[west_london_red]

Its about safeguarding women, the ban is just on their presence on the Parliamentary estate and they can still vote via proxy and do their constituency work. Jess Phillips said she knows two women who have been raped by current MPs who had told her they wanted the threshold to be arrest because why should women who have reported sexual assault cases to police that have led to an arrest have to share the same place of work as the person being investigated for the crime?

What happens in similar situations in other places of work?

the same for literally any public facing public servant though. It’s just consistent.
If your kid’s teacher was arrested for rape, you’d not want them teaching your kid would you?

No, of course not, but again why just public facing public servants? What if the accused works in Tescos for example?

[TepidT2O]

What happens in similar situations in other places of work?

No, of course not, but again why just public facing public servants? What if the accused works in Tescos for example?

Pretty sure you’d be moved away from the public

[TSC]

What happens in similar situations in other places of work?

No, of course not, but again why just public facing public servants? What if the accused works in Tescos for example?

Private sector is completely different from public sector, particularly if the latter relates to government.  In private sector I’d envisage anyone charged with criminality can keep it relatively hidden from the employer until conviction.  Then probably sacked depending on the crime.

In the public sector (esp govt) everything becomes ‘public’ from investigation/charged.

[Lisan Al Gaib]

Pretty sure you’d be moved away from the public

Should be moved away from the person who has made the complaint as well. If they aren't then they should be.

[So… Howard Philips]

Should be moved away from the person who has made the complaint as well. If they aren't then they should be.

In most places of employment the arrested person would probably be suspended without prejudice.

[PatriotScouser]

I follow a well connected former labour staffer …has just posted a picture of Sajid Javid …. Saying no reason for posting this …..

I wonder if he’s the next one considering jumping ship. Would be a huuuuge defection

My money is on Caroline Noakes...

[PaulF]

My money is on Caroline Noakes...

That or Rishi.

[TepidT2O]

My money is on Caroline Noakes...

Interesting


(Johns lass?)