birchesgreen
Established Member
Nandy, Cooper and then Starmer
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Keir Starmer and the Labour Party
- Thread starter deltic
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DarloRich
Veteran Member
other way round for me! Felt Nandy was a bit young and a bit to close to Corbyn for me.
Wasn't it Long-Bailey rather than Cooper on the final ballot?
DarloRich
Veteran Member
it was ( i think) but i would have preferred Cooper and she would have been my second choice.
birchesgreen
Established Member
You're right i was mixing up my elections!
Nandy then Starmer, i didn't vote for Long-Bailey.
One important difference for me is that Labour do not appear to celebrate "anti-wokeism" in the way that many of the current iteration of the Tories do. I'm talking about the likes of Braverman, (formerly) Anderson, Gullis, Benton, Badenoch, Philip Davies, McVey, and the like - and, dare I say it, Sunak, who has promoted many reactionary right-wingers to senior positions and IMV appears to be quite right-wing himself.
Essentially, Labour for me represents Normal UK Politics from November 1990-May 2016 whereas the Tories represent something significantly to the right of that. So I'd say there's clearer ideological water between Starmer's middle-of-the-road Labour and Sunak's right-wing Tories than there was between Major and Blair (both middle-of-the-road as leaders) in 1997.
Last edited:
YorkRailFan
On Moderation
I have a Labour & Co-Op MP.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
26 Mp's have a similar status
YorkRailFan
On Moderation
First was the "Green New Deal", now this.
ABB125
Established Member
Good. Zero-hours contracts have a place in employment, huge issues would be caused if they were to be banned. The issue is that they get exploited by unscrupulous employers and used in totally unsuitable employment scenarios; banning them is not the correct solution.
Indeed - I have a second job with a zero hours contract - the nature of the work suits it perfectly. Nothing to do with the gig economy either.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I can also think of situations where that might be the best model for an employee, but it's difficult to see how someone might legislate to get rid of the bad ones without hitting those too.
Yes I don't think this is particularly a bad thing, I was always a little uncomfortable with outlawing them in their entirety as they do have a place. They're also separate to the gig economy which is definitely something that needs tighter regulation.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
The way I would do it is to use the minimum wage: Allow zero-hours contracts, but specify a higher minimum wage if the employee isn't guaranteed a certain number of hours per week.
EDIT: To clarify, since this seemed to cause some confusion: I was referring to the hourly minimum wage. So if someone is on a zero hours contract, any hours they do work must be paid at a higher minimum rate than if they had a certain number of guaranteed hours.
Last edited:
Snow1964
Established Member
Its a bit of a contradiction of terms, zero hours and guaranteed min hours.
But I guess any minimum should be binding on both sides as in a normal contract, where less (eg holiday) has to be booked
Labour shelved the Green New Deal because the country's financial health is in a poorer position compared to when it was first proposed. I'm a big supporter of this policy, but I'd prefer Starmer and Reeves were honest about what we can and can't afford now, not after entering government.
I read it as being: "If you are zero hours you get a higher minimum rate for the hours you do work, if you have a fixed minimum of hours per week you get a lower minimum rate."
So zero hours offers no guarantees but a higher rate of pay compared to the certainty of the hours but a lower rate of pay.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Yep, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for explaining better than I evidently did. I've now edited my post.
I think you have to very careful in thinking about this - the law of unintended consequences - particularly regarding certain occupations/work where the employer is in no position to guarantee hours or pay increased rates as a consequence of this.
Example. I do some extra work driving or conducting vintage vehicles for occasions (weddings/proms/parties etc). The quantity of work available depends on bookings and the numbers of staff available to spread the work around, and also my availability and desire to work. Nobody is doing the work for their bread-and-butter, or being forced to do it. The cost for the clients is already high (two man crew) - some could easily afford to pay more but others not, which would reduce the amount of work available. I am quite happy to work for the current minimum wage as it is extra and I enjoy it. I guess there will be other people, working or retired, in similar positions.
I have no desire to be collateral damage for some greater social good of pizza delivery drivers or Fraser Group warehouse employees....... - any rules need to take this type of employment into account. I don't want government rules to be destroying businesses (or my enjoyment/ability to earn a bit extra)
My wife works in a shop. The recent large increases in minimum wage have resulted in reduced employment, reduced hours for those who are still employed, more onerous work on those who remain, reduced levels of coverage and therefore safety - generally a worse environment to work in. She is not supporting a family and doesn't need a high wage. One size doesn't fit all.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I totally agree about unintended consequences, and for what it's worth I also think the overall minimum wage level may have become too high - to the point where it's just causing an inflationary spiral rather than helping anyone. But there is also a clear difference between - at one extreme - working 9am-5pm every weekday, so you know exactly when you're working and you have that guaranteed full time salary, and at the other extreme, potentially being told as little as a few days in advance whether you'll have work on a given day - and then being absolutely expected to come in to work at that few day's notice if you have been given hours. To me it seems quite reasonable that the uncertainty and inability to plan your life that goes with the latter situation should be compensated by at least a higher hourly rate.
In your case, it sounds from your description like there's no obligation on you to accept any hours that you are offered, and also no restriction on you having other employment at the same time - which probably makes your job somewhat more akin to self-employment in that regard. I would expect that a well-designed set of rules around minimum wages would take that kind of thing into account.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Its sounding like business lobbyists have already got to Labour, not that this is a surprise of course. As the Tories gallop further right, so Labour shuffle across the centre line to fill the void, making it more likely that they will perform more u-turns on policies as they come under pressure from the blue wall. Then in 5-10 years the Tories will shuffle back leftwards and the cycle restarts again. How truly depressing, twenty years ago I would have been excited at the prospect of Labour booting out the Tories. Now it just feels like a commercial takeover.
Its a bit like when a new TOC comes in, everyone gets excited and wonders what the new livery will and seat colours will be. But then when the dust settles its the same old crap underneath.
Depends on how much of the rest of the "New Deal for Workers" survives. Banning zero hours contracts outright always felt a bit dubious so losing them is not necessarily a bad thing. Now, if the rest of it vanishes into the ether that would be a different matter.
Bantamzen
Established Member
I understand that there are circumstances where zero hours contracts can be beneficial, but reading what's been said so far this feels like a huge loophole has just been re-opened and these kinds of contracts will continue regardless of them being beneficial or detrimental to workers. Honestly as they start to dial back policies quite a way out from the election, I only expect more of the same. If the lobbyists are already having an effect, they are going to want more.
I wish I could be less negative, but as I've said before I don't see Labour under Starmer as anything much different than a more moderate conservative government than the nutters currently running the show. And the more they lean on the blue wall, the more they will have to become like the blue wall.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
But a more moderate Conservative government would still be preferable to the current nutters...
I don't think Labour are expecting many gains in the blue wall (broadly speaking the South East outside London). Anti-Tory voters here are likely to go LibDem.
bahnause
Member
I'd rather we didn't continue to entertain the infantile fallacy that the countries finances are like a household budget.
One potential outcome is some company bringing in a 10 hour a year contract (so not zero hours), however so had the same net outcome that the person has no assurance as to what work they have. However, you could even make things worse by the company saying that you've got to have their permission to get another job.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
You could apply the same criticism to Labour's original plan to ban zero-hours contracts. Hey it's a 10 hour-a-year contract therefore not zero hours therefore legal
You would hope though that the people in the civil service who write new legislation would be capable of thinking through how to make the law robust and avoid having such an obvious loophole. (Perhaps by setting a threshold that requires a reasonable number of hours each week, maybe with a couple of bands, though I'm sure there are other ways of working around the problem).Something which I found very disturbing in the "i" front page this morning.
Apparently Labour are holding talks with "Team Trump", as it puts them and one of the Trumpists considers the shadow foreign secretary more cooperative than Cameron.
To me this seems very worrying indeed. Why are Labour holding talks with a group of people who are basically hard-right yobs (thinking of the storming of the Capitol here, particularly) before the US election has even been decided?
It won't stop me voting against the Tories, in fact due to the nature of my constituency, I will be voting Lib Dem - but it won't be an enthusiastic vote for Labour. Probably of all three main parties, in fact, the Lib Dems are the closest to my own views but sadly they won't get in.
I just get the impression that the UK political establishment, on both sides, has a vision for the UK which is very different to my own.
Apparently Labour are holding talks with "Team Trump", as it puts them and one of the Trumpists considers the shadow foreign secretary more cooperative than Cameron.
To me this seems very worrying indeed. Why are Labour holding talks with a group of people who are basically hard-right yobs (thinking of the storming of the Capitol here, particularly) before the US election has even been decided?
It won't stop me voting against the Tories, in fact due to the nature of my constituency, I will be voting Lib Dem - but it won't be an enthusiastic vote for Labour. Probably of all three main parties, in fact, the Lib Dems are the closest to my own views but sadly they won't get in.
I just get the impression that the UK political establishment, on both sides, has a vision for the UK which is very different to my own.
Last edited:
birchesgreen
Established Member
Well they might be in charge next year so its prudent to make contact beforehand just in case, but i wouldn't take any notice about what someone in Team Trump says.