Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Nick]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Where did you think I'd got it from? 

 

Oh did Boris wake you as he got out of bed to leave for his trip?

[Guest MattP]

30 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

No mate - if you are not prepared to pay the money you'll just have to read the review from a more inclusive publication who simply asks for donations from those who can afford it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/sep/10/nature-of-beast-dennis-skinner-review

No problem, £1 for a 4 week trial is fine anyway, I realise you don't get quality journalism for free.

 

He's a enigma isn't he Dennis, probably the strangest guy in parliament, never wanted to be promoted, has never presented or passed a bill in all his years of being there and is basically the house heckler (often tragically, sometimes very amusing;y) - he's a man of principle though and there are very, very few of them around these days, his vote yesterday was so important, not just for the confirmation of his views but also there is zero chance of the front bench taking action against him and with that the other six rebels as well.

 

The people of Bolsover seem happy with him though and I'm sure I speak for all Leave voters when I say I hope he remains in good health for the next few years at least while we try and get Brexit through the house.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

No mate - if you are not prepared to pay the money you'll just have to read the review from a more inclusive publication who simply asks for donations from those who can afford it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/sep/10/nature-of-beast-dennis-skinner-review

I'd rather just not read it thanks.

[Alf Bentley]

53 minutes ago, Buce said:

BoJo off to the Caribbean. 

 

As if the poor sods haven't suffered enough...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41236692

 

A Boris-related digression....

I just looked up his bizarre phrase (about reports of his affair with Petronella Wyatt) "an inverted pyramid of piffle".

Makes more sense than I'd imagined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)

 

So, "inverted pyramid" is a journalistic term describing how you're supposed to structure a news article - and he was a journalist before entering politics.

I still view him as a dangerous loose cannon apparently motivated too much by ego and self-advancement.....but at least I understand where that odd comment came from.

[Guest MattP]

Richard Burgon (the Shadow Lord Chancellor!) has just refused four times to say he would condemn illegal strike action by Unite on the today programme. 

[Finnegan]

31 minutes ago, MattP said:

Richard Burgon (the Shadow Lord Chancellor!) has just refused four times to say he would condemn illegal strike action by Unite on the today programme. 

 

Good on him. 

 

Ridiculous law and exactly the sort of thing you'd hope any decent union would ignore. 

 

Pretty tragic state of affairs if you've got a Labour leader openly condemning one of the country's largest unions for doing what they've always done. 

 

Don't like it? Don't vote Labour. 

 

And don't give me some hyperbolic analogy about if he was backing any other illicit illegal activity. He isn't so it isn't relevant. 

Edited 12 September 2017 by Finnegan

[Guest MattP]

11 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Good on him. 

 

Ridiculous law and exactly the sort of thing you'd hope any decent union would ignore. 

 

Pretty tragic state of affairs if you've got a Labour leader openly condemning one of the country's largest unions for doing what they've always done. 

 

Don't like it? Don't vote Labour. 

 

And don't give me some hyperbolic analogy about if he was backing any other illicit illegal activity. He isn't so it isn't relevant. 

Sums it up really doesn't it, we don't like a law so we'll ignore it, the childish recalcitrance of what they have now become. Pretty tragic state of affairs that the party of thinkers like Attlee, Bevan and Tawney is now the party of Abbott, Burgon and McDonnell - it would be funny if they weren't so close to office, so it isn't.

 

Athough I hope it does happen, it will turn more decent people off than on.

 

Out of interest, what percentage do you think the threshold should be for a strike? I think 50% is more than resaonable, the idea we can go back to having the taxpayer held to ransom because 8% of a workforce wants to try and bring the government down isn't one most people will entertain.

Edited 12 September 2017 by MattP

[Finnegan]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Sums it up really doesn't it, we don't like a law so we'll ignore it, the childish recalcitrance of what they have now become. Pretty tragic state of affairs that the party of thinkers like Attlee, Bevan and Tawney is now the party of Abbott, Burgon and McDonnell - it would be funny if they weren't so close to office, so it isn't.

 

Athough I hope it does happen, it will turn more decent people off than on.

 

Out of interest, what percentage do you think the threshold should be for a strike? I think 50% is more than resaonable, the idea we can go back to having the taxpayer held to ransom because 8% of a workforce wants to try and bring the government down isn't one most people will entertain.

 

What's the threshold for a general election? At what point does that become undemocratic? 

 

Why should the law be any different for union members voting on industrial action? 

Edited 12 September 2017 by Finnegan

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

What's the threshold for a general election? At what point does that become undemocratic? 

 

Why should the law be any different for union members voting on industrial action? 

Nothing, although the lowest turnout for one is about 59% in 2001 (I think) - still higher than the threshold for what the Unions can call legal action on.

 

I'd happily have a threshold though, I would find our system a joke if a party was elected on say, less than 10% of the vote. In the same way a strike voted for in similar numbers is a joke.

[Guest MattP]

Although it's important to say the cap is being lifted this week anyway - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41218283

 

It's almost as if Len wants to try and take some credit for something with the idiot vote......

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Although it's important to say the cap is being lifted this week anyway - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41218283

 

It's almost as if Len wants to try and take some credit for something with the idiot vote......

Could do with the nurses getting a big payrise, these holidays won't pay for themselves.

[Innovindil]

11 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Could do with the nurses getting a big payrise, these holidays won't pay for themselves.

Holidays 

 

You're supposed to be struggling to afford essentials! 

 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Holidays 

 

You're supposed to be struggling to afford essentials! 

 

 ive been very lucky this year with holidays, the fridge can look a bit bare on Saturday mornings if that cheers you up?

[Innovindil]

Just now, Strokes said:

 ive been very lucky this year with holidays, the fridge can look a bit bare on Saturday mornings if that cheers you up?

A baconless fridge is perhaps the most tragic thing of all. 

[Finnegan]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

Nothing

 

Yeah it was a rhetorical question. 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Yeah it was a rhetorical question. 

Do you think Unions should have a threshold when they vote on strike action?

[Finnegan]

Just now, MattP said:

Do you think Unions should have a threshold when they vote on strike action?

 

It's probably a little redundant to be honest, if such a vast minority of people actually wanted to strike then the strike would be ineffective regardless. Unite would call their strike, have it ratified by ballot and have it be completely legal and then 90% of their members would just go to work anyway. 

 

I know plenty of paid up union members who have crossed the picket line before now because they didn't agree with a strike, the idea of some sort of black listing and a tiny minority bullying a majority in to striking is just not really true to life. Just not going to happen. 

 

So the ballot is largely just a formality which is why turnout tends to be so pathetically low. 

 

It's also why it's a ridiculous law that really just serves to do as much as possible to obstruct collective bargaining and industrial action. 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Sums it up really doesn't it, we don't like a law so we'll ignore it, the childish recalcitrance of what they have now become. Pretty tragic state of affairs that the party of thinkers like Attlee, Bevan and Tawney is now the party of Abbott, Burgon and McDonnell - it would be funny if they weren't so close to office, so it isn't.

 

Athough I hope it does happen, it will turn more decent people off than on.

 

Out of interest, what percentage do you think the threshold should be for a strike? I think 50% is more than resaonable, the idea we can go back to having the taxpayer held to ransom because 8% of a workforce wants to try and bring the government down isn't one most people will entertain.

If union members don't support the ballot result they'd cross the picket line. It is for unions to decide how they are run, not government. The 50% was entered into law by a government embarking on years of austerity and anti-worker policies. No wonder that they tried to limit striking. It was an odious attempt to stop dissent.

 

55 minutes ago, MattP said:

Although it's important to say the cap is being lifted this week anyway - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41218283

 

It's almost as if Len wants to try and take some credit for something with the idiot vote......

Let's see what this means in practice first. One thing is for certain - if the tories had won a big majority those caps would be going nowhere. 

 

26 minutes ago, MattP said:

Do you think Unions should have a threshold when they vote on strike action?

Fine with a threshold but not fine with the government changing it just before it makes life worse for workers. 

[Guest]

Labour to force vote on plan to increase tuition fees

Jeremy Corbyn’s party manages to secure vote on proposal to increase cap on annual fees to £9,250

 

Angela Rayner said the government’s desperation to avoid a vote showed the Tories ‘won’t even trust their own MPs to back their latest hike in student fees’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian

Rowena Mason Deputy political editor

Published:12:01 BST Tue 12 September 2017

 Follow Rowena Mason

 

Labour is to force a parliamentary vote to scrap the government’s latest rise in university tuition fees on Wednesday in what it believes is a binding motion.

The move, led by the shadow education secretary, Angela Rayner, will put some Conservative MPs in an uncomfortable position at a time when they have been pushing May to reduce the burden of fees on students.

Under the government’s plan, the annual tuition fee cap of £9,000 is to rise by £250 a year, increasing the debt of a student on a four-year course by £1,000 overall.

AdvertisementHide

 

Jeremy Corbyn’s gains at the general election have partly been attributed to a huge vote from students after he promised to scrap student fees and look at ways of writing off existing tuition fee debt.

Coming soon, a university where students could set their own tuition fees

The vote could also prove to be a difficult issue for the Democratic Unionist party, which is supporting the Conservative government but previously voted against increasing the cap on student fees to £9,000 in 2010.

Labour has managed to secure the vote in time allocated for the opposition by using arcane parliamentary procedure, as the party attempts to make life difficult for Theresa May in the House of Commons following the loss of her majority.

No 10 had attempted to get the rise in student fees through parliament earlier in the year using secondary legislation but Labour demanded a vote and more thorough parliamentary scrutiny.

Since then, the government has been trying to avoid a vote in the House of Commons but Labour tabled a special motion to revoke the regulations raising the cap on top-up fees, instead of the usual practice of a non-binding motion criticising the government on a policy issue.

Rayner said the government’s desperation to avoid a vote showed the Conservatives “won’t even trust their own MPs to back their latest hike in student fees, so they’re trying to stop us voting on it at all”.

“They may be afraid of debating this issue but we aren’t, so we will now provide the time and the vote using opposition time,” she said. “The Tories are ripping up the rules of democracy in their desperation to cling to power. They’re not taking back control, they’re trying to take it away.

“This latest tuition fee rise could cost students up to £1,000 more over a university course, yet they are refusing to keep their promise to graduates that the repayment level would go up with inflation. Every MP who votes against us on Wednesday will have to answer to the people they represent if they back ever higher student fees and ever worsening terms for graduates.”

The Tories have very good reasons to fear young people

The move shows Labour is increasingly trying to use parliamentary methods to cause defeats for the government on issues that Tory MPs are nervous about after the election. The party is also expected to force a Commons vote on scrapping the 1% public sector pay cap.

On Sunday, the shadow health secretary, Jon Ashworth, called on Tory MPs to join his party in backing moves to end the “unfair” cap with a motion to be debated on Wednesday. However, that motion will be non-binding on the government.

 

[Guest MattP]

32 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Fine with a threshold but not fine with the government changing it just before it makes life worse for workers. 

So can anyone give me an answer as to what the threshold should be?

 

It might not be important to those who just support any strike going but to many people it is to know that the majority of members do support the actions of their leaders.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

I know plenty of paid up union members who have crossed the picket line before now because they didn't agree with a strike, the idea of some sort of black listing and a tiny minority bullying a majority in to striking is just not really true to life. Just not going to happen. 

The people who I spoke with who voted for Gerard Coyne told me a very different story. They think it's far more common and they way he was treated more than backed up that opinion. 

[Guest MattP]

Still barely a shift in the polls - Hung parliament odds on for next time comfortably. 

 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 42% (-)
LAB: 42% (-)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 4% (+1)
GRN: 3% (-)

via @ICMResearch, 08 - 10 Sep

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, MattP said:

So can anyone give me an answer as to what the threshold should be?

 

It might not be important to those who just support any strike going but to many people it is to know that the majority of members do support the actions of their leaders.

We got on perfectly well without one before. 

In reality % of voters tends to be relatively low as everybody knows what the mood id and whether the motion will be carried. Why vote if you know it'll pass?

 

With no cap, business operated like a market - treat your staff right and they'll work hard. Treat then badly and they'll strike. Funny how you like government intervention with this?

 

I do wonder whether there's any policy on which you side with ordinary people over business?

 

That fact is the law was changed to protect the tories from the fallout of their own policies. That is not the basis on which laws should be enacted. The law should be protecting staff against bad employers, not protecting the employers. 

Edited 12 September 2017 by Guest

[Kopfkino]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

We got on perfectly well without one before. 

In reality % of voters tends to be relatively low as everybody knows what the mood id and whether the motion will be carried. Why vote if you know it'll pass?

 

With no cap, business operated like a market - treat your staff right and they'll work hard. Treat then badly and they'll strike. Funny how you like government intervention with this?

 

I do wonder whether there's any policy on which you side with ordinary people over business?

 

That fact is the law was changed to protect the tories from the fallout of their own policies. That is not the basis on which laws should be enacted. The law should be protecting staff against bad employers, not protecting the employers. 

 

And similar could be levelled at you. Funny how you like a cartel inflating prices (wages) by restricting the labour market.

 

Edit: for the record I believe there is a place for trade unions but I'm not sure how best to deal with them

Edited 12 September 2017 by KingGTF

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

We got on perfectly well without one before. 

In reality % of voters tends to be relatively low as everybody knows what the mood id and whether the motion will be carried. Why vote if you know it'll pass?

 

With no cap, business operated like a market - treat your staff right and they'll work hard. Treat then badly and they'll strike. Funny how you like government intervention with this?

 

I do wonder whether there's any policy on which you side with ordinary people over business?

 

That fact is the law was changed to protect the tories from the fallout of their own policies. That is not the basis on which laws should be enacted. The law should be protecting staff against bad employers, not protecting the employers. 

Many, leaving the EU was the main one, refusing to do what every banker and big business told m as I felt we could get a better deal out of it, not to mention trying to bring the wages of the poorest up by having restriction on unskilled immigration, although don't always assume strikes are "people against business", if the public sector strikes for a higher wage it's the people in the private sector who will have to foot the bill for it and pay the price of seeing those services close down for the day whilst they are doing it. Won't bother the wealthiest on society who can pay for private treatment and doctors etc

 

Another one that springs to mind is the recent tube driver strike in London, here was industrial action where people on a picket line earning 60k a year were shutting down a network mainly used by the lowest paid to get around London and go about their daily life, it didn't bother those who could afford to take taxis.

 

Far too simplistic to claim these things are "the people" v "big business" but I can see why you would persist with it as it's good for PR, the reality is different though.