news & politics:discussion

[Guest]

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

 

Shockingly Dan Hodges isn’t happy with this, he claims it shows Labour isn’t serious. 

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

Ah yes, why pay public sector workers more when they can just limit their right to strike.

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

Claps will have to do then. 

[Guest]

 

[mattiloy]

 

[Guest]

More Tory scandal. 

[mattiloy]

22 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

Its hilarious how if this thread has been fairly dormant, if you then spontaenously post reasonable criticism of Starmer, another post appears almost immediately about something unrelated. As if to attempt to steer the thread away from discussion of the negative Starmer content. Always watching, always waiting. A bit creepy tbh.

Anyway here it is again. A good article by Michael Crick on the Labour selection processes.

Also, this.

Edited December 4, 2022 by mattiloy

[steviewevie]

😄

 

[steviewevie]

11 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Its hilarious how if this thread has been fairly dormant, if you then spontaenously post reasonable criticism of Starmer, another post appears almost immediately about something unrelated. As if to attempt to steer the thread away from discussion of the negative Starmer content. Always watching, always waiting. A bit creepy tbh.

Anyway here it is again. A good article by Michael Crick on the Labour selection processes.

Also, this.

here you go then...

 

[Guest]

This is a good thread detailing Labour’s plan for private schools and has lots of evidence to support their policy. 

[steviewevie]

I kind of agree with some people who are saying why bother with the house of lords thing...I think we need an unelected second chamber, but a better one than we have now...more experts, less party political, no hereditary lords, more diverse etc etc. Better to change the electoral system maybe...

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

😄

 

I dare say it’s more unfair to not give public sector workers a proper pay rise. 

[Guest]

Isn't it funny how it's never 'unfair' when MPs get a pay rise?

[mattiloy]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I kind of agree with some people who are saying why bother with the house of lords thing...I think we need an unelected second chamber, but a better one than we have now...more experts, less party political, no hereditary lords, more diverse etc etc. Better to change the electoral system maybe...

There is an argument for that. But the process of anointing individuals to become ’lords’ with all the pomp, ceremony and deference that comes with the title is shit.

Really to fulfill the useful elements of what the lords does all you need is a new department of the civil service which only exists to moderate the bills that come through the commons perhaps in consultation with experts and maybe the odd referendum within a set of rules. For instance, if a govt passes a bill which is well outside of what the mandate they received during the general election states - ie something really not on their manifesto - the upper house could have the right to reject the bill or ask the govt to seek a referendum to pass it. A completely neutral, unglorified, dull, procedural branch of government.

[mattiloy]

But the important thing is that you abolish the lords and sack every single gravy train toady gobshite in it.

[steviewevie]

here he is...,man of the moment...

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

here he is...,man of the moment...

 

 

It'll be interesting to see what Labour's plans are, from what I've read so far they could be good.

This from that article is also really interesting:

'No longer will taxpayer money be doled out to ministers’ mates or in crony contracts. Sunak’s reaction to losing billions to fraud was to shrug his shoulders. That will change too.'

[Punksnotdead]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

😄

 

It's unfair that hard working people have no money at Xmas. Isn't it funny that Tory MPs always blame "the unions" for strikes, never the millions of workers who vote for the strikes?

[Guest]

 

Swarmer is correct on his Brexit stance.

[Crazyfool01]

This country is a shit hole .... @Ozanne  out of interest any idea what labour would do to revoke some of this anti protest stuff going through parliament ? or once it gets through are we likely stuck with it and the fascist approach ? 

 

[Crazyfool01]

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

Swarmer is correct on his Brexit stance.

writes for the telegraph ? also from the telegraph .... 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/01/forecasts-lasting-brexit-damage-just-spin-guesswork/

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, mattiloy said:

Its hilarious how if this thread has been fairly dormant, if you then spontaenously post reasonable criticism of Starmer, another post appears almost immediately about something unrelated. As if to attempt to steer the thread away from discussion of the negative Starmer content. Always watching, always waiting. A bit creepy tbh.

Anyway here it is again. A good article by Michael Crick on the Labour selection processes.

Also, this.

I literally posted criticism of him 2 days ago:

On 12/2/2022 at 1:55 PM, kaosmark2 said:

So I was defending Starmer before about MP selection, but wtf is happening in Uxbridge? Literally just saying a result doesn't count?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Crazyfool01 said:

writes for the telegraph ? also from the telegraph .... 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/01/forecasts-lasting-brexit-damage-just-spin-guesswork/

What?