Labour U Turns Part 164

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

1) I've nothing to offer on that article because I have not and will not read it. Because Skwawkbox has a long record of writing entirely untrustworthy stuff with a very strong ideological bent, based on the belief that anyone to the right of their far left position is an enemy. In this case, you, personally were highlighting that Graham was going to have a fight with Starmer over workers' benefits. Then when she didn't, you entirely dismiss the possibility that there might have been a genuine agreement, and instead quote Skwawkbox telling us she's a Red Tory. As with BRR over Putin, it's literally impossible to argue with that sort of stance.

2) There's no point me talking about capital investment again because I've done so dozens of times and you simply ignore it.

[albie]

BST,

1)
You can check out the history of the Unite dispute from other sources if you wish.
The link I posted was the best short summary, which links through to earlier posts on the issue.
By all means do your own research!

I was NOT highlighting anything other than what Graham herself posted on X (twitter).
She posted her opinion, then rowed back after a meeting and assurances from Keith.

As we know, pledges from Keith are entirely worthless.
Shaz is just having a Neville Chamberlain moment!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

Obviously I'm not being clear enough so I'll spell it out.

1) You posted that Graham was going to do something you approved of.

2) Sheffield then did something you didn't approve of

3) You first ignored that, then when it was brought to your attention, you posted something that implied Graham wasn't trustworthy.

Now, I'm not aware of you ever doing a job on Graham before this. But if you've had longstanding concerns about Graham, why did you only post them after she agreed with Starmer?

This is depressingly familiar stuff from the far left. The moment other people on the left do something you disagree with, you (collectively, not - just - you personally )discount the possibility that they might be acting in good faith and instead launch an attack on them. It's been that way for decades. It's the approach of the zealots who are certain that they hold The Truth and anyone who doesn't follow them must be among the unbelievers.

[albie]

BST,

No, wrong again on all counts.

1)
I posted what Sharon Graham herself said on X.
The same thing was posted on the Unite website;
https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2024/may/labour-s-draft-new-deal-for-workers-now-unrecognisable

2)
Sharon then rewound, 2 days later, after being lobbied by Keith and Co, which she is entitled to do if she has now got cast iron commitments from Labour.
Others, including Matt Wrack from the FBU, remain critical.

The FT has been the main commentary on this, but is behind a paywall.
https://archive.ph/UgZlt
and
https://archive.ph/Jo485

This has been going on for months;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/18/unite-union-sharon-graham-labour-party-workers-rights-angela-rayner

3)
No, it was not ignored.
Noboby "launched an attack", just simply pointed out that there is no proof of the commitment going forwards.

We have the track record of Keith to refer to, from the horses mouth;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1623740061316534273/pu/vid/1280x718/A3dhYtG1bjv1uqJL.mp4?tag=12

You would have to be very naive to take him seriously, and I hope you are not that!

[roverstillidie91]

So what is your answer to the questions put?

1) Do you disagree with the content of the article on Unite, and please explain what is incorrect (with your evidence).
2) We await your explanation of the main difference  between the economic strategy of Reeves, and the austerity of Osbourne.

Trustworthy Keith chats to Beth Rigby on Sky;
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1791140438964944896/vid/avc1/720x1280/XcUdzh9zFxce609M.mp4?tag=14

BTW, you block cookies under the settings option in your browser.

Albie, I watched that on Sky News. Beth Rigby is THE best political interviewer on TV. She lets no-one off the hook, of any political persuasion.

The way she took Keith apart was cringeworthy to watch.

should pit Mick Lynch with him and see him get owned and took apart

[drfchound]

BST,

No, wrong again on all counts.

1)
I posted what Sharon Graham herself said on X.
The same thing was posted on the Unite website;
https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2024/may/labour-s-draft-new-deal-for-workers-now-unrecognisable

2)
Sharon then rewound, 2 days later, after being lobbied by Keith and Co, which she is entitled to do if she has now got cast iron commitments from Labour.
Others, including Matt Wrack from the FBU, remain critical.

The FT has been the main commentary on this, but is behind a paywall.
https://archive.ph/UgZlt
and
https://archive.ph/Jo485

This has been going on for months;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/18/unite-union-sharon-graham-labour-party-workers-rights-angela-rayner

3)
No, it was not ignored.
Noboby "launched an attack", just simply pointed out that there is no proof of the commitment going forwards.

We have the track record of Keith to refer to, from the horses mouth;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1623740061316534273/pu/vid/1280x718/A3dhYtG1bjv1uqJL.mp4?tag=12

You would have to be very naive to take him seriously, and I hope you are not that!

Very odd that no one mentioned that Guardian article on here before today.

[Sprotyrover]

BST,

No, wrong again on all counts.

1)
I posted what Sharon Graham herself said on X.
The same thing was posted on the Unite website;
https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2024/may/labour-s-draft-new-deal-for-workers-now-unrecognisable

2)
Sharon then rewound, 2 days later, after being lobbied by Keith and Co, which she is entitled to do if she has now got cast iron commitments from Labour.
Others, including Matt Wrack from the FBU, remain critical.

The FT has been the main commentary on this, but is behind a paywall.
https://archive.ph/UgZlt
and
https://archive.ph/Jo485

This has been going on for months;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/18/unite-union-sharon-graham-labour-party-workers-rights-angela-rayner

3)
No, it was not ignored.
Noboby "launched an attack", just simply pointed out that there is no proof of the commitment going forwards.

We have the track record of Keith to refer to, from the horses mouth;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1623740061316534273/pu/vid/1280x718/A3dhYtG1bjv1uqJL.mp4?tag=12

You would have to be very naive to take him seriously, and I hope you are not that!

Very odd that no one mentioned that Guardian article on here before today.

They are merely taking the pish with the Unions, keep taking the donations and fob em off whilst they court big money!

[selby]

  When Labour get in the big money will be on a plane to avoid the non dom  labour stance.
  If Doncaster airport is open you might get the chance to wave off millions of pounds as it won't be around long in this country.

[SydneyRover]

  When Labour get in the big money will be on a plane to avoid the non dom  labour stance.
  If Doncaster airport is open you might get the chance to wave off millions of pounds as it won't be around long in this country.

The tories have nicked that idea from labour selby, you need to keep up.

[tyke1962]

  When Labour get in the big money will be on a plane to avoid the non dom  labour stance.
  If Doncaster airport is open you might get the chance to wave off millions of pounds as it won't be around long in this country.

The tories have nicked that idea from labour selby, you need to keep up.

Tories nicking Labour ideas , sounds like an admittance that they are all the same to me .

I wonder if the Tories would nick any loosening of the anti trade union laws ?

[SydneyRover]

  When Labour get in the big money will be on a plane to avoid the non dom  labour stance.
  If Doncaster airport is open you might get the chance to wave off millions of pounds as it won't be around long in this country.

The tories have nicked that idea from labour selby, you need to keep up.

Tories nicking Labour ideas , sounds like an admittance that they are all the same to me .

I wonder if the Tories would nick any loosening of the anti trade union laws ?

Only you (maybe other othe moaners too) would find a problem with labour's policy of putting an end to non-dom largesse that's been around for 200 years plus tyke.

[tyke1962]

  When Labour get in the big money will be on a plane to avoid the non dom  labour stance.
  If Doncaster airport is open you might get the chance to wave off millions of pounds as it won't be around long in this country.

The tories have nicked that idea from labour selby, you need to keep up.

Tories nicking Labour ideas , sounds like an admittance that they are all the same to me .

I wonder if the Tories would nick any loosening of the anti trade union laws ?

Only you (maybe other othe moaners too) would find a problem with labour's policy of putting an end to non-dom largesse that's been around for 200 years plus tyke.

Nobody can even guess what the behavioural patterns of the non doms will be , it's impossible to say when you are dealing with individuals who have different interests or aren't necessarily born here .

So it's a bit of a publicity stunt which is something the Tories are quite happy to nick knowing full well it's not a real policy .

Well it couldn't be a real policy could it , Keith was involved .

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

The airport will be a good theme to ask the labour party about. The regional and city mayors have been very vocal about no backing from.government and that labour would change that. Will they?

[danumdon]

  When Labour get in the big money will be on a plane to avoid the non dom  labour stance.
  If Doncaster airport is open you might get the chance to wave off millions of pounds as it won't be around long in this country.

The tories have nicked that idea from labour selby, you need to keep up.

Tories nicking Labour ideas , sounds like an admittance that they are all the same to me .

I wonder if the Tories would nick any loosening of the anti trade union laws ?

Only you (maybe other othe moaners too) would find a problem with labour's policy of putting an end to non-dom largesse that's been around for 200 years plus tyke.

I'll ask again, seen as no one has answered.

Can you tell me why Labour in power between 1990 and 2010 did not feel the need to change the non-dom regulations?

[SydneyRover]

Or why dd any party did not feel the need over the past 200 years or so, how does your mind compute all this, the first party in over 200 years decides to take action and it's them you try to blame for not doing it earlier mister centrist.

[albie]

The Big Issue have produced a summary of the main U-turns under Keith and Co;
https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/keir-starmer-broken-promises-tuition-fees-nationalisation-u-turn/

Useful, as it is hard to keep track with so many reversals and dropped promises.

[SydneyRover]

The Big Issue have produced a summary of the main U-turns under Keith and Co;
https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/keir-starmer-broken-promises-tuition-fees-nationalisation-u-turn/

Useful, as it is hard to keep track with so many reversals and dropped promises.

I hope you can survive selling 'em Albie cos if the tories keep getting up you may need to sell a lot.

[danumdon]

Or why dd any party did not feel the need over the past 200 years or so, how does your mind compute all this, the first party in over 200 years decides to take action and it's them you try to blame for not doing it earlier mister centrist.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything (but then you would read your own slant into taking a dump)

I'm asking why Labour feel the need at this time to raise this option, what's changed from then to now that they feel this would be a vote getter?

Did they not think that non-doms should of paid their way then but all of a sudden do now?

Is this not just more rehashed bollo*ks from Starmer's think tanks and review groups who just want to punish individuals with some extra cash (unless of course its coming their way)

Politics of greed and envy will never carry over into public acceptance. The majority of the electorate are mindful of the requirements of the sick and needy, what they don't want is to be fleeced for political dogma, that never ends well.

[SydneyRover]

Or why dd any party did not feel the need over the past 200 years or so, how does your mind compute all this, the first party in over 200 years decides to take action and it's them you try to blame for not doing it earlier mister centrist.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything (but then you would read your own slant into taking a dump)

I'm asking why Labour feel the need at this time to raise this option, what's changed from then to now that they feel this would be a vote getter?

Did they not think that non-doms should of paid their way then but all of a sudden do now?

Is this not just more rehashed bollo*ks from Starmer's think tanks and review groups who just want to punish individuals with some extra cash (unless of course its coming their way)

Politics of greed and envy will never carry over into public acceptance. The majority of the electorate are mindful of the requirements of the sick and needy, what they don't want is to be fleeced for political dogma, that never ends well.

Oh yes you are ......... ''I'll ask again, seen as no one has answered.

Can you tell me why Labour in power between 1990 and 2010 did not feel the need to change the non-dom regulations?''

Not 'politics of greed' it's politics of a fairer society reducing the numbers of loopholes.

[Not Now Kato]

  When Labour get in the big money will be on a plane to avoid the non dom  labour stance.
  If Doncaster airport is open you might get the chance to wave off millions of pounds as it won't be around long in this country.

The tories have nicked that idea from labour selby, you need to keep up.

Tories nicking Labour ideas , sounds like an admittance that they are all the same to me .

I wonder if the Tories would nick any loosening of the anti trade union laws ?

Only you (maybe other othe moaners too) would find a problem with labour's policy of putting an end to non-dom largesse that's been around for 200 years plus tyke.

I'll ask again, seen as no one has answered.

Can you tell me why Labour in power between 1990 and 2010 did not feel the need to change the non-dom regulations?

Quite simple - media exposure/coverage.
 
The simple minded are easily led by the media and politically driven people, (especially politicians), are more than happy to exploit this - irrespective of party DD.

[danumdon]

  When Labour get in the big money will be on a plane to avoid the non dom  labour stance.
  If Doncaster airport is open you might get the chance to wave off millions of pounds as it won't be around long in this country.

The tories have nicked that idea from labour selby, you need to keep up.

Tories nicking Labour ideas , sounds like an admittance that they are all the same to me .

I wonder if the Tories would nick any loosening of the anti trade union laws ?

Only you (maybe other othe moaners too) would find a problem with labour's policy of putting an end to non-dom largesse that's been around for 200 years plus tyke.

I'll ask again, seen as no one has answered.

Can you tell me why Labour in power between 1990 and 2010 did not feel the need to change the non-dom regulations?

Quite simple - media exposure/coverage.
 
The simple minded are easily led by the media and politically driven people, (especially politicians), are more than happy to exploit this - irrespective of party DD.

Good answer, now why couldn't your pal have said the same.

So in effect Starmer is hoping to catch a few floaters by announcing a policy that promises the public coffers some extra cash but in all reality is more likely to be dropped along with a multitude of other "focus group" nonsense.

For what he would stand to gain after the expense of administering the scheme it would be worth peanuts.

But at lease it would send out the right message to the target group eh.

Lets hope for all out sakes Starmer and the delightful Reeves can conjure up some enterprising schemes that empower wealth creators to want to create the wealth that this country desperately needs rather than socialist stodge that will kill it stone dead.

We've just had the "party of business" waste years going down the same road, lets hope Starmer has learnt from their lesson.