Current Affairs The General Election

[Jebus_lives]

The support for the utterly insane demands of the McDonalds workers is another reason not to vote Labour.

Someone can reasonably support their activity while not necessarily accepting that their demands are reasonable.

Equally, you might look and say that if they achieve the demands then it's a argument in favour of more collective bargaining across the private sector.

In addressing the first part, the problem here, as I see it, is that the message above does not translate well across much of the population as (and I think there is a big theme here with this Corbyn LP) you need to explain to people that, what at first instance seem like two contradictory positions, actually are not (see Brexit as an example).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

This is not about Labour.

This is about Tim Walker doing the sensible thing and the gesture being dumped on by the LibDem national leadership.

And it is blowing up in their faces.

It's game theory innit? No good Walker doing this if Labour decide to crap on it and not reciprocate. If Labour were pledging to do the same then there's a real accusation to be made against anyone not doing so. My understanding is that LDs, Greens and Plaid have said they'll do so, but I don't know if Labour have joined them or not. You might know more than me?

 

[Jebus_lives]

Out of interest, have Labour pledged to stand down candidates to form a 'remain alliance'?

They should.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I hope you also tut-tutted her on the folly of considering her status in relative rather than absolute terms

When she hissed at me I thought it best to lick my wounds and retreat to a safe place.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

They should.

Indeed, but have they?

 

[Jebus_lives]

It's game theory innit? No good Walker doing this if Labour decide to crap on it and not reciprocate. If Labour were pledging to do the same then there's a real accusation to be made against anyone not doing so. My understanding is that LDs, Greens and Plaid have said they'll do so, but I don't know if Labour have joined them or not. You might know more than me?

The problem is Labour are not officially a Remain party.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Indeed, but have they?

The problem is Labour are not officially a Remain party.

 

[abelard]

When she hissed at me I thought it best to lick my wounds and retreat to a safe place.

Sometimes wisdom transcends politics

 

[Billy Dean]

My constituency is Tory, with a god awful mp who is rabid anti Eu. Labour and Lib Dem have about the same amount of votes and would probably oust the mp if one of them dropped out. To be honest, the Lib Dem candidate seems a better bet. Absolutely no chance of this happening though.
There should have been better opposition party dialogue and cooperation prior to the election if these parties feel that Johnson’s brexit deal would be so detrimental.

Unfortunately the LD leader has made it pretty clear from the off that her no.1 priority is to stop Corbyn, regardless of what happens with Brexit.

 

[abelard]

The problem is Labour are not officially a Remain party.

Yes... and ironically, that is why they are the most plausible means of actually stopping Brexit in a GE, because precisely for that reason they can win over Leave voters and the Lib Dems cannot.

The Lib Dems mostly represent people for whom identifying as a 'Remainer' is more important than actually stopping Brexit itself - and it is run by people who have no real political ideas beyond sustaining this very boutique form of identity politics for as long as possible.

That said, I would prefer Labour candidates in hopeless constituencies to do what Walker has done in Canterbury.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The problem is Labour are not officially a Remain party.

Indeed.

 

[Khalekan]

It's game theory innit? No good Walker doing this if Labour decide to crap on it and not reciprocate. If Labour were pledging to do the same then there's a real accusation to be made against anyone not doing so. My understanding is that LDs, Greens and Plaid have said they'll do so, but I don't know if Labour have joined them or not. You might know more than me?

Or maybe you are more in tune than the LibDem activists in Canterbury whom are outraged by the LibDem leadership undermining their efforts to ensure the seat remains Remain.

Just because you support a political party doesn’t mean you have to slavishly follow its every edict.....as the LibDems in Canterbury are very commendably showing in that area of Kent.

 

[larrygobfiend]

He's an actual idiot.

I can't disagree. I'm a Labour voter, but I won't even attempt to defend crap lack this. We're doomed.

 

[zzr45]

Someone can reasonably support their activity while not necessarily accepting that their demands are reasonable.

Equally, you might look and say that if they achieve the demands then it's a argument in favour of more collective bargaining across the private sector.

In addressing the first part, the problem here, as I see it, is that the message above does not translate well across much of the population as (and I think there is a big theme here with this Corbyn LP) you need to explain to people that, what at first instance seem like two contradictory positions, actually are not (see Brexit as an example).

The problem is aside from the 'headline' £15 per hour position, which in itself is mad, I think there are so many problematic issues that are also being endorsed as per the Morningstar - https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/mcdonalds-workers-to-strike-in-demand-of-£15-an-hour.

I actually think the 'guaranteed hours' is problematic, especially within the hospitality industry (sake of convenience umbrella in pubs, food outlets, hotels etc.) the reality is that guaranteed hours don't exist within the industry because of the nature of demand - as a youth I once worked 60 hours in a week then 8 the next, it was just the way it went. If I wanted a guaranteed 16 hours a week, the company I was working for would have shelled out for me to sit and do nothing. That doesn't exactly help the productivity issue the country has, nor if this was to trickle down into smaller, independent companies (which it inevitably would to remain attractive to employees) then these kinds of places would be haemorrhaging cash for no return.

On a similar note, the having hours 4 weeks in advance sounds fine - but let's say the Maccies closest to Goodison does it's rota a month in advance. We then end up with a replay at short notice - the hours are already in place, so does that mean that they have to try and get by understaffed? Likewise, game gets changed from a Saturday to a Sunday short notice - does it have a far bigger staff than it needs on the Saturday? There's always been a weekly rota in hospitality because it allows flexibility in changes.

Finally, before this becomes too overdrawn, perhaps the most 'dangerous' idea as such is the removal of the youth rate of pay - in that even a 16 year old can get £15 per hour. The issue here is that youth rates are leverage to actually get companies to hire younger people. If that is withdrawn then a 16 year old is competing in a job market with a 40 year old with 25 years of experience - the likelihood of the 16 year old diminishes rapidly. Again, if this is carried over to the hospitality industry as a whole we end up starting to seeing lower youth employment and have to work towards the issues that causes.

The pay issue is daft, when you start scratching you see a wilful ignorance of the environment those workers are part of to promote an ideological standing, which if carried through could have massive implications. It does nothing to shake the feeling of fag packet economics.

 

[catcherintherye]

It's game theory innit? No good Walker doing this if Labour decide to crap on it and not reciprocate. If Labour were pledging to do the same then there's a real accusation to be made against anyone not doing so. My understanding is that LDs, Greens and Plaid have said they'll do so, but I don't know if Labour have joined them or not. You might know more than me?

This is part of the problem though Bruce. The Lib Dems had an opportunity to take a lot of moral high ground by standing aside in a seat they cannot win to allow Labour a chance to hold a seat.

The Liberal have made very clear, for some time that Remain is the critical part of their future political programme. This does not tally with overruling local parties and imposing paper candidates to stop Labour winning and allowing the Conservatives to win.

In fairness Labour have never been so stringent on Brexit in either direction, so it makes a lot less sense to stand down. They have made public services restoration a key and there's little evidence to suggest the Liberal Democrats are particularly different to the Tories in this area.

As a final aside, how many seats have the Tories stood down in re the Brexit party? None. And I tell you why, because they understand under FPTP that however unfair it is, it's about compromise and maximising the main parties opportunities to win in certain areas. They have understood the best chance for them to get their preferred outcome, however unfair it is to the BXP is to stand aside. I'd say Farage has realised he doesn't want to take the flak for it if it fails.

I can't help but think, if the Tories win, on the back of seats like Canterbury there will be a lot of angry retainers towards the Lib Dems selfish actions. I'll ask a final question, why can they stand aside for leave MP's such as Rory Stewart, or Anna Soubry who voted for Brexit deals, but not for the MP for Canterbury who has always voted against Brexit? Where is the consistency there?

I have always been on the fence about Brexit. The Lib Dems can have whatever position they want on it. But they ought to cut the nonsense that they are a remain party, when they have forgone the position of a People's vote, will move aside for Brexit supporting MP's but will stand against PV supporting, Remain voting MP's to allow a Tory Brexiteer to win. That's not putting Remain first, thats putting themselves first when there is nothing to be gained.