Labour resignations

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think there are plenty of companies that could

> easily pull out of the UK without diminishing

> their market share...

Sure, but actually the issue with many of these companies has been side stepping tax on profits made on sales in the UK. Anyway, we're kind of getting off the point. This idea that a mixed economy, for a role of the state in the provision of key public services and a fairer distribution of the countries wealth amounts to some sort of radical lefist extremism - well, I find it very dispiriting to be honest. They're views which would have been shared by many of the more moderate Conservative MPs in the eighties. We've swung so far to the right in recent decades and are aligning with the neo-con ideologues in the US, rather than with our more progressive, northern European neighbours. Brexit will no doubt accelerate this process.

[Jeremy]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Starbucks isn't going to close its stores though, Amazon it's warehouses etc.

Well yes... if you're talking about retail, catering, etc.

[Earl Aelfheah]

this idea that if workers have rights, that the economy suffers and business can't survive is ridiculously short sighted. You need a large middle class in order to have a successful economy, because they are not only your workers, but also your customers. Currently the state subsidises the wages employers don't pay. This comes from taxes levied on business and higher earners, so that the wages still get paid, only in the least rational, most inefficient manner.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I just find it so depressing that the majority of people have completely bought into the idea of zero regulation aka standards, very few protections for workers, low taxes and poor public services.

[Jeremy]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> for a role of the state in the provision of key public services

For me, it comes down to whether it benefits the public. In the case of rail, we're not feeling any benefits of competition, and I'm not ideologically averse to nationalisation (of course, provided they do a better job and provide better value)

But then with things like energy.. deregulation and privatisation have worked OK. I do not understand why the government would want to take a controlling interest in energy suppliers, etc. What's in it for us?? It's a level of meddling that I fundamentally disagree with.

And then he starts saying frankly bat-shit-crazy stuff like after work social events should be forbidden... and I start to imagine some sort of dystopian nightmare...

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > for a role of the state in the provision of key

> public services

>

> For me, it comes down to whether it benefits the

> public. In the case of rail, we're not feeling any

> benefits of competition, and I'm not ideologically

> averse to nationalisation (of course, provided

> they do a better job and provide better value)

>

> But then with things like energy.. deregulation

> and privatisation have worked OK. I do not

> understand why the government would want to take a

> controlling interest in energy suppliers, etc.

> What's in it for us?? It's a level of meddling

> that I fundamentally disagree with.

>

> And then he starts saying frankly bat-shit-crazy

> stuff like after work social events should be

> forbidden... and I start to imagine some sort of

> dystopian nightmare...

I completely agree with that. We should take a pragmatic approach to the role of the state and I do think it should be limited. I'm in favour of the state doing a few key things and doing them well.

I don't think Corbyn ever actually called for after work drinks to be banned http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/09/02/no-jeremy-corbyn-doeesn-t-want-to-ban-after-work-drinks he actually repeated a point that's also been made by Carolyn Fairbairn, the head of the CBI (those dangerous Trots) as well as others - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/23/business-dinners-exclude-women-cbi-chief-carolyn-fairbairn_n_8627582.html

[rendelharris]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And then he starts saying frankly bat-shit-crazy

> stuff like after work social events should be

> forbidden... and I start to imagine some sort of

> dystopian nightmare...

You see this is the trouble (and I speak as, shall we say, a former JC fan) - Corbyn didn't say ban afterwork drinks at all: he highlighted the fact that a lot of companies have a culture where networking at bar after work is a good way to advance oneself, which was unfair on women who often had to return home for childcare. Anyone who's worked in any sort of company will have surely seen this. He never said ban afterwork drinks, he just intimated that they should not be a place where people can advance their careers. Perfect common sense. But if you Google it, virtually every news outlet reports that he called for afterwork drinks to be banned, which he didn't. The desire of the press in this country to ridicule anyone on the left, with outright lies if necessary, is breathtaking.

[Earl Aelfheah]

^this

[Jeremy]

If a family choose to follow traditional gender roles, that's their business. Not appropriate for JC (and lobbyists) to get involved.

[rendelharris]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If a family choose to follow traditional gender

> roles, that's their business. Not appropriate for

> JC (and lobbyists) to get involved.

Really. What about single mothers trying to hold down a job and provide childcare then?

[Blah Blah]

Energy deregulation has not worked well though Jeremy. The big six have essentially price fixed and we are now buying gas we original sold to France at a higher price than we sold it for. And in spite of their profits, we still have to heavily subsidise the building of new power stations.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If a family choose to follow traditional gender

> roles, that's their business. Not appropriate for

> JC (and lobbyists) to get involved.

That's not necessarily an unreasonable view. The point is that he didn't say what he was reported as saying ... and it wasn't any different to the position of a number of 'business leaders'. So regardless of whether or not you agree, it's hardly novel or radical, or indeed Stalinist as suggested by some of the more rabid leader writers.

[*Bob*]

The after work drinks thing is classic Corby though.

'Wouldn't it be good if..?' Yeah, it probably would.

Any practical, workable suggestions and solutions as to how this might be achieved? 'Not really'.

[Earl Aelfheah]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The after work drinks thing is classic Corby

> though.

>

>

> 'Wouldn't it be good if..?' Yeah, it probably

> would.

>

> Any practical, workable suggestions and solutions

> as to how this might be achieved? 'Not really'.

He made lot's of practical suggestions about how to tackle inequalities in the workplace. That was what his speech was about. None of it was reported though, just the made up bit where he said Labour would ban beer and make everyone wear hair shirts to work.

[Jeremy]

Certainly looks as though it was subjected to a hefty dose of media spin! So yeah maybe I got the wrong end of the stick on that one.

Still don't agree with him though - it's not a sexual discrimination issue as such.

[*Bob*]

If you say something silly, it gets the press coverage.

Solution - stop saying silly things.

[rendelharris]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you say something silly, it gets the press

> coverage.

>

>

> Solution - stop saying silly things.

He didn't say anything silly though, he made a perfectly valid point(whether one agrees with him or not) that the laddish afterwork drinking culture in many firms militates against women with childcare responsibilities progressing as well as their male colleagues - it only became silly when the press completely lied about what he said! There's video of what he said online, he never said afterwork drinks should be banned!

[*Bob*]

In the workplace, people gravitate towards likeminded individuals who they can spend time with - both at work and socially on some level - people who they feel comfortable with. It's very basic human nature, there is no enforceable means of preventing it - and that's why it's silly. It's the same reason why John McDonnell was appointed shadow chancellor - instead of some more talented woman.

[Earl Aelfheah]

No one suggested 'enforceable means of preventing' after work drinks. That's the point. He was just describing some of the well established social and structural realities which make it difficult to address issues like the gender pay gap. It was an insignificant part of a wide ranging discussion on the issues women face in achieving parity with men. It's pretty easy to take something out of context, change what was said and then paint it as ridiculous.

[Blah Blah]

I think some of the response here rahrah illustrates perfectly why the media get away with the lies they do. It doesn't matter how many times you point out the truth, people only want to see what they want to see.

[Otta]

I actually would love to see the media treat him kindly, and the Labour MPs get behind him and do what he asks.

Then there would be no excuses to hide behind.

[????]

He doesn't care about the coverage it just means he and his lot can all bang on about corporate/MSM etc etc - and how social media is the way forward and we get to some sort of laughable equivalence between the BBC and The Canary, Post fact world nowadays - thanks social media.

[*Bob*]

And then of course there were the Trident submarines without any missiles on them.

However, I expect this was just a small sliver of a well thought-through and multi-faceted defence policy which had been leapt upon and quoted out of context by THE EVIL MEEJA because, er, well.. because it's completely bonkers.

[rendelharris]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And then of course there were the Trident

> submarines without any missiles on them.

>

> However, I expect this was just a small sliver of

> a well thought-through and multi-faceted defence

> policy which had been leapt upon and quoted out of

> context by THE EVIL MEEJA because, er, well..

> because it's completely bonkers.

Yet another example of falling for a lie, I'm afraid *Bob* - you're proving the point! Corbyn didn't suggest sending the subs out without missiles, he suggested they could be used for conventional defence by patrolling with missiles but with conventional, not nuclear, warheads. Which makes perfect sense, and is a lot less bonkers than paying a fortune to be able to reduce Moscow to ruins once it'd obliterated the whole of the UK. But then the press got hold of it and it turns out Corbyn wants the army to have guns but no bullets etc etc.

[*Bob*]

yes, yes.. Regular missiles not nuclear ones. I remember. Just swap one for the other and hey presto. Like having a new exhaust.

Woolly, harebrained, uncosted nonsense.