Jeremy Corbyn

There are plenty of countries who work longer hours than us AND have higher productivity.

Reducing working hours isn’t going to magically improve that.

kelvin

Subscriber
Stop attacking him on the issue would be a start.

Hell no. He has had to be dragged to the current position by people pointing out that his Jobs First Brexit was bullshit, and that sacking people who proposed a second referendum was unwelcome, and by millions of people, including Labour members, voting for other parties at this year’s elections to ram the message home that chasing his red unicorn Brexit boondoggle is bad for Labour, and bad for the UK and its workers. The pressure on him and his team needs to increase, not decrease, and I hope Labour members find a way of doing exactly that this week. I’ve been impressed with the front benchers piling the pressure on already at conference side events. Why should we insignificant normal voters stop?

I've made my points above, if you don't get it, you don't get it...

Try again… what are your points?
That as PM he and his staunch anti-European Straight Left team would just let everyone else get on with sorting out the Brexit mess without seeking to influence/restrict/promote their own policy aims?
That we should support any fudge Corbyn puts his name to, rather than support those in his party looking to make it clear that Brexit is not in the interests of those the Labour Party should be standing up for?
That dissent over Brexit within the Labour Party should be suppressed because a Johnson government is so damaging than we should put Brexit to one side ‘till after an election to get rid of him?
Tell us your thinking… beyond “stop attacking Corbyn on this issue.”

Reducing working hours isn’t going to magically improve that.

I couldn't realy GAS about improving productivity, I care about improving my own quality of life, and working less is a big part of that. If productivity improves - as some research has indicated - as a result then great, but that's not the main driver.

kelvin

Subscriber
Try again… what are your points?
That as PM he and his staunch anti-European Straight Left team would just let everyone else get on with sorting out the Brexit mess without seeking to influence/restrict/promote their own policy aims?
That we should support any fudge Corbyn puts his name to, rather than support those in his party looking to make it clear that Brexit is not in the interests of those the Labour Party should be standing up for?
That dissent over Brexit within the Labour Party should be suppressed because a Johnson government is so damaging than we should put Brexit to one side ‘till after an election to get rid of him?
Tell us your thinking… beyond “stop attacking Corbyn on this issue.”

It's fairly simplistic, I'm sure you can read, it's all above.

I couldn’t realy GAS about improving productivity, I care about improving my own quality of life, and working less is a big part of that.

Bloody hippy layabout!

It’s fairly simplistic, I’m sure you can read, it’s all above.

No, go on, try explaining your thoughts. We’re listening… well, I am. And as you say “I don’t get it.” So what am I missing? Why should those that want a Labour government, and also to stop Brexit, say so, even if the Labour leader only supports one of those aims.

How mad is Politics at the moment:

Abolishing Ofsted:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49785130

Booing the National Chair of Jewish Labour Mike Katz:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sign-taken-down-labour-anti-20146095

...and then Andrew Fisher *really* going for Corbyns innner circle:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/21/remain-mps-accuse-jeremy-corbyn-shutting-down-brexit-debate

Fisher wrote a memo to colleagues, the Sunday Times reports, saying members of Corbyn’s team had a “lack of professionalism, competence and human decency”. He also accused them of making a “blizzard of lies and excuses” and apparently claimed that the highest ranks of the party were engaged in “class war”.

kelvin

No, go on, try explaining your thoughts. We’re listening… well, I am. And as you say “I don’t get it.” So what am I missing? Why should those that want a Labour government, and also to stop Brexit, say so, even if the Labour leader only supports one of those aims.

I’ve made my points above, if you don’t get it, you don’t get it…

Just spell it out for us. Come on.

I have, fairly clearly. Really don't feel any need to repeat myself (anymore ) here! 😆

And on Tom Watson, the misguided attempt to remove him can be explained by the simple fact that he’s a king size **** who for two years has been acting as shadow leader in waiting rather than deputy leader. He simply hasn’t done his job, and the labour party has suffered massively because of it.

so he's performed similarly to Corbyn then - so they both should go maybe ??

There are plenty of countries who work longer hours than us AND have higher productivity.

Reducing working hours isn’t going to magically improve that.

Actually one of the big problems of the UK workplace is unclaimed and unreported hours. I barely know anyone who only works their 40 hour week, most do 50+ but still only get paid for 40 and reported as 40. There are very few countries that will allow such abuses.

Reducing working hours clearly isn't going to magically improve productivity, but it would be a change in the right direction of making employees more than just human batteries, and with other changes that force businesses to value people and that will raise productivity.

I couldn’t realy GAS about improving productivity, I care about improving my own quality of life, and working less is a big part of that

sounds like you have the type of attitude that has lead to this country having terrible productivity figures...

Reducing working hours clearly isn’t going to magically improve productivity, but it would be a change in the right direction of making employees more than just human batteries, and with other changes that force businesses to value people and that will raise productivity.

sounds like you have the type of attitude that has lead to this country having terrible productivity figures…

No one ever died wishing they'd worked more.

I’m not sure a 20% cut in income would improve your quality of life.

Think you've missed the main point of the policy, which is a cut in working hours with no cut in pay.

What it would actually do is increase the overhead of employing staff and drive investment in automation. Great if you work in an industry that provides automation…

Yet most of Europe have higher productivity, more restrictive working hour regulations and greater employee protection regulations. It is almost as if treating people better rather than just exploiting them is better for productivity.

Automation is a problem society will have to deal with as it gathers pace, but squeezing peoples lifes even more won't hold it back.

Think you’ve missed the main point of the policy, which is a cut in working hours with no cut in pay.

No one ever died wishing they’d worked more.

I suspect pretty much everyone who ever died of starvation/malnutrition wished/es they'd worked more.

I can confirm that working 35h week is brilliant. 32 would be even better.

I see. You must be assuming you’ll be in the lucky 80% that isn’t instantly made redundant?

Same as all the people who lost their jobs when the minimum wage came in?

I suspect pretty much everyone who ever died of starvation/malnutrition wished/es they’d worked more.

Ridiculous. The only people going hungry in the UK are those persecuted by the tories cruel benefits policies which deprives them of the basic needs of life.

It really doesn’t matter what he believes, as long as a ref happens, what you suspect his beliefs are, are irrelevant.

But this is completely unattractive to both passionate leavers and passionate remainers.

It's fine for the middle ground who could be persuaded either way but I just can't see that people who really strongly feel we should leave/remain would vote for a party that won't tell them what they're gonna get.

And they can't just 'remain neutral' in a referendum. If they negotiate a deal which will genuinely benefit workers and UK citizens, then the only morally conscionable thing to do is to campaign for it, thus making them a Leave party. If their deal won't benefit the workers then they're duty bound to campaign against it, making them a Remain party.

To have a referendum in which you think one proposition is more beneficial to the UK public than the other, and then not campaign for it, is a moral abdication.

It's not an easy sell on the doorstep IMO

And on Tom Watson, the misguided attempt to remove him can be explained by the simple fact that he’s a king size **** who for two years has been acting as shadow leader in waiting rather than deputy leader.

According to the Jackie Smith/Iain Dale the Tom Watson thing is about succession. The current Labour rules put the Deputy in charge of the party and in charge of the election of the new leader until the new leader takes their place. Momentum don't want a moderate in that role.

There's also been some misreporting. The NEC is totally controlled by Momentum and voted with a majority to put the motion to the conference. The chairman ruled it out of order which meant there needed to be a 2/3 majority to put it to the Conference. They didn't have that which delayed it long enough for Corbyn to bottle it and give up the following day. The media have said there wasn't a majority in the NEC - there was.

This significance of that is that Corbyn's off just after the next election and that they already know they're going to lose. (Or just before if it can be sensibly delayed for a number of months, but I can't see how they can reasonably prop up a Johnson government for months on end.)

doris5000

But this is completely unattractive to both passionate leavers and passionate remainers.

Not really true, passionate remainers should be jumping at the chance of a ref, the only goal they have is a ref. There is no way out of this without another vote.

As for passionate leavers, ie no dealers, aye it gazzumps them, don't really see the issue there, they won't ever be in a majority. The other 2 groups do have a chance at a majority.

What other position should labour take? There is no other logical position that can be seen as democratic.

We've spent 3 years on deal or no deal, it isn't workable. Only other choice now is deal or no brexit.

It’s fine for the middle ground who could be persuaded either way

Agree, but it doesn't *win* their votes it just doesn't actively lose them. The undecideds will happily vote for any other party including the remain and leave parties.

This whole policy is about retaining the votes of Labour voters who don't care either way about Brexit. I don't think there are enough of them to win an election.

Not really true, passionate remainers should be jumping at the chance of a ref, the only goal they have is a ref. There is no way out of this without another vote.

Passionate Remainers will vote libDem. Another referendum solves nothing for remainers - either they win in which case it's best of three or best of five or they lose in which case it's Brexit.

I don't think Remainers want another election where 80pc of people vote for Brexit. This is the Remainers first chance to vote for Remain since the refferendum.

I'll be voting LibDem for the first time purely to register a remain vote.

outofbreath

Passionate Remainers will vote libDem

I'm fine with that, it takes the question out of the hands of the tories.

Happy days.

A ref after both options have been spelled out and put back to the people isn't something that can go back to the people more times. One of the options will be enacted on.

If remainers, of which i am obviously one, lose, we lose. I'm fine with that. It will be an informed choice.

I sympathise with the lib dem position of no brexit, but really, it's not a solution that will be viewed as democratic by a large proportion of people. Least a ref can't be argued with.

There's also the small matter of pretty much every front bench Labour MP having come out in favour of campaigning for remain apart from the party leader who will presumably be campaigning for a red unicorns brexit

That won't look ridiculous at all, will it?

binners

Subscriber
There’s also the small matter of pretty much every front bench Labour MP having come out in favour of campaigning for remain apart from the party leader who will presumably be campaigning for a red unicorns brexit

That won’t look ridiculous at all, will it?

Why does it matter how it looks? End result is all that matters.

What other position should labour take? There is no other logical position that can be seen as democratic.

I'm not sure I agree.

"This is our position - if you like it, please vote us into government"

That's clearly democratic. OK, the mouthbreathers on twitter might argue otherwise, but they'd be wrong.

It will be an informed choice.

But that is the crux of the matter, if the labour leadership want to make use of the misinformation, lies and racism in order to enact their version of brexit, is that really an informed choice?

That onslaught of far right propaganda that is driving brexit, has to be fought against, by just saying "we can get a better deal that will benefit britain" he has just accepted the lies, the racism and the damage so he can use it for his path to power and a socialist utopia that will never be achieved.

“This is our position – if you like it, please vote us into government”

There is no choice except no deal brexit before a GE.

MSP

Member
It will be an informed choice.

But that is the crux of the matter, if the labour leadership want to make use of the misinformation, lies and racism in order to enact their version of brexit, is that really an informed choice?

That onslaught of far right propaganda that is driving brexit, has to be fought against, by just saying “we can get a better deal that will benefit britain” he has just accepted the lies, the racism and the damage so he can use it for his path to power and a socialist utopia that will never be achieved.

People have had 3 years to decide where they lie on this question.

People are as informed as they'll ever get on this issue.

People are as informed as they’ll ever get on this issue.

With one party lead by the ERG and the other party largely abdicating their responsibility to oppose, people are very much not as informed as they should be, especially an issue where emotion has ruled reality, the labour leadership have willingly failed to make the emotional case as to why this is a right wing destructive attack on normal working people disguised as patriotism.

Why does it matter how it looks? End result is all that matters.

Because people aren't going to vote for a party that looks like its policies are being written as a sketch on the Mash Report.

We will be going into this referendum advising that you both vote to support this deal we've negotiated and simultaneously also vote against it.

Ironically, it would appear that that is presently what they're doing at the conference

The bunch of clowns!

MSP

Member
People are as informed as they’ll ever get on this issue.

With one party lead by the ERG and the other party largely abdicating their responsibility to oppose, people are very much not as informed as they should be, especially an issue where emotion has ruled reality, the labour leadership have willingly failed to make the emotional case as to why this is a right wing destructive attack on normal working people disguised as patriotism.

If it goes to a referedum, they ERG will have been defeated.

binners

Subscriber
Why does it matter how it looks? End result is all that matters.

Because people aren’t going to vote for a party that looks like its policies are being written as a sketch on the Mash Report.

We will be going into this referendum advising that you both vote to support this and simultaneously also vote against it.

Ironically, it would appear that that is presently what they’re doing at the conference

The bunch of clowns!

Do explain the way forward if not a referendum?

There is no choice except no deal brexit before a GE.

sorry, I don't follow. If there is no choice, then what are Labour currently deciding at conference?

I thought this was all about Labour's positioning going into the next GE, whenever that may be (possibly end of this year?)

Yet most of Europe have higher productivity, more restrictive working hour regulations and greater employee protection regulations.

notice how few Europeans are on this forum, wasting working time...

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a referendum

I'm saying that going into a referendum about some mythical 'deal' your leader has negotiated, while all the other members of the shadow cabinet campaign against it is an absolutely farcical approach to take

Labours position is fairly clear as it is, the conference is just electioneering, same for all the parties at the minutes.

I'm not Corbyn fan, but I agree with his stance.

The current position all makes sense for the first time in years.

Tories - Leave, with a deal, or without if they cannot find one. It's chaotic as a lot of their MPs will want a 'good' deal or remain, a lot will want 'no deal' or a 'bad' deal (from my point of view), they're more fractured than any other Party on Brexit, but of course the press say Labour are vague.

Lib Dems - remain, no vote, no ref, we'll revoke day 1. That's a perfectly valid stance for them. They are the 3rd Party in the UK and currently have 19 MPs if you include Stephen Lloyd, 18 if you don't and 12 if you don't count the ones who joined post election, whichever way you look at it they have around 5% of the seats in Westminster. If they can get a majority at the next election you can't really say any pre-election promise is 'undemocratic' to enforce.

Labour, they're one of the main two, they can't just revoke, even if they wanted to. Millions of Labour voters want to leave the EU. Corbyn is a leaver, he's not alone. I mean, set aside for a moment the Farages and JRMs of the world and why they want to Brexit, there are non-personal profit reasons for wanting to leave, I don't personally believe they're valid, but it's only an opinion, even if I did I don't think they're worth the cost, but some might. I believe that if Labour offer a real-world, agreed by both side deal v remain that remaining will be the better option, but unless the LD can cause a massive upset and win a majority, then a 2nd ref is the only fair and decent way to remain. Just revoking would cause more trouble and people who voted to leave would feel cheated and angry and we'd just stoke the fires more.

binners

Subscriber
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a referendum

I’m saying that going into a referendum about some mythical ‘deal’ your leader has negotiated, while all the other members of the shadow cabinet campaign against it is an absolutely farcical approach to take

Why? It's an issue that splits party loyalty. If labour allows it's members to freely campaign, there is no contradiction.

Although why at this stage people need someone else to tell them how they feel on this issue is beyond me.

I’m saying that going into a referendum about some mythical ‘deal’ your leader has negotiated

Okay binners so would do you suggest should be done.
What should be the other option(s) on the ballot paper.
Remember that maybots deal wasnt really acceptable to anyone let alone Labour so isnt a very good alternative.
Do you want no deal or what?