MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Yep 6 months is fair
It is "fair" to sack someone unfairly during the first 6 months of their employment? So how does that work and why isn't it fair to sack them after 12 months?
people aren't always right for a role, some plain lie about their abilities in interviews
What you are saying is that you don't trust employment tribunals to make the right decision during the first 6 months of someone's employment but you do trust them after that. Can you explain why ? The logic isn't obvious.
The other question which needs to be answered imo is why Starmer included it in Labour's manifesto but has now changed his mind.
The standard excuse that Starmer and his cohorts give for not honouring their election manifesto commitments is that no had told them just how bad the Tories had left the country. Presumably that isn't the excuse for this "U-turn" ?
They had an open goal, or at least a free run at the goal and they’re missed it completely.
I feel it's more a case of the striker with the ball spinning around and dribbling through his own team players whilst raising a digit at his own supporters as he scores an own goal. I'm just thankful I voted Green not Labour. If I'd voted for this I'd be angry.
Pledges u-turned on
Palestine action in jail and Israel supported
No closer to Europe and refusing to entertain the idea of rejoining
Enoch Powel attitude to Immigrants
Just when EVs are gaining in popularity they're going add a dissuasive tax
A refusual to tax where there's money to tax and a willingness to increase taxes on the poorest by leaving thresholds unchanged.
Pandering to money with deregulation and guarantees to private equity.
Detestable bunch intent on self harm for themselves, the party and the countries, I'm surprised they're at 15% in that poll up there, who's still saying they'll vote for them? Anyone on here? Kerley?
Presumably that isn't the excuse for this "U-turn" ?
The “excuse” this time is that the Lords will keep sending the bill back without the change to 6 months. I think the Lords has improved the legislation, personally. I don’t see any reason the government should/would push back any longer on this, given that the bill still improves the law and the rights of workers so significantly. It’s a compromise… now get on and implement it ASAP.
The “excuse” this time is that the Lords will keep sending the bill back without the change to 6 months.
The House of Lords? The excuse this time is the House of Lords ???
The useless self-serving careerist won a majority of 172 eighteen months ago, one of the largest UK parliamentary majorities of modern times, he could simply abolish the House of Lords......if he wasn't so utterly spineless!
This was Sir Keir Starmer's pledge number 8 out of 10 he made when he stood to be Leader of the Labour Party :
8. Radical devolution of power, wealth and opportunity
Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.
So why no abolition of the House of Lords? Not a big enough majority? The Tories left the country too skint after 14 years? It might put voters off and Labour will lose the next general election? What is the excuse this time?
The answer we all know, Sir Keir Starmer is basically a Tory and is hellbent on maintaining the status quo.
Which is also the reason why this present "Labour" government will be the first Labour government.in history to leave office without achieving one single great reform in the interests of ordinary working people.
Yep 6 months is fair
Lol not for the worker involved.
people aren't always right for a role, some plain lie about their abilities in interviews
Then it's unlikely it would be unfair dismissal in due process.
Is this stuff reallty so hard?
This is now classic Starmerism isn't it? Offer something good up then not have the balls to see it through 'cos he's scared of the powerful.
Labour aren't really interested in improving **** all. They just want to tinker at the seams and switcheroo on eveyrthing if they have a tiny bit of push-back on.
Just when EVs are gaining in popularity they're going add a dissuasive tax
Totally stupid. Imagine trying to pretend there's a middle ground here. Imagine grouping all EVs as having the same efficiency and weight too.
Brainless.
Just when EVs are gaining in popularity they're going add a dissuasive tax
Of course this is the rub of running the country to try and close a deficit - you use tax in a totally unprogressive way to protect a phoney balance sheet - everything else suffers. (economy, climate, progress, jobs, environment, lifestyle etc.)
Detestable bunch intent on self harm for themselves, the party and the countries, I'm surprised they're at 15% in that poll up there, who's still saying they'll vote for them? Anyone on here? Kerley?
Ha, you have the wrong man by a ****ing mile. I gave up with Labour when Corbyn went and voted Green ever since. I didn't rate Starmer before the election although admittedly I thought he would be way better than the tory party but appears not. Pre election Starmer/Labour supporters must be very pissed off (which is why they are so quiet now).
It is "fair" to sack someone unfairly during the first 6 months of their employment?
I'm with stumpyjon and Kelvin on this one. Two years was stupid and resulted in people not moving jobs for fear they might be let go two years in. 6 months removes that uncertainty but still gives employers an opportunity to get rid of people who are not right for a role. Recruiting people is hard and expensive, we need the right balance between making it easy for employers and protecting employees and I reckon 6 months sounds about right. Day one protection sounds lovely but it would result in huge inertia in the recruitment market and fewer jobs.
Tend to agree, very difficult to really know what someone is like just with an interview. Maybe a trial period, for both parties, of say 1 month may be better.
Day one protection sounds lovely....
Lovely ? I would just describe it as sounding fair.
Getting rid of someone who is unsuitable or is incapable of carrying out a job is not "unfair dismissal".
But if that is the problem which you envisage then deal with the problem don't sweep it under the carpet by saying "oh we just won't bother with unfair dismissals".
I will ask again the same questions which I asked earlier but received no answer, why was it included in Labour's election manifesto and what has happened since that manifesto was published that has changed? Apart from Labour winning a 172 parliamentary majority.
Whatever arguments apply now also applied in July 2024
Lovely ? I would just describe it as sounding fair.
And it would result in a situation where employers are extremely averse to taking new people on for fear that they'll be stuck with them forever. It would especially impact early careers and result in lots of young people not being able to find jobs. Fair or not we need a fluid jobs market and day one protection would grind it to a halt.
Getting rid of someone who is unsuitable or is incapable of carrying out a job is not "unfair dismissal"
'Fair' dismissal is really quite difficult. I've been through it from the emloyer's side. All it results in is massive stress for all involved and lots of wasted time. Sounds harsh but I've often thought it should be easier to fire people who are not right for a role. I can't really see any benefits on either side from someone remaining in a job they can't do.
A better option would be a severance compensation policy. If a company wants to get rid of someone let them do it but make them pay compensation, something like 3 months salary?
A better option would be a severance compensation policy. If a company wants to get rid of someone let them do it but make them pay compensation, something like 3 months salary?
Good idea and yes it is a painful process to sack someone who is not fit for the role and again it is very difficult to know exactly who you are hiring from an interview. Some people are very good at interviews.
Unfair dismissal is only really for small companies as where I work there is no way HR would let that happen due to potential cost and bad press. I am all for extended employees rights but it can't be 100% one way.
'Fair' dismissal is really quite difficult.
Well deal with that problem directly then.
It shouldn't be a problem to dismiss someone fairly, and if it is then the solution isn't to offer no protection at all for the first 6 months.
At least that isn't the solution in my world, nor was it the solution in Labour's election manifesto 18 months ago.
Which gets us back to that question again.....why was protection against unfair dismissal from day one included in Labour's election manifesto if it is apparently such a bad idea now?
If even Keir Starmer fully supported the policy last July it suggests that it isn't exactly the most radical and revolutionary policy!
Which gets us back to that question again.....why was protection against unfair dismissal from day one included in Labour's election manifesto if it is apparently such a bad idea now?
Because it was an idealistic wish that doesn't work in real life.
Well deal with that problem directly then.
Totally agree, and I've suggested an alternative above.
why was protection against unfair dismissal from day one included in Labour's election manifesto if it is apparently such a bad idea now?
It's hardly the first or last manifesto pledge (from any party) which doesn't stand up to a tiny bit of scrutiny. It's generally a good idea to stand by manifesto pledges but if they turn out to be a bit daft it doesn't mean they can't be changed or ignored.
Well deal with that problem directly then.
Totally agree, and I've suggested an alternative above.
No you haven't suggested dealing with the alleged problem directly. On the contrary you have suggested ignoring the alleged problem completely and not bothering at all with unfair dismissals in the first 6 months.
Because it was an idealistic wish that doesn't work in real life.
If Labour's 2024 election manifesto was not much more than Starmer's idealistic wish list without any commitment it begs the question why he fought so hard to keep radical policies, such as the re-nationalisation of the utilities and the abolition of the House of Lords, off it?
Rather than having no intention of implementing the policy Starmer no doubt felt that it was compatible with his Tory-Lite agenda, otherwise he would of treated it in the same way that he treated re-nationalisation of the utilities and the abolition of the House of Lords, two former pledges of his.
On the contrary you have suggested ignoring the alleged problem completely and not bothering at all with unfair dismissals in the first 6 months.
Hardly. To be clear I'd allow no questions asked dismissals up to 6 months with 3 months salary as compensation. After 6 months employees would be protected from unfair dismissal and employers would have to go through the existing process to fairly dismiss an employee.
Sounds harsh but I've often thought it should be easier to fire people who are not right for a role.
I think the problem is the murkiness of the definition (in this discussion at least) of "not right for a role". It could be incapacity to fulfill duties, or it could be taking offence at banter, or being boring, not wishing to listen to the noise of the radio all day every day, not wishing to engage socially with people at work (perhaps I'm just projecting my own fears though), skin colour, sexual orientation, accent. Even the incapacity to fulfill duties may be due to unwillingness of employer to fulfill their own duties to accommodate employee disability.
I think the problem is the murkiness of the definition (in this discussion at least) of "not right for a role".
Spends his days ****ing about, arguing with other grumpy middle-aged men on a mountain biking forum, when he should be working?
Exactly. And to get rid of that waster, as not an instant dismissal type offence, would take loads of effort, months of improvement plans that the waster would fail etc,. before you can replace them with someone much better.
However, protection is required because a lot of employers, especially small businesses can't be trusted.
Spends his days ****ing about, arguing with other grumpy middle-aged men on a mountain biking forum, when he should be working?
It's my equivalent of a fag break. Posting shite on here really doesn't require any appreciable effort that distracts from my day job. 😀
For a bit of context, it seems that the qualifying period for being able to claim unfair dismissal prior to 2012 was 1 year. The coalition put it up to 2 years. So while 6 months isn't as good as immediately it is better than what's come before, even prior to 2012.
I'm guessing that business bodies lobbied heavily against providing unfair dismissal protection from day 0. I am far from knowledgeable on these matters but I presume there'd be a bit of nervousness from employees that if anyone who failed their probationary period could claim unfair dismissal then the resulting tribunals could take up a lot of time and money, irrespective of the actual matters of the cases.
Whether this is a valid reason to go with the qualifying period of 6 months I don't know. On the face of it it it's a loss for workers (even if it's an improvement from what we have now, or had before 2012) but I suppose if the day 0 protection resulted in companies becoming disproportionately cautious when it comes to hiring new staff then that would be bad for workers too. And if the extra parliamentary time necessary to push through the day 0 protection (if it kept on getting bounced back by the Lords as Kelvin suggested) detracted from other positive things the government could be doing (provided they do positive things with the time saved, something I'm sure everyone here will debate) then that might also have caused the government to go with this compromise position.
On the contrary you have suggested ignoring the alleged problem completely and not bothering at all with unfair dismissals in the first 6 months.
I'd allow no questions asked dismissals up to 6 months with 3 months salary as compensation.
So I could get a job this week, deliberately do nothing and get fired next week, and collect 3 months' pay? Sounds like a system ripe for abuse.
So I could get a job this week, deliberately do nothing and get fired next week, and collect 3 months' pay? Sounds like a system ripe for abuse.
No, because dismissing you after day 1 (or maybe 2) would not be "unfair".
Sounds like a system ripe for abuse.
And many employers have been enjoying 'ripe for abuse' terms for years
I love the idea of people queuing to frame this in terms of abuse on the employer.
I bet you 100x over that in such situations without something in place like this the employer screws the employee, many more times.
That's why these things exist. That's why daft old Labour put it up there - or was to just get votes?
I say this as small employer - and I understand how difficult it is to get rid of wonky staff. (My partner's a teacher and we see this often. But it's in the minority)
There is a pool of labour - and if an employer sets on someone useless then for all intents and purpose they probably didn't do their interview very well, and didn't choose appropriately. Make better choices?
Either way, the protection is not their to help the employer - it's to protect the average willing employee who's more likely than not going to get shafted at some point.
You can't legislate for the odd idiot. You do it to protect the willing majority.
That said it's the impotent Labour manifesto breaking glass back that is the main issue.
It's a constant stream of useless junk.
There is a pool of labour - and if an employer sets on someone useless then for all intents and purpose they probably didn't do their interview very well, and didn't choose appropriately. Make better choices?
This is what I mean about day one being an issue for the job seeker... companies becoming more risk adverse and as a result creating overly restrictive and time consuming recruitment processes that make it harder for the job applicant.
So I could get a job this week, deliberately do nothing and get fired next week, and collect 3 months' pay? Sounds like a system ripe for abuse.
No, because dismissing you after day 1 (or maybe 2) would not be "unfair".
@dazh is proposing no questions asked dismissals up to 6 months. Fair or unfair wouldn't come into it.
@dazh is proposing no questions asked dismissals up to 6 months. Fair or unfair wouldn't come into it.
He is proposing ALLOWING no questions asked dismissals up to 6 months, not replacing all other dismissals with a compensated no questions scheme. At least that's how I read it. Otherwise you can just punch your boss on the nose on Day 1 and waltz off with 3 months pay. You usually need too be a football manager to get that level of ridiculous redundancy.
But...if you can ask the question about whether the dismissal was fair or not, then that's not "no questions asked".
dazh may have to come back and explain. I may have just misunderstood.
I will ask again the same questions which I asked earlier but received no answer, why was it included in Labour's election manifesto and what has happened since that manifesto was published that has changed? Apart from Labour winning a 172 parliamentary majority.
I know exactly what happened
The NI hikes hurt business hiring more than expected/hoped for, this has hit employment numbers and growth & this would be another hit
even the resolution foundation!!! was saying that the the day1 dismissal plans were a bad idea & you can bet the government read this report because it explains the 6 month figure too, well worth reading
dazh may have to come back and explain.
It's something I dreamed up in the 30 seconds it took to respond to Ernie so haven't exactly worked out all the detail. You'll need to ask a civil servant for that. Honestly though I can't imagine it would be very difficult to protect employers against chancers trying to abuse the system. Gross misconduct etc would still exist, and obviously in that case the employee wouldn't receive compensation. If however an employer wants to terminate the contract for no other reason than they hired the wrong person for the job then compensation would be due.
details from the report above , that may help to inform the debate , there seems to be some misunderstanding about the current situation and what it means for employers/employees
Reform here is definitely needed. Currently, protection from unfair dismissal kicks in only when someone has been in the job for two years. That doesn’t mean employers can do what they like within those two years: if they make a dismissal which is discriminatory, or dismiss someone because they’re a whistleblower, for example, then they could be taken to an employment tribunal. But in general, in the first two years, employers don’t need to demonstrate that dismissals are ‘fair’ (which would require that they are happening for a fair reason (including redundancy and performance) and happening through a fair process). As it stands, the law places no fairness constraint on dismissing workers who may be well-established in their jobs, albeit for less than two years
would love to see some actual data on this assertion too,
I love the idea of people queuing to frame this in terms of abuse on the employer.
I bet you 100x over that in such situations without something in place like this the employer screws the employee, many more times.
Ive always worked for reasonable employers so haven't experienced any real discrimination, but i have seen several instances of employees absolutely taking the piss
Can Rachel Reeves credibility sink any lower!...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/nov/28/obr-reeves-income-tax-rise-forecasts-budget
Hmm... I mean that this story is running is her/their own fault, for giving the grim warm up speech on the 3rd, and for kite flying possible tax changes with journalists ahead of the budget... but the details of that story don't match the assertion at all. That all the "better news" was all delivered 10 days before the final decision was made doesn't mean that the decision wasn't influenced by the OBR's improved submissions.
It doesn't matter what went on behind closed doors and the decisions made there - the impression she gives to the public is we're in deep shit. We're being gaslighted - we don't matter.
The way the dismissal process works is gross misconduct, straight out the door, sacked due to a protected characteristic, still and always was against the rules from day 1, employee not settling in and contributing as expected in first 6 months, off you go with previously agreed notice period, often shorter during probabtion. After 6 months dismissal for performance becomes more difficult which requires a proper PIP process which would normally taking at least 6 months and gives the employee a chance to improve, earned by getting through the first six months. If an employer is too rubbish to make a decision in 6 months that's on them. Under the old rules bad employers would get rid of people 23 months in.
Interviews are a terrible way to select people but it's all we've got.
Interviews are a terrible way to select people but it's all we've got.
They're really not all we've got.
They're really not all we've got.
Do enlighten us.
Hmm... I mean that this story is running is her/their own fault, for giving the grim warm up speech on the 3rd, and for kite flying possible tax changes with journalists ahead of the budget... but the details of that story don't match the assertion at all. That all the "better news" was all delivered 10 days before the final decision was made doesn't mean that the decision wasn't influenced by the OBR's improved submissions.
The problem she has is that she has been banging on about the 'back hole' since the start and how it is the end of the world and needs to be plugged at all costs yet that very same black hole seems to have disappeared without her doing anything. It will no doubt come back again, go away again and so on because of all the contributing factors involved.
If she still mentions a black hole her credibility should now be zero (for those people who it wasn't that already)
They could give people an IQ test and a psychological test. I knew that if it was just an interview I'd probably be offered the job and if there were tests before the interview they were just going through the motions to a rejection as the result of the first test intimidated and second was never going to get past human resources. Anyhow why waste your talent working for others when you can work for yourself.
Under the old rules bad employers would get rid of people 23 months in.
Which certain industries were notorious for. 2 years and then you can reapply after enough months to make it not appear a continuous contract.
Something which is overlooked by many eg "companies becoming more risk adverse and as a result creating overly restrictive and time consuming recruitment processes that make it harder for the job applicant." is what about employees being more risk adverse and deciding not to job hunt.
Why should I risk switching jobs when I dont have any protection against my new manager getting annoyed about a cyclist not diving under a bus to let their ****mobile through and so deciding to dislike me?
Plot twist
https://twitter.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1996572051478282392?t=RzSDkL86piKq_TF7GJiESQ&s=19
I can't stop laughing at this one. For all manner of reasons.
https://twitter.com/RealAlbanianPat/status/1996608340487549071?t=58SsPlME6vuX0TckYTAz_Q&s=19
I won’t be “laughing” when my friends and family are deported and the rich get their “hard earned” tax breaks, but hey.
Is it too late to make up the “save the NHS badges”, or have the Brexit people already neutered that message with their erroneous use of it?
I can't stop laughing at this one. For all manner of reasons.
Well the funniest thing about it is I guess that they calculated a seat projection by using the findings of that particular poll and applied it across the board. The idea that Labour would be down to just 3 MPs is so ridiculous that is neither worth suggesting nor funny.
There is obviously a reason why a great deal of time and money is spent on MRP polls, ie to come with realistic figures not daft ones.
I do think that the poll which was used in this ridiculous modelling exercise is worthwhile though. I suspect that it probably gives a very realistic insight into how Labour support has at least halved in the last 18 months.
It is certainly in line with all the other countless polls that have been released recently
Well humour is a personal thing and ridiculous is funny to me.
I did enjoy the idea of selecting the 3 Labour MPs that might survive.
I won’t be “laughing” when my friends and family are deported and the rich get their “hard earned” tax breaks, but hey.
If you want to take it to that particular level instead of just giggling about a silly poll - plenty of people in my life have already been ****ed over by Labour and that's reality.
I'm currently also not laughing at Wes Streeting do his level best to drag the BMA through the dirt and take apart the idea of what constitutes a mental illness. I'm not currently laughing at the way Reeves can't put together a progessive budget that makes real inroads into building a successful society. I'm not currently laughing at how there's been zero economic development in local areas. I'm not currently laughing (since day one) Starmer has done very little other than ape Reform's approach to cultural devision.
They were the party that were supposed to make it good for us. They have the power to not do all these shockingly bad things and had the power to destroy the likes of Reform either through fixing our lives or changing FPTP.
So if they look decimated in a stupid poll - good. It's on them. (But it's also absurd too.)
(Kelvin - the rich are, and have done very well under Labour when you look at interest rate income and asset performance. Mansion tax, vat on schools and farming land tax is all paltry.)
It is certainly in line with all the other countless polls that have been released recently
The actual poll was possibly interesting because is there move now for the Tories coming back in the frame?
Reform could have peaked, and Farage is looking pretty rough at the moment with his Nazi playbook. There are definitely some voters that won't like that.
The Reform curious will be put off by tales of his Nazi past but the 'real' Reform people will be happy with it as there are as racist as he is. I can see tory support going back up by next election as those Reform curious people will go back to safe tory vote along with some people who gave Labour a go and will have forgotten why in 3 years time.
The actual poll was possibly interesting because is there move now for the Tories coming back in the frame?
20% for the Tories is actually in line with what other opinion polls have been saying for a while and only 4% less than they got in last year's general election. Obviously it historically bad though.
Reform according to all the opinion polls appear to have doubled their support since the GE whilst Labour's support has halved, and that's from a very low starting point. Support for the LibDems has barely changed since the GE and is still about half of what it was 15 years ago.
What is generally understated is the huge growth in support for the Greens, alongside increased support for Reform. The Greens appear to have possibly trebled their support since the last GE, and in the last GE the Greens actually double their support compared to the previous one.
In a general election six years ago the Greens polled less than 3% today opinion polls are suggesting that their support has grown at least five times that amount.
It is clear that the three main establishment parties, the Tories, Labour, and the LibDems, are doing very badly whilst what were once considered fringe parties, Reform and the Greens, are doing very well.
Which is very bad news for the centrists/moderates and suggests that the electorate are deeply unhappy with the status quo.
It is clear that the three main establishment parties, the Tories, Labour, and the LibDems, are doing very badly whilst what were once considered fringe parties, Reform and the Greens, are doing very well
For sure but I don't think the Tories are as finished as perhaps some think.
If you look at the poll of polls Reform (average of 31% back in sept to 27% now) average quite clearly plateaued and taking a small tick down. Whilst Tory polling has plateaued at the bottom this indicates to me they will take some Reform votes back shortly.
My feeling - although migration debates are not going anywhere - it's possible that the debate has exhausted mainstream arguments currently and perhaps people are feeling the pinch in real terms through the state of the economy.
General trends sure - Reform miles out.
What I'm more concerned about is how the green battle carries on. Based on ZP's performance on QT last night he can definitely get a difficult crowd on his side.
I'm going to a local green meeting about economics next week. See how that goes.
(Our Reform county council has just spent 75,000 on putting the union flags up. As much as I'm sick of seeing scruffy race baiting flags - I think the idea of putting a quality flag up with proper rigging looks infinitely better than all the scruffy home made cheap slave-labour flags that are ramshackle around the county. It also might calm the natives down. That said 75,000 would be better spent for sure.)
The Reform curious will be put off by tales of his Nazi past but the 'real' Reform people will be happy with it as there are as racist as he is
There's a definite line you don't cross as a silver-haired camper van owner...
The Reform curious will be put off by tales of his Nazi past
Are there many people who haven't already made their mind up abur Farage one way or t'other? Is anyone really going to be swayed by the reporting?
The Reform curious will be put off by tales of his Nazi past
So many people seem willing to overlook this as "he was just a kid". Frustrating. I knew as a a child that Nazis were A Bad Thing, and considering that Farage was at school when the Nazi war crimes should still have been fresh in people's memory it makes it worse.
Is anyone really going to be swayed by the reporting?
I don't think so and worse than that I reckon it is highly likely to counterproductive as voters will, quite rightly, see digging up what Nigel Farage said as a 13 year old kid rather than what he is saying right now as an act of desperation on the part of Labour.
What Nigel Farage was saying when he was a kid is even less relevant than what Sir Keir Starmer was saying 6 years ago when he was a Corbynite socialist making the "moral case for socialism" during the Labour leadership elections.
I don't think so and worse than that I reckon it is highly likely to counterproductive as voters will, quite rightly, see digging up what Nigel Farage said as a 13 year old kid rather than what he is saying right now as an act of desperation on the part of Labour
Yeah I've got the other eye on that too.
When someone is as popular as Farage - his supporters are probably going to double-down.
Nigel Farage the person has never been popular voters which is why it took him no less than 8 attempts before he finally managed to get himself a Westminster seat.
Even now, despite Reform doing extraordinarily well, Nigel Farage is only slightly more popular with voters than Sir Keir Starmer who himself is massively unpopular.
New data from Ipsos in the UK’s Political Pulse survey, taken October 10-13, reveals that for the first time in our Ipsos Political Pulse polling series, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has a slight lead over Keir Starmer when Britons are asked their preferred choice for Prime Minister.
Most voters seem perfectly aware that Nigel Farage is a ****, which is another reason why digging up what he is alleged to have said as a gobby 13 year old is pointless imo
Nazi war crimes should still have been fresh in people's memory it makes it worse.
He's not that old! Farage was born in 1964, left school in 1982ish, he's the same age as Keanu Reeves...
Even now, despite Reform doing extraordinarily well, Nigel Farage is only slightly more popular with voters than Sir Keir Starmer who himself is massively unpopular
And yet here he is causing massive discourse in British politics.
The difference with Starmer and Farage is Labour are doing extremely badly and Reform aren't at least in polling.
In my mind Reform is Nigel Farage. So I don't know, but that doesn't totally stack up.
Even now, despite Reform doing extraordinarily well, Nigel Farage is only slightly more popular with voters than Sir Keir Starmer who himself is massively unpopular
And yet here he is causing massive discourse in British politics.
The difference with Starmer and Farage is Labour are doing extremely badly and Reform aren't at least in polling.
In my mind Reform is Nigel Farage. So I don't know, but that doesn't totally stack up.
Personally likability and electoral support do not always tally. Margaret Thatcher is an example of that.
Yes many people see Reform as Nigel Farage, and to be fair that is exactly what it is, it is a one-man show. But that doesn't necessarily mean the sudden surge in support for Reform is because voters have suddenly and inexplicably decided that now they like Nigel Farage.
It is because voters have suddenly, and for very good reasons, decided that they don't like the Tories and Labour.
Nigel Farage is only popular with voters when he is compared to Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch, and then by only a very small amount.
If you use Sir Keir Starmer as a gauge of popularity with voters then even Jeremy Corbyn doesn't do too badly !
It is because voters have suddenly, and for very good reasons, decided that they don't like the Tories and Labour.
Which is very true. It's how we got here. People rejecting things.
You think Labour might spot this somewhere.
AN influential Labour think tank which ran Keir Starmer's leadership campaign is reportedly canvassing party members on candidates to replace him.
Another day another betrayal from Sir Keir Starmer. Or is it just a case of Starmer living rent free inside the Guardian's editorial writers heads?
In opposition, Sir Keir Starmer called the unelected House of Lords “indefensible”. This week, barely 18 months into his prime ministership, Sir Keir took the total of unelected peers he has appointed since July
At the last election, Labour presented itself to the voters as a party of Lords reform.
The House of Lords, the manifesto flatly declared, was “too big”.
The result is that the upper house, which Labour once deemed too big, is getting even bigger.
After the Blair-era reforms, Lords membership stood at 666. Today, the figure is 850, with this week’s new appointees waiting in the wings
Nigel Farage will be pleased that despite his 172 seat majority Sir Keir Starmer leaves the House of Lords intact for him to stuff with his unelected goons. Well done Starmer 👏
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyp7v7r28yo
Not unexpected if you understand how they're trying to operate the economy. That is back to front.
Taxation removes money from the economy and isn't given to anyone.
Ther will always be an excuse/reason but it's not accurate which is why it keeps going in the wrong direction.
(Not against taxation just get the sequence right and have a big plan to invest if you want growth.)
Such a predictable mess. Neoliberal to the core.
Also I'm really pleased Tories like Wes Streeting have used what has been learnt from the pandemic about flu - preparedness, and running the NHS by making sure the flu jab is available to all for free.
Well done.
But alternatively you could blame the BMA (Juvenile delinquents apparently) and Doctors of bringing the NHS to the knees.
Wes Streeting (a bit of a charlaton with his figures) fully in synch with the Daily Express. He's claiming that's all the country can afford.
Liar.
At least it gives Reeves a break.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1999024803169161343
https://twitter.com/i/status/1995860844215992687
Asking for the strike to be delayed ‘till after the flu spike seems sound to me, however you look at it.
As for whether they should be striking at all this winter: another round of pay restoration pay rises is needed; expecting them to happen to soon after the last round of large pay rises is a big ask. As for increasing positions and recruitment, the union is right to push hard for this. The threat of strikes could well be needed to try and win concessions. On the other hand a background of yearly strikes might not be the best way to ensure the NHS continues long term though. The public need to be kept on side when the near future could include some genuine crisis/inflection events for the NHS politically.
Taxation isn't removed from the economy, rone. It's recycled. Part of it goes to pay interest on the gilts which are held by your pension fund, the BOE and foreign investors. Part of it goes to provide services, then there's the army. Tax won't slow the economy if spent wisely. Tax can be used to reduce withdrawals if the money would otherwise go to withdrawals - for example taxing the richest who withdraw the most..
Asking for the strike to be delayed ‘till after the flu spike seems sound to me, however you look at it.
Maybe Streeting and labour could have actually got off their arses and resolved the situation before the flu spike hit, but it is easier for right wing politicians to blame the workforce than actually fix problems, and it is a "media technique" that right wing voters buy every time.
resolved the situation
The union has taken too hard a line this year, in my opinion. Their requests reasonable, the timing not (ie straight after a big step towards restoring pay levels with a big pay rise). The attempts to find a compromise have failed a few times. Yet again today. The vote is for the strike to go ahead. By all means consider this all the fault of the current government if you want to. I don't think it's that simple.
Asking for the strike to be delayed ‘till after the flu spike seems sound to me, however you look at it.
Maybe Streeting and labour could have actually got off their arses and resolved the situation before the flu spike hit, but it is easier for right wing politicians to blame the workforce than actually fix problems, and it is a "media technique" that right wing voters buy every time.
Exactly this. It's been totally within the government's powers to resolve it.
Test: if this had been a Tory government then people would have had no problem with push back against Thatcherite nonsense.
Don't give Labour an excuse to ruin absolutely everything.
Wes Streeting is a disgraceful scam artist that swallowed a Thatcherite narrative.
Jesus TF Christ, I am so tired of this government already.
The problem of young kids receiving, sending, and being pictured in indecent images is going to be reduced... how? Why shouldn't the tech giants have a responsibility there?
What a surprising and nuanced response.
We don't have a nuanced government making nuanced decisions. We have a government fixated on wrecking the country in exactly the same way that has gone before. Maybe you could aim your comments at the Labour party instead of us that want things to be so much better.
To many times Centrists have tried to pretend there's a 'reasonable' position on everything whilst Labour literally just keep the Tory line going. It doesn't know how to push back against the right - because it is the right.
You know it's quite possible there's no fence walking to be had and we just have a continual decay of progressive values.
Because that's what your beloved Centrism is doing. As I've pointed out time after time - Centrism delivers for the right not good public outcomes.
Kelvin - I can also remember all your early cheerleading for this government - where you kept saying the good stuff will come etc.
It never did. It got way worse.
That's why there's no nuance to be had.
Wes Streeting, the UK Health Secretary, recently accused the British Medical Association (BMA) of an "outbreak of juvenile delinquency"
"nuance..."
The problem of young kids receiving, sending, and being pictured in indecent images is going to be reduced... how? Why shouldn't the tech giants have a responsibility there?
I'm not even going to go into the area of state overreach into parental responsibilities.
This is far more intrusive than the monitoring that even China and Russia have.
Major issues off the top of my head:
1. scope creep. Once it's on there it can/will be used to monitor/automatically report other things, e.g. read books the state finds problematic, etc
2. false positives. Blocking access to legit non porn content. Reporting people for crimes they have not committed, given the subject matter this would cause massive reputational damage.
3. forcing people to submit id or biometric data to unknown people with unknown security policies, if this leaks it leaves people wide open to identity theft.
4. drive real criminals to use non-law-compliant devices/software (which already exist, are readily available and are essentially uncrackable - e.g. Graphene- this makes the polices job harder)
5. it provides a new attack vector for malware with extremely high value. Blackmail risk.
6. checksumming and verifying content will waste battery and bandwidth. What happens if the device is offline? Block everything just in case? Allow everything just in case?
You’re ignoring the “can be turned off by adults” part of the request.