The labour Leader thread...
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
he did say for most workers, so that's mainly going to be current workers who were not working when those conditions.
problem is unions have been around in the good years for so long they've become quite intertwined with the companies and its very much jobs for the boys and they are now unwilling to turn away from their cushy jobs and benefits to actually fight for the members and low down workers.
Anyone who agrees with Blair is a fascist...so
Ah, quoted from the sayings of Chairman Corbyn.
Ah, quoted from the sayings of Chairman Corbyn.
Blair did that to himself, every word out of his mouth, regardless of how true it is is pure toxin and helps Corbyn regardless.
So he can keep spouting if he likes.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
This I agree with.
It could be solved however if more members were willing to become more involved in thier union and it's democratic processes (i.e. voting out bad reps, volunteering an hour a month to help out etc). Unfortunately, in my experience, most members are happy to leach off the union representing them and not give something back. It's not helped by most members (and unions themselves to some extent) seeing thier membership as a "paid for service" akin to a bank or posting a letter and following the customer/provider scenario, rather than the co-operative model that a union should be. This needs to change - and it's something I'm currently working on.
the unions can make that very difficult though.
our one we elect the steward but the senior stewards are elected by the stewards who ask the lads "who do you want me to vote for" but we never know who they actually vote for.
also no one knows who the people are who are running either as they can be from different shifts or whole other buildings.
the branch/higher up elections where held on a Saturday off site with practically no notice to the lads.
our recent pay deal negotiations were an interesting one that we only learned about from one of the decent stewards.
offer was made to union, union leaders voted to take the offer to the lads but voted against recommending it.
after that they got a call from HR who told them if it dint come with a recommendation it wasn't on the table.
since then its been out (but they ****ed the ballot up and are redoing it) with a "we think this is the best possible deal etc and we recommend you vote yes" printed on the ballot paper. and a nice little notice has popped up on the union board from the negotiating team congratulating themselves for getting us such a great offer, despite the offer breaking nearly all the terms that were set out years ago regarding the negotiations (being for 12 months, and with fixed start and end dates).
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I concur.
Only one party makes the offer - that's where the blame for a **** offer lies.
Sure, berate the union officials for "reconmending" the offer (this is where members vote against the offer if it's that bad), but the buck stops with the employer over how good (or bad) the offer is.
I've had to reconmend a **** offer for acceptance where the members didn't want to do anything to get a better offer. I'm sure some members thought I had a magic wand I'd wave at negotiations and get everything they wanted.
Last edited by a moderator:
they've been negotiating for months.
main thing that annoyed me was the very self congratulatory notice they put up about what a great offer they've negotiated.
problem is the union is so bad at communicating that you can get radically different information from different reps and theres no real drive to ever actually try to get the lads to do anything or even bring up ideas, literally all you get is "i dunno I'll ask" or "theres nothing we can do" to pretty much anything.
theres no real cohesion within the union it seems, they've had so little to do for so long its just become a pen pushing exercise.
Last edited:
Shows how the right-wing media warps politics in this country
[/QUOTE]
Funny how it doesn't quote the article to go with the headline. Just shows how far left-wingers will go to promote their twisted aims. ;)
Funny how it doesn't quote the article to go with the headline. Just shows how far left-wingers will go to promote their twisted aims.
Cos headlines don't matter right?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,170
I would say that is standard pro-forma healine writing for British papers describing any plitician or party. In fact they seem quite tame, I could well imagine wrse distortions in pursuit of a headline.
I can't decide if the picture constitutes a straw man or not..........
I can't decide if the picture constitutes a straw man or not..........
people stopped reading newspapers for anything more than sensationalism.
news long ago became entertainment, so now everything has to be more hyped up and dramatic than everyone else in order to sell.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,239
- Location
- Billericay, UK
There's a labour leadership debate on Sky News right now. Anyone watching it?
Watching it now, first time I have actually heard most of them* speak 
Kendall seems a bit wishy washy, Corbyn knows exactly to say, I can't take Burnham seriously because of his former flip-flopping past and unsure about Cooper. The problem is I wouldn't vote for either of them
though I think Corbyn is the best purely based on this debate.
*out of touch with a number of Labour's new guard.
Kendall seems a bit wishy washy, Corbyn knows exactly to say, I can't take Burnham seriously because of his former flip-flopping past and unsure about Cooper. The problem is I wouldn't vote for either of them
though I think Corbyn is the best purely based on this debate.*out of touch with a number of Labour's new guard
.
Last edited:
It uses Sky Pulse - people get to vote along as they watch. Totally unverified, but there are still some interesting insights.
67% of viewers wanted Jeremy Corbyn to win.
During the show, 76% thought he was winning the debate.
Post-show, 81% thought he'd won.
Taking that 81%, it's made up of people who voted for the following parties at the last election:
35% Labour
7% Conservative
5% Lib Dem
4% SNP
5% UKIP
11% Green
3% Other
11% Didn't vote at the last election.
Total: 81%
Jeremy Corbyn had the highest approval rating across voters from all parties, age groups and genders. There was only one category on two questions where he actually lost; Conservative voters didn't agree (by a narrow margin) with his plans for tackling ISIS, and Conservative voters (again by a narrow margin) preferred Liz Kendall's solution to the migrant crisis.
The bit about non-voters is interesting. Assuming Corbyn wins, his strongest chance of winning a general election comes from inspiring people to start voting. If he's already starting to strike a chord there then it's maybe far too early for sweeping 'Jeremy Corbyn can't win an election' statements.
67% of viewers wanted Jeremy Corbyn to win.
During the show, 76% thought he was winning the debate.
Post-show, 81% thought he'd won.
Taking that 81%, it's made up of people who voted for the following parties at the last election:
35% Labour
7% Conservative
5% Lib Dem
4% SNP
5% UKIP
11% Green
3% Other
11% Didn't vote at the last election.
Total: 81%
Jeremy Corbyn had the highest approval rating across voters from all parties, age groups and genders. There was only one category on two questions where he actually lost; Conservative voters didn't agree (by a narrow margin) with his plans for tackling ISIS, and Conservative voters (again by a narrow margin) preferred Liz Kendall's solution to the migrant crisis.
The bit about non-voters is interesting. Assuming Corbyn wins, his strongest chance of winning a general election comes from inspiring people to start voting. If he's already starting to strike a chord there then it's maybe far too early for sweeping 'Jeremy Corbyn can't win an election' statements.
Last edited:
Possibly... or just people who have no intention of going out of their way to vote on the actual day.
The interesting one for me is the Green voters, possibly annihilating their gains in the last election if it holds true, but also the lack of the SNP swing. doesnt look like it may win labour scotland back if the poll is to be believed.
Last edited: