Keir Starmer Labour Leader

Fluctuation0161 said:
Maybe he will go full Tory and suggest 1 hour minimum contracts.
Click to expand...

You're just like Johnson, spouting populist easy options, only from the left.

My brother was in one for a long time but could easily have been on a different arrangement, and should have been - that was exploitative -so yes there are circumstances where they shouldn't be used if a better alternative is available. But I don't think they should be banned outright, just regulated better because for some people they may be an ok option.
 
Last edited:
nickm said:
My brother was in one for a long time but could easily have been on a different arrangement, and should have been - that was exploitative -so yes there are circumstances where they shouldn't be used if a better alternative is available. But I don't think they should be banned outright, just regulated better because for some people they may be an ok option.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that.

Ultimately if a worker wants flexible hours each week then the decision or flexibility should be with the worker. As it stands, workers go week to week, not knowing if they will be working or earning from one week to the next. The only benefit is for the employer in most cases. Unfortunately bills don't work on flexible contracts. They roll in no matter what!

Yes there is the odd example of a Uni student, or a tiny proportion of people who like zero hour contracts, but that is more good luck than good practice or good regulation.

You do know this current government will never change/regulate zero hour contracts to favour the workers, right?
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
New Labour should've enacted proportional representation. Our first past the post system is broken.
Click to expand...

They needed full support from both houses to change part of the constitution.

PR would still lead to the Tories being the largest party but with far to many hung parliaments, It would lead to other problems
 
Widow said:
They needed full support from both houses to change part of the constitution.

PR would still lead to the Tories being the largest party but with far to many hung parliaments, It would lead to other problems
Click to expand...

It wouldn't necessarily increase the frequency of hung parliaments. But even if it did, that would increase the need for coalition and cooperation. More checks and balances on the party in power.

PR is the best way to get a representative house of commons. First past the post does not work.

I don't claim it will magically her rid of the Tories, that's not the point. In fact, the biggest example of first past the post not working is UKIP coming 3rd in number of votes (13%) but only getting 1 seat in 2015. I certainly don't agree with them, but that is a failing democracy. Probably contributed to the continued dissatisfaction which led us to where we are now.
 
Widow said:
They needed full support from both houses to change part of the constitution.

PR would still lead to the Tories being the largest party but with far to many hung parliaments, It would lead to other problems
Click to expand...

Hung Parliaments are the target. That’s the point. You bake that in to ensure collaboration.

If we had routine hung parliaments that led to Green-Labour-Lib Dem coalitions, Tories would lose votes as their base would vote Lib Dem to have a greater say in how the country is ran. Or the Tories would move left. Or they’d shed their racist base to UKIP.

But at least they’d have to Fcuking change.

This whole island needs dragging back to a left leaning middle that benefits most people. The rich would stay rich. We need to have a 30 year pause or slowing down on them getting richer. Our society is broken. We need DECADES of remedial work.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
t wouldn't necessarily increase the frequency of hung parliaments
Click to expand...

Look back at the last few result, it shows it would. Although, we don't know how people would vote if the system changed.

Fluctuation0161 said:
that would increase the need for coalition and cooperation
Click to expand...

Without a majority, Governments hands are usually tied and a happy compromise isn't often forthcoming. The largest part usually has to give in to some demands that the smaller party that props up the coalition have made. Nick Cleggs end to his political career coming to mind when he went back on tuition fees for example.

UnrelatedPsuedo said:
You bake that in to ensure collaboration.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't guarantee it. History proves this. The dodgy dark corridors of Westminster is where deals get done with a coalition. Personal gain can take over in a bid to give in to the demands of either side.

The country prospers from a majority government.

Both PR and FPTP have benefits and flaws. There needs to be a massive will from all parties to bring about change, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
 
UweBein said:
Good... you can't repeat that often enough, becsuse people seem to think it gives the employee some sort of say.
Click to expand...

I'm on something that looks to be functionally the same as a zero hour contract with an employer I work for sometimes. We have a contract where everything is agreed, like pay and benefits and all that normal stuff, but nothing about hours worked. They are not obligated to offer me work and I'm not obligated to work when they want me to.

For me this results in me declining nine out of ten times they ask, and they ask nine out of ten times I'm actually available. For me it's great, I work when I want to, not when they want me to. I have close to all the say in this relationship (except I can't get them to pay me more, of course, still a wage slave).

I'm sure zero hour contracts are a negative for a lot of employees, and it's very possible that it's a net negative for workers, but the ability to decline work does give workers a say unless they're practically forced to accept anyway (e.g. due to finances).
 
NotThatSoph said:
I'm on something that looks to be functionally the same as a zero hour contract with an employer I work for sometimes. We have a contract where everything is agreed, like pay and benefits and all that normal stuff, but nothing about hours worked. They are not obligated to offer me work and I'm not obligated to work when they want me to.

For me this results in me declining nine out of ten times they ask, and they ask nine out of ten times I'm actually available. For me it's great, I work when I want to, not when they want me to. I have close to all the say in this relationship (except I can't get them to pay me more, of course, still a wage slave).

I'm sure zero hour contracts are a negative for a lot of employees, and it's very possible that it's a net negative for workers, but the ability to decline work does give workers a say unless they're practically forced to accept anyway (e.g. due to finances).
Click to expand...
It's not functionally the same. You decide when you work, that is not the case with 0 hour contracts.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Sorry to hear that.

Ultimately if a worker wants flexible hours each week then the decision or flexibility should be with the worker. As it stands, workers go week to week, not knowing if they will be working or earning from one week to the next. The only benefit is for the employer in most cases. Unfortunately bills don't work on flexible contracts. They roll in no matter what!

Yes there is the odd example of a Uni student, or a tiny proportion of people who like zero hour contracts, but that is more good luck than good practice or good regulation.

You do know this current government will never change/regulate zero hour contracts to favour the workers, right?
Click to expand...
Might not have to. Increasing it looks more of a sellers market - if employers can't find staff then pressure is on employers to offer better contracts.
 
Widow said:
But it doesn't guarantee it. History proves this. The dodgy dark corridors of Westminster is where deals get done with a coalition. Personal gain can take over in a bid to give in to the demands of either side.

The country prospers from a majority government.

Both PR and FPTP have benefits and flaws. There needs to be a massive will from all parties to bring about change, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Proportional Representation dilutes the dodgy dark corridors you speak of.

How the Fcuk does a majority government working without consultancy or checks and balances by a partnering party not lead to what we are seeing RIGHT NOW?!? We are now at a point that £37 BILLION for track and trace is accepted. What the Fcuk would cause you to question our political system? Do you even know what kind of number that is?!?!? It’s the GDP of many nations. It’s one sixth of New Zealand’s GDP. Germany have spent something like £2 Billion. That’s their most inflated number with everything included. (The Uk number supposedly balloons to £54 Billion).

We have to start to accept as a society that one side is bad and the other is good.

One side is bad but can sometimes do good.
One side is good but can sometimes do bad.

The ruling class. The media. The dodgy dark corridors you speak of?…. They keep giving us the same outcomes, with occasional periods of respite.

Left leaning governments do not Fcuk people over. They don’t. Yes they make mistakes and get shit wrong, but the amplification in the media by *checks notes* the Baddies, pretends they’re worse. Read;

- Gordon Brown and Gold reserves
- Corbyn on Israel
- Kier on donkeys or immigrants.
- Socialism is communism

It’s nauseating as a person of just about above average intellect to witness poor people vote for rich people that will make their existence worse.

I’m wealthy. Working class kid that was birthed with ‘something’ that accidentally saw me get paid lots of money. I STILL rail against private landlords because I’m an adult. I STILL vote for higher taxes. I STILL want corporations to be embedded and wedded to the social structures they benefit from.

Anyone that doesn’t do these things, is a Baddie. I respect some of my colleagues that wear that idea of ‘I vote to ensure I keep this life’. I don’t admire them. But at least they own their shit. If you vote for things that help you, before it helps the whole, you’re a bad person.

Free Market Capitalism runs society into the ground. As does Authoritarian Communism. THEY ARE THE SAME THING. We treat the former as a best case scenario. It’s mental. It’s not binary.

We have to drop this idea that there’s not a ‘right way’ to run a society. There is. It’s unequivocal. If you’re a fan of a 60-90 year run of getting what you can and Fcuk everyone else… fine. But how the feck have we let 10% of people decide how 100% of people live? It’s Fcuking insane

EDIT : Apologies for the aggression. It’s a little much on a re-read. But I don’t have time to sanitise.
 
NotThatSoph said:
I'm on something that looks to be functionally the same as a zero hour contract with an employer I work for sometimes. We have a contract where everything is agreed, like pay and benefits and all that normal stuff, but nothing about hours worked. They are not obligated to offer me work and I'm not obligated to work when they want me to.

For me this results in me declining nine out of ten times they ask, and they ask nine out of ten times I'm actually available. For me it's great, I work when I want to, not when they want me to. I have close to all the say in this relationship (except I can't get them to pay me more, of course, still a wage slave).

I'm sure zero hour contracts are a negative for a lot of employees, and it's very possible that it's a net negative for workers, but the ability to decline work does give workers a say unless they're practically forced to accept anyway (e.g. due to finances).
Click to expand...

No.

This is not what the term ‘Zero Hour Contract’ applies to. You’re effectively on an uncommitted fee-free retainer.

Zero Hour contracts are worlds apart from your experience.

If you were 1000% better at your job and essential to a company you’d be getting paid to do nothing.

If you were just as good at your job and non-essential to any company you’d never get paid by anyone.
 
Widow said:
Look back at the last few result, it shows it would. Although, we don't know how people would vote if the system changed.



Without a majority, Governments hands are usually tied and a happy compromise isn't often forthcoming. The largest part usually has to give in to some demands that the smaller party that props up the coalition have made. Nick Cleggs end to his political career coming to mind when he went back on tuition fees for example.



But it doesn't guarantee it. History proves this. The dodgy dark corridors of Westminster is where deals get done with a coalition. Personal gain can take over in a bid to give in to the demands of either side.

The country prospers from a majority government.

Both PR and FPTP have benefits and flaws. There needs to be a massive will from all parties to bring about change, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Click to expand...
The key point is people could vote differently if PR was in place. As it stands, a vote for a party that said voter believes in, can lead to an advantage to a party that is completely opposite policy wise. People are forced to vote "tactically".

E.g. a vote for the Green Party is one less vote for Labour which can give advantage to the Conservatives. Or the UKIP example I stated earlier.

Looking at the massive nosedive our country has taken since the most recent majority government, I don't know how you can say the country prospers in the current system with a straight face.
 
Last edited:
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Proportional Representation dilutes the dodgy dark corridors you speak of.

How the Fcuk does a majority government working without consultancy or checks and balances by a partnering party not lead to what we are seeing RIGHT NOW?!? We are now at a point that £37 BILLION for track and trace is accepted. What the Fcuk would cause you to question our political system? Do you even know what kind of number that is?!?!? It’s the GDP of many nations. It’s one sixth of New Zealand’s GDP. Germany have spent something like £2 Billion. That’s their most inflated number with everything included. (The Uk number supposedly balloons to £54 Billion).

We have to start to accept as a society that one side is bad and the other is good.

One side is bad but can sometimes do good.
One side is good but can sometimes do bad.

The ruling class. The media. The dodgy dark corridors you speak of?…. They keep giving us the same outcomes, with occasional periods of respite.

Left leaning governments do not Fcuk people over. They don’t. Yes they make mistakes and get shit wrong, but the amplification in the media by *checks notes* the Baddies, pretends they’re worse. Read;

- Gordon Brown and Gold reserves
- Corbyn on Israel
- Kier on donkeys or immigrants.
- Socialism is communism

It’s nauseating as a person of just about above average intellect to witness poor people vote for rich people that will make their existence worse.

I’m wealthy. Working class kid that was birthed with ‘something’ that accidentally saw me get paid lots of money. I STILL rail against private landlords because I’m an adult. I STILL vote for higher taxes. I STILL want corporations to be embedded and wedded to the social structures they benefit from.

Anyone that doesn’t do these things, is a Baddie. I respect some of my colleagues that wear that idea of ‘I vote to ensure I keep this life’. I don’t admire them. But at least they own their shit. If you vote for things that help you, before it helps the whole, you’re a bad person.

Free Market Capitalism runs society into the ground. As does Authoritarian Communism. THEY ARE THE SAME THING. We treat the former as a best case scenario. It’s mental. It’s not binary.

We have to drop this idea that there’s not a ‘right way’ to run a society. There is. It’s unequivocal. If you’re a fan of a 60-90 year run of getting what you can and Fcuk everyone else… fine. But how the feck have we let 10% of people decide how 100% of people live? It’s Fcuking insane

EDIT : Apologies for the aggression. It’s a little much on a re-read. But I don’t have time to sanitise.
Click to expand...
Fair points. Much the same as mine but with more detail and more swearing. :lol:
 
nickm said:
Might not have to. Increasing it looks more of a sellers market - if employers can't find staff then pressure is on employers to offer better contracts.
Click to expand...
Free market doesn't work when potential employees are desperate. It is the vulnerable that get exploited the most by zero hour contracts. Not generally those who can "shop around" for work.

Your arguments assumes that an employee can simply "better themselves" which is a flawed way of looking the problem. It comes down to a core belief or lack of understanding that not everyone starts out with the same opportunities or has access to the same development options.
 
NotThatSoph said:
I'm not from the UK. A Google search tells me that a zero hour contract is a contract where the employer is not obligated to offer work and the employee is not obligated to accept.

https://www.gov.uk/contract-types-and-employer-responsibilities/zero-hour-contracts

Is this incorrect?
Click to expand...

I thought that if an employee didn't accept the employer simply blacklisted them and they got no work, so essentially the employer could hold a shotgun to their head at all times?
 
owlo said:
I thought that if an employee didn't accept the employer simply blacklisted them and they got no work, so essentially the employer could hold a shotgun to their head at all times?
Click to expand...
This is my understanding of the situation.
 
owlo said:
I thought that if an employee didn't accept the employer simply blacklisted them and they got no work, so essentially the employer could hold a shotgun to their head at all times?
Click to expand...

Not in my experience, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course.

If you're never available they'll eventually stop asking, though, that's pretty obvious.

Raven said:
Until they feck you off to the dole office for refusing to work.
Click to expand...

I've been working like this for around 10 years, I think I'll be fine.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Not in my experience, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course.

If you're never available they'll eventually stop asking, though, that's pretty obvious.



I've been working like this for around 10 years, I think I'll be fine.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about you, I was using you as a general term for zero hour workers.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Not in my experience, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course.

If you're never available they'll eventually stop asking, though, that's pretty obvious.



I've been working like this for around 10 years, I think I'll be fine.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that what you have isn't more of an exclusivity agreement (quant/tech firm pays you modest amount and zero hours your contract as they know you're a lazy feck but want you working for them if you actually decide to work instead of work on pet projects?)

My understanding was 'zero hour contracts' were generally meant to refer to hospitality/unskilled labour, where the employer used them essentially as a method of control.
 
Widow said:
The country prospers from a majority government.
Click to expand...
In what way?

The Tory government won the election by 3.7m votes (13,966,454 to 10,269,051). That translated into 365 seats for the Tories and 202 for Labour. At that rate, it means the Tories have one seat for every 38k votes cast while Labour has one seat for every 50k votes cast.

SNP - one seat for every 26k votes they received.
Lib Dems - one seat for every 333k votes they received.

In what sane universe are these vote-per-seat disparities sensible ways to run a democracy? PR is not perfect but FPTP is clearly undemocratic. If the parties' vote percentage were linked to their seat tally more proportionally then the conservatives would still be the largest single party but the other two could form a coalition.

The main obstacle is that PR would mean devaluing Scotland's presence at Westminster and that would be the que for Scottish independence.
 
neverdie said:
In what way?

The Tory government won the election by 3.7m votes (13,966,454 to 10,269,051). That translated into 365 seats for the Tories and 202 for Labour. At that rate, it means the Tories have one seat for every 38k votes cast while Labour has one seat for every 50k votes cast.

SNP - one seat for every 26k votes they received.
Lib Dems - one seat for every 333k votes they received.

In what sane universe are these vote-per-seat disparities sensible ways to run a democracy? PR is not perfect but FPTP is clearly undemocratic. If the parties' vote percentage were linked to their seat tally more proportionally then the conservatives would still be the largest single party but the other two could form a coalition.

The main obstacle is that PR would mean devaluing Scotland's presence at Westminster and that would be the que for Scottish independence.
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
Widow said:
Blair is the only Labour leader to win an election in the modern era. Buckle up as the Tories aren't being defeated anytime soon
Click to expand...

I agree, that is why I think the chances are that when Boris does finally go it will because his own party are tired of his 'on the hoof' performances and they remove him themselves, alternatively Boris does something completely 'off the wall' and has to resign. The chances of Labour even making a dint in his 80+ majority, (never mind winning) at the next GE, is very slim.
This is perhaps why Starmer, thinks I've go nothing to lose so lets use the time to do a root and branch purge of the 'looney left', it will be bloody and teeth-chattering, at not a little scary, but it will then be out of the way and we can "prepare for Government"?
 
owlo said:
Are you sure that what you have isn't more of an exclusivity agreement (quant/tech firm pays you modest amount and zero hours your contract as they know you're a lazy feck but want you working for them if you actually decide to work instead of work on pet projects?)

My understanding was 'zero hour contracts' were generally meant to refer to hospitality/unskilled labour, where the employer used them essentially as a method of control.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am sure. I am very replaceable, they just prefer me over getting someone else in when they can. I also don't have an exclusivity agreement.

These kinds of contracts are also very normal for students, especially when working for temp agencies. Students value the flexibility highly, because with this sort of arrangment they can instantaneously adjust to the frequent changes in their scheudle, they can work more in quiet periods and less or not at all during exam periods, or take some time off if they want to go on a bender, all without asking or even talking to anyone.

Again, I'm not in the UK and I don't know how it normally works there.
 
neverdie said:
In what way?

The Tory government won the election by 3.7m votes (13,966,454 to 10,269,051). That translated into 365 seats for the Tories and 202 for Labour. At that rate, it means the Tories have one seat for every 38k votes cast while Labour has one seat for every 50k votes cast.

SNP - one seat for every 26k votes they received.
Lib Dems - one seat for every 333k votes they received.

In what sane universe are these vote-per-seat disparities sensible ways to run a democracy? PR is not perfect but FPTP is clearly undemocratic. If the parties' vote percentage were linked to their seat tally more proportionally then the conservatives would still be the largest single party but the other two could form a coalition.

The main obstacle is that PR would mean devaluing Scotland's presence at Westminster and that would be the que for Scottish independence.
Click to expand...
I think people are confused by what I said. I don't think FPTP is a perfect system I just prefer to vote for a party that has a chance to implement their manifesto and be judged on it. Recent history shows hung parliaments would have occurred with the Tories still the largest party.
 
Raven said:
It's not functionally the same. You decide when you work, that is not the case with 0 hour contracts.
Click to expand...
Thats not true ... he can only work when the employer offers him work (that he decides to accept or decline... of course there is no obligation that the employer has to offer him work)

Please explain how that is functionally different from a zero hour contract
 
Maticmaker said:
I agree, that is why I think the chances are that when Boris does finally go it will because his own party are tired of his 'on the hoof' performances and they remove him themselves, alternatively Boris does something completely 'off the wall' and has to resign. The chances of Labour even making a dint in his 80+ majority, (never mind winning) at the next GE, is very slim.
This is perhaps why Starmer, thinks I've go nothing to lose so lets use the time to do a root and branch purge of the 'looney left', it will be bloody and teeth-chattering, at not a little scary, but it will then be out of the way and we can "prepare for Government"?
Click to expand...
I think you have got it the wrong way round. Starmer focusing on a party purge instead of targeting the incompetent government is letting them get away with murder.

You also underestimate the fact that the previous GE was unique in that it was dominate by Brexit election. Now that is done, there is potential for a swing back to more normal, historic voting patterns in pro brexit constituencies.
 
sun_tzu said:
Thats not true ... he can only work when the employer offers him work (that he decides to accept or decline... of course there is no obligation that the employer has to offer him work)

Please explain how that is functionally different from a zero hour contract
Click to expand...
His scenario is that he tells his employer 9 times out of 10 that he's not working. If you do that on a 0 hour contract, you will no longer be offered work.

Edit: The fact that the worker has bills to pay, food to buy and likely rent to pay, they generally have no choice but to take any work thrown their way.
 
Maticmaker said:
I agree, that is why I think the chances are that when Boris does finally go it will because his own party are tired of his 'on the hoof' performances and they remove him themselves, alternatively Boris does something completely 'off the wall' and has to resign. The chances of Labour even making a dint in his 80+ majority, (never mind winning) at the next GE, is very slim.
This is perhaps why Starmer, thinks I've go nothing to lose so lets use the time to do a root and branch purge of the 'looney left', it will be bloody and teeth-chattering, at not a little scary, but it will then be out of the way and we can "prepare for Government"?
Click to expand...
I don't think the evidence is there yet that he is going to do that, but if he is we should find out this autumn. I hope he will anyway.
 
The end result would be Labour not being Labour, which I gather is what many people actually want. Is it just that some people are so hung up on their "team" (Labour), that they are willing to see it become basically indistinguishable to the Tories?
 
nimic said:
The end result would be Labour not being Labour, which I gather is what many people actually want. Is it just that some people are so hung up on their "team" (Labour), that they are willing to see it become basically indistinguishable to the Tories?
Click to expand...
But there would be a new 'pure' far left party too, able to set it's manifesto out as it wanted and rake in the votes. Wouldn't that be an upside for you? I'll be honest, I don't think that party would be likely to win an overall majority at a general election, but it could do well enough to take part in a pact or coalition, which would be more power than the far left would get otherwise. Also I could be wrong, maybe it could win on it's own merit, surely that should be your goal?
 
nimic said:
The end result would be Labour not being Labour, which I gather is what many people actually want. Is it just that some people are so hung up on their "team" (Labour), that they are willing to see it become basically indistinguishable to the Tories?
Click to expand...
It's all about winning, not actually changing anything. All people like Starmer want is a neo lib carousel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.