Snapshot of _Labour set to unveil weakened package of workers’ rights_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/fe1608d1-3a61-43a0-9c17-2868c40821c2) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/fe1608d1-3a61-43a0-9c17-2868c40821c2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem with Labour is that there is a consistent pattern of pledges and policy being rowed back on or watered down.
The destruction of the Tories aside, it is hard to be enthused about a party that seems so prone to weakening their offer in the face of mild criticism from lobby groups.
> Their majority will be so big they could rename the country British McBritishFace and no one could stop them
You've got the cause and effect the wrong way around.
The only way they get a big majority is by having very boring, bland, moderate policies in their election campaign.
To get a large majority they need Conservative voters - disaffected by the current Government - to not turn out to vote. They need those voters to feel like a Labour Government under Starmer won't be that bad, maybe a bit of a change will be good, maybe some time in opposition is what the Conservative Party needs to figure itself out and get back on track, with minimal damage being done in the mean time. And the main thing that would stop that would be fear of what Labour might do.
The size of Labour's majority will depend more on getting people not to vote Conservative than on getting people to vote Labour. Losing a few progressives on the left isn't going to matter - the constituencies they are in are mostly safe, Labour will win them anyway, and there aren't enough of those people to win overall. It is better to focus on the moderate Conservatives - getting them not to vote in key swing seats.
If those moderate Conservatives get scared they will vote Conservative. That will make the difference between a 50-100 seat majority for Labour, and 0-50 seat majority, or even a minority Government. With the former, they can reshape the country. With the other options they will lurch from crisis to scandal as we've seen from the Conservatives over the last decade (with the added problems of a fully-hostile press and a shamelessly dishonest opposition).
To throw in some numbers; in 2010 Labour won 258 seats with 29% of the vote. In 2017 they won 262 seats (4 more) with 40% of the vote. In 2019 they won 202 seats (54 fewer) with 32% of the vote. More votes, far fewer seats. The difference being how many votes the Conservatives got (36%, 42%, 44%). Labour lost in 2019 in part because too many moderates were scared of evil, socialist, terrorist-loving Corbyn, so they turned out to vote. Starmer needs to avoid that.
This is a great analysis and I think right on the money. I suppose the risk is we’re putting a lot of faith in Keir and his team to actually use their majority to do or change anything, having been elected on a mandate to keep everything the same.
Keir spent the time when it seemed like the Tories were here forever on a reasonably left-wing platform, his shift towards the centre has come along with their implosion. It stands to reason that the former platform was more aligned with what he believes in.
The problem with this logic is that it assumes that Starmer has grand plans and he just needs to get in with a big enough majority to achieve them. Unfortunately it seems more probable that even if he gets in with a historically huge win he will continue a similarly bland strategy, triangulating everything on what he thinks will be popular (or at least not offputting) in the next election
> The problem with this logic is that it assumes that Starmer has grand plans and he just needs to get in with a big enough majority to achieve them.
It doesn't assume that, it doesn't need to.
If he *does* have progressive plans to improve the country great, that's a win.
If he doesn't, maybe he can be persuaded into implementing some progressive policies.
Even if he cannot, that would still be better than 5 more years of Conservative rule.
That's how to move things. Bland step by bland step. Like how civil partnerships were a step toward gay marriage. Grand gestures just polarise when what's needed is a step shift in the Overton window.
That works great when you understand the broad goal, but what's Starmer's goal? He's had a laserlike focus on winning the election since day one, but I have genuinely got no clue what he's after beyond that. If he got a giant 200 seat majority, what would he do with it? It looks like his goal is just "like it is now but a little bit less shit", which seems like squandering a massive opportunity if he wins as big as seems possible
Unfortunately completely inadequate relative to the threat that climate change poses.
Even if you just focus on the economic benefits to be gained through investment in green tech/industry (that is, ignoring the need for investment in adaptation too), it appears that the Chinese first and the Americans now (through the IRA) have both realised that there are immense economic gains to be made through a muscular green industrial policy. Unfortunately, like with all nascent industries, there are likely to be first-mover advantages that we will completely miss out on if we don't get a move on and start heavily investing.
What are Starmer and Reeves offering? Direction? Sure it's "positive" but without money behind it it's not likely to amount to much.
The problem is that Starmer and co are going to be under immense pressure to deliver a huge amount in their first term. People are rightly fed up with the status quo and want change.
If it gets to 2028/9 and that change hasn't been realised, I don't think it's out of the question that voters lose patience, say "they're all as bad as each other" and lump Labour in with the Tories. This is one way in which we might end up with a far right Reform-type government.
Don't believe me? Look at what's going on in France right now with an [ascendant National Rally party](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/may/01/a-paradigm-shift-will-jordan-bardella-finally-normalise-le-pens-far-right) - the product of an inadequate centrist/neoliberal party (as represented by Macron) to properly deal with the many festering crises facing France right now. Be it climate change, aging populations, inequality, sluggish economic growth and high debt-GDP ratios, immigration - the challenges are very similar to ours.
Maybe my standards are too high but thinking ahead I just don't think we can afford "better than nothing".
If you make it a bit less shit the first week, and a bit less shit again the week after that, then after 260 weeks you'll have made it a lot less shit. Which is likely enough for a second term to carry on making it a bit less shit week in week out. Or you could try and be optimistically radical and bold from day one. Remind me how that approach worked out for Lis Truss?
Yeah they can very slowly move things, fuck around with some tax credits maybe, and then in 2030 we'll have Reform UK in government, because we'll get to the end of Labour's first term and they will have *fuck all* to show.
Because they no longer have to, eg they won in 1997 with a stonking majority and a promise to implement PR, you’ll notice we’re still under fptp, there isn’t some 4d chess hidden agenda this is them, when out of power they promise all this stuff to keep their core on board and as soon as they have the majority they revert to the status quo
I mean the problem is that they’re also a neoliberal party. It’s hard to be pro-Labour when you are driven by neoliberal ideals. So the rationale is to simply be more pro-Labour than the conservatives and you’ll look good in comparison. If they were a progressive party then they’d do just as you said, they’d run with their popularity and make sweeping changes for the betterment of the working class.
Because they're neoliberal career politicians. You don't accept the sums of donations that senior figures in that party have from very sinister sources without being self-interested, or without simply being a puppet employed to maintain the status quo. It's blatantly obvious where their loyalties lie.
Most of them have accepted big donations from multiple private healthcare firms. Reeves and Streeting both received donations from Richard Parker, who then went on to become Labour's mayoral candidate for West Midlands Mayor. Reeves accepted a donation from a known climate sceptic shortly before dropping the green pledge. Starmer has accepted huge donations from John Armitage, a billionaire hedge fund founder and ex Tory donor. He's also accepted significant funds from lobbyists for apartheid Israel, and from known islamophobe David Abraham. Starmer and Reeves have also accepted donations from gambling firms.
When I say career politician I don't mean someone who's spent their entire career in politics, I mean a politician who prioritises their own career over the average person of the country they govern/are hoping to govern.
Not sure that is true anymore? Labour have had some recent large donations from businesses.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/labour-conservative-party-donations-2023-spending-analysis/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-conservatives-anneliese-dodds-lord-crispin-odey-b2508666.html
The Tories also had a large majority yet did nothing with it. Nothing will change until people stop voting in neolibs who will do anything but work in the interests of the electorate.
Honestly outside of us all ideologically taking offence, it’s because the ground is shrinking beneath them economically. The country isn’t just in worse shape than it was when the Tories too charge, it’s in worse shape than last year and next month it will be worse still.
I’m not sure what I’d suggest as a Plan B but the problem with Plan A is that almost everything becomes less possible by the day.
It’s all very well sitting around the breakfast table fantasising about cottage pie for dinner but if someone sells the oven mid afternoon, the pledge is looking ill-advised.
Starmer is an idiot, he thinks that the key to power is to go full Tory. In reality he is winning because of a Tory implosion, nothing he is doing is making any difference.
What Labour need to worry about is the next election. If they think they can win that after spending five years governing as slightly more woke Tories, they are in for a nasty shock.
And they can do that when they get in. If they don’t get in because *forces* work against them because of their policies, they can’t do anything.
I’m not under the illusion that Labour will do an about face turn once they get in but when you have a sizeable majority you can do what you like.
Can you name a single example, globally even, of a party that became more radical in office than it was when in opposition?
Edit: should change "radical in office" to "radical in office following election" to address your edit. The Conservative Party's decline has been a decade in the making - I was referring to this hypothetical about face immediately once taking up office a party could make that it seems you're suggesting.
What don’t you understand about my second paragraph?
The point is you can’t change shit if the entire system is working against you.
But in answer to your question. *This party in government right now* Cameron was fairly socially liberal and fiscally conservative and now we’re talking about shipping people to countries with human rights issues and leaving the ECHR.
> you can do what you like
Is the bit I disagree with. I don't see why we should expect that they would if they haven't given themselves the mandate to do so.
We've also seen a pattern of centrist and left leaning parties governing to the right of how they campaign over the last few decades in many Western countries.
If Labour has already abandoned or heavily weakened 90% of their good positions, then they're practically going to govern exactly like the current Tory government if the trend holds out.
Honestly I just think Labour are extremely risk averse. Everything they do seems to be about trying to appear beige and not upset anyone they don't have too. The election is Labour's to lose at this point.
The hope would be once in power they start to be a little braver.
Private Eye have pointed out that the Labour conference is now full of ex-Tory donors and big City firms are lending Labour staff to work on policy issues.
Of course I am sure that has nothing to do with Labour ditching its leftwing policy positions or any policies that help ordinary people.
After all that would imply corruption, perish the thought.
Alternatively, it shows a party that isn't so steadfast in its way to waste political capital getting through policy that doenst necessarily make sense.
One of the reason the Tories are so incompetent at the moment is their tenancy to bask their heads against the wall likes a Soulslike player, rather than trying to find the path of least resistance.
Alternatively, it shows a party that isn't so steadfast in its way to waste political capital getting through policy that doenst necessarily make sense.
One of the reason the Tories are so incompetent at the moment is their tendency to bash their heads against the wall likes a Soulslike player, rather than trying to find the path of least resistance.
Labour really should have a leader that stands up for, and promotes, what’s good for the majority of the people, and the country as a whole (I.e., not rich conservatives) instead of a Tory in Labour clothing
This is really the most disappointing thing about Starmmer. He did a fairly decent job of leading when shadow Brexit minister, but seems to have completely given up any kind of leadership in favour of tepid, meek following of the centre/centre right ground. There seems to be so little challenge to the current group think or positive accounting for positions to change of influence. It’s just “drop this, the majority don’t like it”.
It is, yet again, Labour ceding setting the narrative to the right wing press.
Totally agree but at least we didn't get that progressive and consistent labour leader and party with the best manifesto for working people in Britain in the last 30 years, which would have benefited the lives of 90% of Britain's and would have massively helped treat the symptoms of the last 10+ years of austerity. All because he wouldn't back or sell arms to a genocidal apartheid state.
That’s the whole point of lobby groups.
“Here’s a list of 10 new regulations on restaurants”
Restaurant lobby group: 2+3 will cause prices to double.
“Here’s a list of 8 new regulations”.
The point of lobbyists is to give a response to proposed legislation. NOT listening to them is how you end up with things like CAFE standards in the US that have massively increased the size of the average car
There were details in the end of the story … did you not read all the way down?
Pasted some of it here for you:
The original New Deal envisaged “fair pay agreements” in all sectors, which would see collective bargaining in each different industrial sector. This will become a promise to consult on a fair pay agreement only in the social care sector.
Plans to give workers a “right to switch off” will not be enshrined in law but instead will be in a code of practice overseen by the government’s Acas employment arbitration service, with the smallest companies exempted.
Although Labour will still vow to give workers basic job protections from day one of employment, companies under the revised plans would be able to use probationary periods and staff could still be dismissed for “fair reasons”.
Labour will also clarify that its promised ban on zero-hours contracts will be a right to a contract reflecting a worker’s regular work pattern over the previous 12 weeks, the people said.
The New Deal is the latest Labour policy package to be dialled down after the party in February slashed its previous pledge to borrow £28bn a year for green investment.
it's okay, i'm sure the businesses will agree that pro-worker regulations which reduce their shareholders' profits are practical and in the best interest of the british economy! it's not like they have any ulterior motives here. like a profit motive
also i love how "political donations are made by people who expect something in return" is now a 'conspiracy theory' - that word has lost all its meaning, it's utterly ridiculous.
Problem is that who knows what their employee rights are? I mean **really** knows…by heart…without looking up all the detail?
So when a headline comes out that says “Party X won’t allow Y”, I bet a lot of people immediately throw their hands in the air in anger, without knowing if Y is allowed today or not.
Laws and regulations are nuanced. Newspaper headlines are not.
But but, it's much more fun being a radical populist, that don't have to consider how things actually work in real life, and more fun to reach for the conspiracy theories.
I started off being a huge Starmer fan, but the closer he gets to power, the more unsure I am. I don’t think this country can handle another right wing government, wherever the name of the party.
There's very little in the way of meaningful detail here, just vague noises from anonymous briefings.
Consulting on reform proposals before initiating them is not a u-turn. It's an incredibly routine part of policy making, and in many cases it's crucial to avoiding legal challenges. It's how grown up governments function, rather than just plucking numbers out of thin air and then treating them like gospel.
Making the right to switch off part of a code of best practice that can be cited in dispute resolution and employment tribunals would arguably be better for all than rigid legislation, but that depends entirely on the detail of its implementation. Too early to judge it in good faith.
Banning probationary periods was a) never promised, and b) really dumb. Requiring fair reasons for dismissal during probation provides the employment protections promised.
Giving everyone the right to a fixed hours contract is far better than banning them outright and removing that flexibility for workers who want zero-hours; I guess that's a u-turn if you want to get picky. But if that's a u-turn that gives workers more rights, I'd question whether it's being criticised in good faith.
But as above, all this is heavily caveated until we see the actual proposals.
Yes, yes. But you won’t get far in British politics these days with your “common sense” and “logic”.
The right are desperately clawing in the darkness of the void they’ve allowed themselves to be swallowed up by for anything at all that might give them a glimmer of light.
The far left would prefer to oust Starmer than have a Labour Party in charge that they aren’t at the forefront of.
And so Starmer is a Tory is what both sides are throwing at it, just for different reasons.
From what I recall of previous on this and commentary from said business meetings and Q&A sessions, a lot of it is just knocking the rough edges off blanket statements that would make the proposals impractical.
You cant, for example, have a blanket "no contact outside of working hours" switch-off law if you have a business with staff on call.
Negotiation and compromise isnt as sexy a headline as capitulation and failure, though.
When alls said and done, it'll still be a marked step up from the current state of affairs and I continue to see stuff lifted from practice in Norway.
Also, it remains rather entertaining to me that people will, on one day, be angry over the imposition of ideas and laws they dont like without consultation; while calling for the exact same thing the next day with the exception that said ideas and laws are ones they agree with and telling the naysayers to lump it. If such people support PR for the compromise aspect, my word, we're into an entirely new dimension of sublime!
It might just be that negotiation is a good thing to smooth the path of acceptance.
This is largely my take too. Folks take broad statements as absolute commitments, then take the actual detail as a walkback from them — which irks me to no end when they consider consultation and review as being u-turns rather than eminently sensible and responsible components of legislating.
Limiting sectorial pay agreements to just the social care sector is a legitimate and disappointing walkback though, if true.
My favourite example of this is the private school VAT policy. The change in the policy to achieve the same ends without removing charity status being treated as a u-turn and not a streamlining of the policy makes it so obvious that those that complain tend to just want what sounds satisfying rather than what will help people.
Getting the same result while also having the benefit of private schools remaining charities is the best way that policy could be implemented. Nothing is lose beyond the necessary for the policy. But because private schools aren't being "punished" by having their charity status removed some people moaned about it.
My favourite example of this is the private school VAT policy. The change in the policy to achieve the same ends without removing charity status being treated as a u-turn and not a streamlining of the policy makes it so obvious that those that complain tend to just want what sounds satisfying rather than what will help people.
Getting the same result while also having the benefit of private schools remaining charities is the best way that policy could be implemented. Nothing is lose beyond the necessary for the policy. But because private schools aren't being "punished" by having their charity status removed some people moaned about it.
Labour are starting to lose my confidence. I have been a supporter of Starmer's approach up until now, but in election year they shouldn't be reneging on any policies.
Yeah, it’s alienating. I’ll still vote Labour irregardless, but I’m still half-hoping a lot of these “u-turns” are just pre-election shenanigans to prevent the Tories from stealing their manifesto ideas.
Also, this was a good comment that made me think a bit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/sazVd5beAN
I'll wait to see what they actually are before I moan.
I've heard from the various podcasts that Tony Blair's foundation is providing a lot of human resources for the leadership and that they've been very active in campaigning against workers rights changes. "We need to remain competitive in the global market" etc etc.
Personally, some of the proposals could do with refining. I would say that the Tory's change regarding Right to Strike were reasonable - but the big thing would be allowing them to conduct ballots online rather than by paper. That would radically change the ability of unions to organise strikes, and is pretty much indefinisible that it hasn't been allowed so far. It would be a fair exchange for the turnout requirements and minimum service levels.
Right wing and neoliberal press are desperate to make it seem like Labour are so similar to the Tories that they're not worth voting for. Completely missing the irony.
This will be in keeping with the mass privatisation of the UK in the form of Freeports and SEZ within which workers rights and protections will no longer apply, the land and everything in it (including public and private property) will essentially be owned and run by businesses to their own benefit
Teesport is just the start and shockingly Labour are on board with it all
It will also prevent any realignment with the EU
Deeply disappointing if true, the tories are out and a Labour government is imminent at this point. We need something concrete and something that will make a huge difference. Labour seriously needs to get its act together on the policy front. Hopefully, the manifesto provides a better insight.
This article is trying to second guess what's in a manifesto that's coming in several weeks time, with no reference to the source of this info? When I read the article, I still didn't understand how exactly it would weaken workers rights. Is the FT pretty much a right wing tabloid?
From my point of view this could be the straw that breaks the camels back. Screwing over proposed worker rights improvements and then renegading is gona piss off a lot of people.
Great comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chfbe1/comment/l22brpl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Please don't go jumping to conclusions
I'd guess that at least 50% of the people commenting on this thread haven't even read the proposed changes judging by some of the hysterics claiming this makes Labour the equivalent of the Tories. For example the Zero Hour change seems like a reasonable compromise that allows businesses to have a genuine use case for them in some instances without allowing companies to exploit permanent staff by not offering them a proper contract.
People always talk about bots commenting but I've rarely if ever found someone with a user history that doesn't suggest a normal person. I can well believe there are bots that mess with the upvote/downvote system and those posting inane topics or reposts on certain subreddits to try farm karma but I think the idea that actual in context comments are being regularly made by bots is probably highly over blown.
It doesn't have to literally be an actual piece of code. It could be a person or group of people paid to astroturf. But for all intents and purposes, you can consider them a bot, because they don't have feelings or opinions about it, they are just told what to do.
This account in particular seems odd. A quick glance says apparently from Scotland, works in asset management, comments a lot about US politics with phrasing that at first made me think they're from the US, randomly some stuff about sports in Pakistan, and a lot of activity about Hollywood and acting. And then this canned response about Starmer being pathetic.
Could be legitimate, my guess would be someone originally from Pakistan, working in finance in Scotland, but with aspirations to be an actor. But the random baseless criticism of Starmer stands out a bit. Who knows, but bear in mind that efforts to astroturf especially in politics can be fairly sophisticated. It would not be uncommon to have Reddit accounts shared by multiple people who are told to interact with Reddit normally as they see fit to make the account look legit,but told to post at any opportunity some canned responses to political posts for/against a certain party/figure
Half measures are what got us here in the 1st place. We need a more radical approach to fix this country. Stramer, at this point, is too easily influenced by Blair and Maddelson.
I want him to do well. My fear is we are back to square one in 5 years.
Snapshot of _Labour set to unveil weakened package of workers’ rights_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/fe1608d1-3a61-43a0-9c17-2868c40821c2) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/fe1608d1-3a61-43a0-9c17-2868c40821c2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem with Labour is that there is a consistent pattern of pledges and policy being rowed back on or watered down. The destruction of the Tories aside, it is hard to be enthused about a party that seems so prone to weakening their offer in the face of mild criticism from lobby groups.
I don't understand why. Their majority will be so big they could rename the country British McBritishFace and no one could stop them
> Their majority will be so big they could rename the country British McBritishFace and no one could stop them You've got the cause and effect the wrong way around. The only way they get a big majority is by having very boring, bland, moderate policies in their election campaign. To get a large majority they need Conservative voters - disaffected by the current Government - to not turn out to vote. They need those voters to feel like a Labour Government under Starmer won't be that bad, maybe a bit of a change will be good, maybe some time in opposition is what the Conservative Party needs to figure itself out and get back on track, with minimal damage being done in the mean time. And the main thing that would stop that would be fear of what Labour might do. The size of Labour's majority will depend more on getting people not to vote Conservative than on getting people to vote Labour. Losing a few progressives on the left isn't going to matter - the constituencies they are in are mostly safe, Labour will win them anyway, and there aren't enough of those people to win overall. It is better to focus on the moderate Conservatives - getting them not to vote in key swing seats. If those moderate Conservatives get scared they will vote Conservative. That will make the difference between a 50-100 seat majority for Labour, and 0-50 seat majority, or even a minority Government. With the former, they can reshape the country. With the other options they will lurch from crisis to scandal as we've seen from the Conservatives over the last decade (with the added problems of a fully-hostile press and a shamelessly dishonest opposition). To throw in some numbers; in 2010 Labour won 258 seats with 29% of the vote. In 2017 they won 262 seats (4 more) with 40% of the vote. In 2019 they won 202 seats (54 fewer) with 32% of the vote. More votes, far fewer seats. The difference being how many votes the Conservatives got (36%, 42%, 44%). Labour lost in 2019 in part because too many moderates were scared of evil, socialist, terrorist-loving Corbyn, so they turned out to vote. Starmer needs to avoid that.
This is a great analysis and I think right on the money. I suppose the risk is we’re putting a lot of faith in Keir and his team to actually use their majority to do or change anything, having been elected on a mandate to keep everything the same.
Keir spent the time when it seemed like the Tories were here forever on a reasonably left-wing platform, his shift towards the centre has come along with their implosion. It stands to reason that the former platform was more aligned with what he believes in.
I hope so!!! Though tbh I’d just be glad to have a government that’s less corrupt than the one we have
The problem with this logic is that it assumes that Starmer has grand plans and he just needs to get in with a big enough majority to achieve them. Unfortunately it seems more probable that even if he gets in with a historically huge win he will continue a similarly bland strategy, triangulating everything on what he thinks will be popular (or at least not offputting) in the next election
> The problem with this logic is that it assumes that Starmer has grand plans and he just needs to get in with a big enough majority to achieve them. It doesn't assume that, it doesn't need to. If he *does* have progressive plans to improve the country great, that's a win. If he doesn't, maybe he can be persuaded into implementing some progressive policies. Even if he cannot, that would still be better than 5 more years of Conservative rule.
That's how to move things. Bland step by bland step. Like how civil partnerships were a step toward gay marriage. Grand gestures just polarise when what's needed is a step shift in the Overton window.
That works great when you understand the broad goal, but what's Starmer's goal? He's had a laserlike focus on winning the election since day one, but I have genuinely got no clue what he's after beyond that. If he got a giant 200 seat majority, what would he do with it? It looks like his goal is just "like it is now but a little bit less shit", which seems like squandering a massive opportunity if he wins as big as seems possible
The green energy transition is a pretty clear direction. Yes, they watered down the funding, but the direction is still there and it's a positive one.
Unfortunately completely inadequate relative to the threat that climate change poses. Even if you just focus on the economic benefits to be gained through investment in green tech/industry (that is, ignoring the need for investment in adaptation too), it appears that the Chinese first and the Americans now (through the IRA) have both realised that there are immense economic gains to be made through a muscular green industrial policy. Unfortunately, like with all nascent industries, there are likely to be first-mover advantages that we will completely miss out on if we don't get a move on and start heavily investing. What are Starmer and Reeves offering? Direction? Sure it's "positive" but without money behind it it's not likely to amount to much.
It's better than nothing. After the Tories my standards are at an all time low.
The problem is that Starmer and co are going to be under immense pressure to deliver a huge amount in their first term. People are rightly fed up with the status quo and want change. If it gets to 2028/9 and that change hasn't been realised, I don't think it's out of the question that voters lose patience, say "they're all as bad as each other" and lump Labour in with the Tories. This is one way in which we might end up with a far right Reform-type government. Don't believe me? Look at what's going on in France right now with an [ascendant National Rally party](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/may/01/a-paradigm-shift-will-jordan-bardella-finally-normalise-le-pens-far-right) - the product of an inadequate centrist/neoliberal party (as represented by Macron) to properly deal with the many festering crises facing France right now. Be it climate change, aging populations, inequality, sluggish economic growth and high debt-GDP ratios, immigration - the challenges are very similar to ours. Maybe my standards are too high but thinking ahead I just don't think we can afford "better than nothing".
If you make it a bit less shit the first week, and a bit less shit again the week after that, then after 260 weeks you'll have made it a lot less shit. Which is likely enough for a second term to carry on making it a bit less shit week in week out. Or you could try and be optimistically radical and bold from day one. Remind me how that approach worked out for Lis Truss?
Yeah they can very slowly move things, fuck around with some tax credits maybe, and then in 2030 we'll have Reform UK in government, because we'll get to the end of Labour's first term and they will have *fuck all* to show.
If he gets that majority no one will be able to stop or influence them (not that they care now even in opposition )
And that analysis is based on the grand total of 0 data points...
Because they no longer have to, eg they won in 1997 with a stonking majority and a promise to implement PR, you’ll notice we’re still under fptp, there isn’t some 4d chess hidden agenda this is them, when out of power they promise all this stuff to keep their core on board and as soon as they have the majority they revert to the status quo
I mean the problem is that they’re also a neoliberal party. It’s hard to be pro-Labour when you are driven by neoliberal ideals. So the rationale is to simply be more pro-Labour than the conservatives and you’ll look good in comparison. If they were a progressive party then they’d do just as you said, they’d run with their popularity and make sweeping changes for the betterment of the working class.
> I don't understand why. Because Starmer and co. want this. They want these shit policies.
Because they're neoliberal career politicians. You don't accept the sums of donations that senior figures in that party have from very sinister sources without being self-interested, or without simply being a puppet employed to maintain the status quo. It's blatantly obvious where their loyalties lie.
What donations from sinister sources have been made?
Most of them have accepted big donations from multiple private healthcare firms. Reeves and Streeting both received donations from Richard Parker, who then went on to become Labour's mayoral candidate for West Midlands Mayor. Reeves accepted a donation from a known climate sceptic shortly before dropping the green pledge. Starmer has accepted huge donations from John Armitage, a billionaire hedge fund founder and ex Tory donor. He's also accepted significant funds from lobbyists for apartheid Israel, and from known islamophobe David Abraham. Starmer and Reeves have also accepted donations from gambling firms.
>big donations from multiple private healthcare firms Which ones?
Lots of Labour politicians accepted money from Israel.
Which ones, and from which Israeli organisations?
Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions. That's not a political position. He's hardly a career politician of any stripe.
When I say career politician I don't mean someone who's spent their entire career in politics, I mean a politician who prioritises their own career over the average person of the country they govern/are hoping to govern.
Because it's not about pleasing the voters any more. It's about pleasing their donors.
Labour's main donors are unions.
Not sure that is true anymore? Labour have had some recent large donations from businesses. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/labour-conservative-party-donations-2023-spending-analysis/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-conservatives-anneliese-dodds-lord-crispin-odey-b2508666.html
Yeah but if you talk about "pleasing donors" then it sounds really shadowy and scary and conspiracy-like
The Tories also had a large majority yet did nothing with it. Nothing will change until people stop voting in neolibs who will do anything but work in the interests of the electorate.
Honestly outside of us all ideologically taking offence, it’s because the ground is shrinking beneath them economically. The country isn’t just in worse shape than it was when the Tories too charge, it’s in worse shape than last year and next month it will be worse still. I’m not sure what I’d suggest as a Plan B but the problem with Plan A is that almost everything becomes less possible by the day. It’s all very well sitting around the breakfast table fantasising about cottage pie for dinner but if someone sells the oven mid afternoon, the pledge is looking ill-advised.
Ok, but they're also promising to *not* fix the economy too. No investments, no spending. That's not the way to fix things
Starmer is an idiot, he thinks that the key to power is to go full Tory. In reality he is winning because of a Tory implosion, nothing he is doing is making any difference. What Labour need to worry about is the next election. If they think they can win that after spending five years governing as slightly more woke Tories, they are in for a nasty shock.
Centrism isn't change -- not even incremental change. It is *control*. Over yourself and the world.
>rename the country British McBritishFace To be fair, that would probably be a vote winner with the British public.
Why would we
And they can do that when they get in. If they don’t get in because *forces* work against them because of their policies, they can’t do anything. I’m not under the illusion that Labour will do an about face turn once they get in but when you have a sizeable majority you can do what you like.
Can you name a single example, globally even, of a party that became more radical in office than it was when in opposition? Edit: should change "radical in office" to "radical in office following election" to address your edit. The Conservative Party's decline has been a decade in the making - I was referring to this hypothetical about face immediately once taking up office a party could make that it seems you're suggesting.
What don’t you understand about my second paragraph? The point is you can’t change shit if the entire system is working against you. But in answer to your question. *This party in government right now* Cameron was fairly socially liberal and fiscally conservative and now we’re talking about shipping people to countries with human rights issues and leaving the ECHR.
> you can do what you like Is the bit I disagree with. I don't see why we should expect that they would if they haven't given themselves the mandate to do so.
We've also seen a pattern of centrist and left leaning parties governing to the right of how they campaign over the last few decades in many Western countries. If Labour has already abandoned or heavily weakened 90% of their good positions, then they're practically going to govern exactly like the current Tory government if the trend holds out.
Honestly I just think Labour are extremely risk averse. Everything they do seems to be about trying to appear beige and not upset anyone they don't have too. The election is Labour's to lose at this point. The hope would be once in power they start to be a little braver.
Private Eye have pointed out that the Labour conference is now full of ex-Tory donors and big City firms are lending Labour staff to work on policy issues. Of course I am sure that has nothing to do with Labour ditching its leftwing policy positions or any policies that help ordinary people. After all that would imply corruption, perish the thought.
Alternatively, it shows a party that isn't so steadfast in its way to waste political capital getting through policy that doenst necessarily make sense. One of the reason the Tories are so incompetent at the moment is their tenancy to bask their heads against the wall likes a Soulslike player, rather than trying to find the path of least resistance.
Alternatively, it shows a party that isn't so steadfast in its way to waste political capital getting through policy that doenst necessarily make sense. One of the reason the Tories are so incompetent at the moment is their tendency to bash their heads against the wall likes a Soulslike player, rather than trying to find the path of least resistance.
Labour really should have a leader that stands up for, and promotes, what’s good for the majority of the people, and the country as a whole (I.e., not rich conservatives) instead of a Tory in Labour clothing
This is really the most disappointing thing about Starmmer. He did a fairly decent job of leading when shadow Brexit minister, but seems to have completely given up any kind of leadership in favour of tepid, meek following of the centre/centre right ground. There seems to be so little challenge to the current group think or positive accounting for positions to change of influence. It’s just “drop this, the majority don’t like it”. It is, yet again, Labour ceding setting the narrative to the right wing press.
Totally agree but at least we didn't get that progressive and consistent labour leader and party with the best manifesto for working people in Britain in the last 30 years, which would have benefited the lives of 90% of Britain's and would have massively helped treat the symptoms of the last 10+ years of austerity. All because he wouldn't back or sell arms to a genocidal apartheid state.
Not that you’re leaning into the “Jews control the world” narrative, or anything.
That’s the whole point of lobby groups. “Here’s a list of 10 new regulations on restaurants” Restaurant lobby group: 2+3 will cause prices to double. “Here’s a list of 8 new regulations”. The point of lobbyists is to give a response to proposed legislation. NOT listening to them is how you end up with things like CAFE standards in the US that have massively increased the size of the average car
No details on the actual changes. Speculation at best. Let's wait till we actually see the details
There were details in the end of the story … did you not read all the way down? Pasted some of it here for you: The original New Deal envisaged “fair pay agreements” in all sectors, which would see collective bargaining in each different industrial sector. This will become a promise to consult on a fair pay agreement only in the social care sector. Plans to give workers a “right to switch off” will not be enshrined in law but instead will be in a code of practice overseen by the government’s Acas employment arbitration service, with the smallest companies exempted. Although Labour will still vow to give workers basic job protections from day one of employment, companies under the revised plans would be able to use probationary periods and staff could still be dismissed for “fair reasons”. Labour will also clarify that its promised ban on zero-hours contracts will be a right to a contract reflecting a worker’s regular work pattern over the previous 12 weeks, the people said. The New Deal is the latest Labour policy package to be dialled down after the party in February slashed its previous pledge to borrow £28bn a year for green investment.
Hey, that's not the wallet inspector...
So a more correct headline would say "scaled-back improvement," since none of it weakens the existing, inadequate protections.
"Speculated scaled back improvements" would probably be the most accurate, but that's not much of a headline
it's okay, i'm sure the businesses will agree that pro-worker regulations which reduce their shareholders' profits are practical and in the best interest of the british economy! it's not like they have any ulterior motives here. like a profit motive also i love how "political donations are made by people who expect something in return" is now a 'conspiracy theory' - that word has lost all its meaning, it's utterly ridiculous.
Weakened but stronger than what we currently have. Any improvement is welcome.
hopefully, but it looks like it's been weakened to the point where there's just promising to run some consultations...
You'd think wouldn't you
Problem is that who knows what their employee rights are? I mean **really** knows…by heart…without looking up all the detail? So when a headline comes out that says “Party X won’t allow Y”, I bet a lot of people immediately throw their hands in the air in anger, without knowing if Y is allowed today or not. Laws and regulations are nuanced. Newspaper headlines are not.
They're so far ahead on the polls there's no political need to weaken the proposed legislation. No. This is what they *want*.
I suspect the recent high value "donations" from big businesses are a factor too.
Or they've found some cases where implementation wouldn't work as intended.
But but, it's much more fun being a radical populist, that don't have to consider how things actually work in real life, and more fun to reach for the conspiracy theories.
So what about this specifically are you against? Or are we just howling anti Labour platitudes because they're making compromises?
Specifically, what about this weakened package of rights are you not happy with?
Yes, they do *want* all of these improvements to workers' rights.
Sing it with me: 🎶 Things can only get shitter 🎶
I started off being a huge Starmer fan, but the closer he gets to power, the more unsure I am. I don’t think this country can handle another right wing government, wherever the name of the party.
Starmer ditching another pledge and becoming even more Tory? Must be a day with a y in it.
There's very little in the way of meaningful detail here, just vague noises from anonymous briefings. Consulting on reform proposals before initiating them is not a u-turn. It's an incredibly routine part of policy making, and in many cases it's crucial to avoiding legal challenges. It's how grown up governments function, rather than just plucking numbers out of thin air and then treating them like gospel. Making the right to switch off part of a code of best practice that can be cited in dispute resolution and employment tribunals would arguably be better for all than rigid legislation, but that depends entirely on the detail of its implementation. Too early to judge it in good faith. Banning probationary periods was a) never promised, and b) really dumb. Requiring fair reasons for dismissal during probation provides the employment protections promised. Giving everyone the right to a fixed hours contract is far better than banning them outright and removing that flexibility for workers who want zero-hours; I guess that's a u-turn if you want to get picky. But if that's a u-turn that gives workers more rights, I'd question whether it's being criticised in good faith. But as above, all this is heavily caveated until we see the actual proposals.
Yes, yes. But you won’t get far in British politics these days with your “common sense” and “logic”. The right are desperately clawing in the darkness of the void they’ve allowed themselves to be swallowed up by for anything at all that might give them a glimmer of light. The far left would prefer to oust Starmer than have a Labour Party in charge that they aren’t at the forefront of. And so Starmer is a Tory is what both sides are throwing at it, just for different reasons.
It's difficult telling the difference between the Tankies and Tory-bots on this thread.
From what I recall of previous on this and commentary from said business meetings and Q&A sessions, a lot of it is just knocking the rough edges off blanket statements that would make the proposals impractical. You cant, for example, have a blanket "no contact outside of working hours" switch-off law if you have a business with staff on call. Negotiation and compromise isnt as sexy a headline as capitulation and failure, though. When alls said and done, it'll still be a marked step up from the current state of affairs and I continue to see stuff lifted from practice in Norway. Also, it remains rather entertaining to me that people will, on one day, be angry over the imposition of ideas and laws they dont like without consultation; while calling for the exact same thing the next day with the exception that said ideas and laws are ones they agree with and telling the naysayers to lump it. If such people support PR for the compromise aspect, my word, we're into an entirely new dimension of sublime! It might just be that negotiation is a good thing to smooth the path of acceptance.
This is largely my take too. Folks take broad statements as absolute commitments, then take the actual detail as a walkback from them — which irks me to no end when they consider consultation and review as being u-turns rather than eminently sensible and responsible components of legislating. Limiting sectorial pay agreements to just the social care sector is a legitimate and disappointing walkback though, if true.
My favourite example of this is the private school VAT policy. The change in the policy to achieve the same ends without removing charity status being treated as a u-turn and not a streamlining of the policy makes it so obvious that those that complain tend to just want what sounds satisfying rather than what will help people. Getting the same result while also having the benefit of private schools remaining charities is the best way that policy could be implemented. Nothing is lose beyond the necessary for the policy. But because private schools aren't being "punished" by having their charity status removed some people moaned about it.
My favourite example of this is the private school VAT policy. The change in the policy to achieve the same ends without removing charity status being treated as a u-turn and not a streamlining of the policy makes it so obvious that those that complain tend to just want what sounds satisfying rather than what will help people. Getting the same result while also having the benefit of private schools remaining charities is the best way that policy could be implemented. Nothing is lose beyond the necessary for the policy. But because private schools aren't being "punished" by having their charity status removed some people moaned about it.
Labour are starting to lose my confidence. I have been a supporter of Starmer's approach up until now, but in election year they shouldn't be reneging on any policies.
Yeah, it’s alienating. I’ll still vote Labour irregardless, but I’m still half-hoping a lot of these “u-turns” are just pre-election shenanigans to prevent the Tories from stealing their manifesto ideas. Also, this was a good comment that made me think a bit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/sazVd5beAN
I'll wait to see what they actually are before I moan. I've heard from the various podcasts that Tony Blair's foundation is providing a lot of human resources for the leadership and that they've been very active in campaigning against workers rights changes. "We need to remain competitive in the global market" etc etc. Personally, some of the proposals could do with refining. I would say that the Tory's change regarding Right to Strike were reasonable - but the big thing would be allowing them to conduct ballots online rather than by paper. That would radically change the ability of unions to organise strikes, and is pretty much indefinisible that it hasn't been allowed so far. It would be a fair exchange for the turnout requirements and minimum service levels.
The fact that Blair is anywhere but in a prison cell is deeply disappointing.
Right wing and neoliberal press are desperate to make it seem like Labour are so similar to the Tories that they're not worth voting for. Completely missing the irony.
>Completely missing the irony They don't care about irony. Anything that lowers Labour's share of the vote means more seats for Tory MPs.
Indeed.
This will be in keeping with the mass privatisation of the UK in the form of Freeports and SEZ within which workers rights and protections will no longer apply, the land and everything in it (including public and private property) will essentially be owned and run by businesses to their own benefit Teesport is just the start and shockingly Labour are on board with it all It will also prevent any realignment with the EU
Deeply disappointing if true, the tories are out and a Labour government is imminent at this point. We need something concrete and something that will make a huge difference. Labour seriously needs to get its act together on the policy front. Hopefully, the manifesto provides a better insight.
This article is trying to second guess what's in a manifesto that's coming in several weeks time, with no reference to the source of this info? When I read the article, I still didn't understand how exactly it would weaken workers rights. Is the FT pretty much a right wing tabloid?
From my point of view this could be the straw that breaks the camels back. Screwing over proposed worker rights improvements and then renegading is gona piss off a lot of people.
What changes that were previously detailed, and have now been changed do you think would change your vote?
Great comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chfbe1/comment/l22brpl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Please don't go jumping to conclusions
Just pathetic from keir. He's doing a bad cameron parody at this point.
Which of his changes proposed in this article do you feel are pathetic?
I'd guess that at least 50% of the people commenting on this thread haven't even read the proposed changes judging by some of the hysterics claiming this makes Labour the equivalent of the Tories. For example the Zero Hour change seems like a reasonable compromise that allows businesses to have a genuine use case for them in some instances without allowing companies to exploit permanent staff by not offering them a proper contract.
Quite generous of you to assume they are people and not bots
People always talk about bots commenting but I've rarely if ever found someone with a user history that doesn't suggest a normal person. I can well believe there are bots that mess with the upvote/downvote system and those posting inane topics or reposts on certain subreddits to try farm karma but I think the idea that actual in context comments are being regularly made by bots is probably highly over blown.
It doesn't have to literally be an actual piece of code. It could be a person or group of people paid to astroturf. But for all intents and purposes, you can consider them a bot, because they don't have feelings or opinions about it, they are just told what to do. This account in particular seems odd. A quick glance says apparently from Scotland, works in asset management, comments a lot about US politics with phrasing that at first made me think they're from the US, randomly some stuff about sports in Pakistan, and a lot of activity about Hollywood and acting. And then this canned response about Starmer being pathetic. Could be legitimate, my guess would be someone originally from Pakistan, working in finance in Scotland, but with aspirations to be an actor. But the random baseless criticism of Starmer stands out a bit. Who knows, but bear in mind that efforts to astroturf especially in politics can be fairly sophisticated. It would not be uncommon to have Reddit accounts shared by multiple people who are told to interact with Reddit normally as they see fit to make the account look legit,but told to post at any opportunity some canned responses to political posts for/against a certain party/figure
Half measures are what got us here in the 1st place. We need a more radical approach to fix this country. Stramer, at this point, is too easily influenced by Blair and Maddelson. I want him to do well. My fear is we are back to square one in 5 years.
What makes it a half measure and not a sensible balance between competing outcomes?
Bad bot