Labour sacks shadow transport minister who backed strikes.

I see no attempt to discuss politics as I was told I never do. Just another rant about the fact that I swear (naughty granny!!!) and I condemn Starmer because he lied.
I really have no idea what your political beliefs are DaisyAnne. Mine are pretty simple.
I don't think anyone should be making millions from poor people who can't afford to heat their houses, so I support non-profit making public ownership.
I think food, clean water, heat and a decent place to live are the very least any civilised society should provide for its citizens.
I think health care should be provided by the NHS and not by private companies who can only be in it to make profits.
I think the railways should be owned by the British people and not be paying profits into other countries.
I think Trade Unions are fighting a battle against a system which we thought we had seen the last of in the 1930s. That is no job security, temporary and agency workers, paid the absolute minimum, and zero hours contracts the norm. I think they need to be able to act to prevent this happening.
I think education needs a huge investment because it has ceased to function properly.
I think a green agenda is vital for our grandchildren.
And these are the policies I expect from a Labour party.
I don't think they are far-left. They are sensible policies which might prevent the steady slide into conditions the Victorians would recognise for poorer people.

What I think Glorianny is that you aren’t for whatever reason able to see the need for a translation of your beliefs into the real world. You don’t listen to, and therefore don’t hear what you perceive as ‘unpure’ views about how to make society fairer.
If you reread just this thread with a more open mind you would see that all the people you are in constant disagreement with want a fairer society too, but are more pragmatic about the means to reach it, realising that the only way forward is through compromise. It’s fine living in your own personal Nirvana, but it is very lonely if nobody else wants to live there.

Casdon

What I think Glorianny is that you aren’t for whatever reason able to see the need for a translation of your beliefs into the real world. You don’t listen to, and therefore don’t hear what you perceive as ‘unpure’ views about how to make society fairer.
If you reread just this thread with a more open mind you would see that all the people you are in constant disagreement with want a fairer society too, but are more pragmatic about the means to reach it, realising that the only way forward is through compromise. It’s fine living in your own personal Nirvana, but it is very lonely if nobody else wants to live there.

There we are again. Criticism of my views but no actual comments about what you would drop or what you want. That's my problem with the "centre left" you simply don't know what they stand for.
Any ideas about what you'd leave out of my "Nirvana" Casdon How would you achieve this fairer society without any of the things I believe in?

Glorianny's idea of a decent society looks pretty normal and achievable to me.

I stand by what I said Glorianny. You don’t listen when people put opposing points of view, even when backed up by facts. You and I had a detailed discussion on this thread about the privatisation of the NHS, and you did not hear anything I said, but kept posting information which didn’t support your case. That is one of the pledges. You haven’t understood my comment about your Nirvana either. The reality is that the majority of the voting public don’t share your means of getting to a fairer society, and you are unable to see that you have to take them with you if you want to achieve any part of your objectives.

Casdon

I stand by what I said Glorianny. You don’t listen when people put opposing points of view, even when backed up by facts. You and I had a detailed discussion on this thread about the privatisation of the NHS, and you did not hear anything I said, but kept posting information which didn’t support your case. That is one of the pledges. You haven’t understood my comment about your Nirvana either. The reality is that the majority of the voting public don’t share your means of getting to a fairer society, and you are unable to see that you have to take them with you if you want to achieve any part of your objectives.

I heard what you said Casdon and posted why I disagreed with it. Which I assume I am entitled to do. I'd willingly listen to any comments about what won't work, what you don't want or indeed what you do want. My earlier post set out clearly what I would want a Labour government to do and what I believe the Labour party should commit to. I don't think anyone can take any of the voting public with them if they don't say clearly what they do want. So I suppose that is something you and Starmer have in common. You never say what you actually want or what you will do. You just tell others they are wrong.

Unite leader Sharon Graham had this to say:

"If I was speaking to Keir right now I would say to him: which side are you on? Because the reality is, if I closed my eyes, sometimes I wouldn't know whether it was the Labour party or the Tories who were speaking.

"This is one of the biggest crises that workers are facing - we are trying to defend them with every fibre of our being and the party who is supposed to be echoing that in parliament is doing the exact opposite.

"I'm very disappointed - aghast, quite frankly - and I think it’s something Labour is going to have to think seriously about."

Glorianny

Casdon

I stand by what I said Glorianny. You don’t listen when people put opposing points of view, even when backed up by facts. You and I had a detailed discussion on this thread about the privatisation of the NHS, and you did not hear anything I said, but kept posting information which didn’t support your case. That is one of the pledges. You haven’t understood my comment about your Nirvana either. The reality is that the majority of the voting public don’t share your means of getting to a fairer society, and you are unable to see that you have to take them with you if you want to achieve any part of your objectives.

I heard what you said Casdon and posted why I disagreed with it. Which I assume I am entitled to do. I'd willingly listen to any comments about what won't work, what you don't want or indeed what you do want. My earlier post set out clearly what I would want a Labour government to do and what I believe the Labour party should commit to. I don't think anyone can take any of the voting public with them if they don't say clearly what they do want. So I suppose that is something you and Starmer have in common. You never say what you actually want or what you will do. You just tell others they are wrong.

No, you didn’t respond at all to my last post regarding the NHS, see the previous page.
Your goal is to discredit Starmer because you think that a new leader will be able to deliver your nirvana pledges. They won’t.

To answer your question, This is what I want
1 A Labour Government in power
2 A Labour Government with an agenda that is deliverable
3 A Labour Government which has the confidence of the public at large
4 A Labour Government with a short term and a long term plan to move towards a fairer society
5 A Labour Government which builds bridges with the EU to free trade and people moving for work, and resolves the Northern Ireland issues
6 A Labour Government which will build business to reduce the impact of the recession, and longer term build a financial recovery
7 A Labour Government which prioritises not for profit for utilities above nationalisation
8 A Labour Government which equalises educational opportunities
9 A Labour Government which rebuilds the NHS and Local Government services to meet demand. If in the short term that means outsourcing or temporary private sector use for elective surgical procedures that’s fine because it reduces the number of people suffering whilst on waiting lists
10 A Labour Government which is not reliant on Union subscription for survival because over reliance on one source of funding means the government is beholden.

These are my thoughts about what I’d like to see as you specifically asked, I’m sure everybody’s are different though so I’m not quite sure what your purpose is.

10 A Labour Government which is not reliant on Union subscription for survival because over reliance on one source of funding means the government is beholden.

Actually Casdon a lot of the Labour party funding before Starmer took over came not from the Unions but from individual members, of course the numbers have fallen now, so the party is more dependant on union funds. Although unions are reducing their funding and/or threatening to withdraw it completely blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-financial-health-of-british-political-parties-what-the-latest-data-tells-us/

I've ever understood why it is OK for rich individuals to donate to a political party, and therefore presumably have influence, but it isn't OK for unions, which are after all made up of working people, to do so.
I can only think it's a form of snobbery or linked to subservience and thinking the upper class should be in charge.

Political parties should be state funded, Glorianny. All they should be allowed to raise is membership fees. The political levy on union members (which is voluntary) could be counted as memberships...

The funding of the tory party is open to corruption, purchasing honours and special access. We have seen this unashamedly in action over the past three years.

The union funding of the LP lays it open to similar accusations.

Not only should parties be state funded but they should also be subjected to greater control in regard to antidemocratic activities, such as targeted 'dark ads'. All communications designed to win voters should be available for all the public to see.

If political parties were state funded, Maizie, would additional fund raising be prohibited?

That would be my choice, varian. Create a completely level playing field.

Of course, there are other ways to limit corruption. An elected second chamber?

No peerages to donors of large amounts of money? No peerages to relatives...

No special access to ministers on payment of a fee...

State funding has always seemed a tempting solution to me Maizie. Does anyone know of a country where that happens?

Peerages should not be bartered, in the way that we do now. If the lower house was an English Parliament and the upper house a revising body for all the UK countries, you could still call them Lord/Lady, etc., as opposed to a senator if that's what the country wanted.

We need to separate them from those getting other honours. They should never be for services to a political party. The Prime Minister should never be able to "stuff" the House of Lords as he appears to be trying to do recently.

My opinion only. I don't know of any work being done on this but that doesn't mean parties aren't.

MaizieD

Political parties should be state funded, Glorianny. All they should be allowed to raise is membership fees. The political levy on union members (which is voluntary) could be counted as memberships...

The funding of the tory party is open to corruption, purchasing honours and special access. We have seen this unashamedly in action over the past three years.

The union funding of the LP lays it open to similar accusations.

Not only should parties be state funded but they should also be subjected to greater control in regard to antidemocratic activities, such as targeted 'dark ads'. All communications designed to win voters should be available for all the public to see.

Interestingly because it has been in opposition the Labour party has received much more state funding than the Conservatives
As such since 2010, Labour have been in receipt of considerable amounts of Short Money (which is money provided by the state to parties not in government). In 2017 Labour’s Short Money return was £7,427,000, as opposed to the Conservatives who received just £562,000 in grants.

DaisyAnne

State funding has always seemed a tempting solution to me Maizie. Does anyone know of a country where that happens?

Peerages should not be bartered, in the way that we do now. If the lower house was an English Parliament and the upper house a revising body for all the UK countries, you could still call them Lord/Lady, etc., as opposed to a senator if that's what the country wanted.

We need to separate them from those getting other honours. They should never be for services to a political party. The Prime Minister should never be able to "stuff" the House of Lords as he appears to be trying to do recently.

My opinion only. I don't know of any work being done on this but that doesn't mean parties aren't.

They said on The rest is politics that neither Gordon Brown or Tony Blair created any peers when they left office ( although I’m sure that Blair did create peers at other times?). I do need to listen to it again, though. Johnson has single handedly destroyed a political system that has evolved over 100’s of years.

Johnson and the Tories haven't totally destroyed our political system Maybee. However, Liz Truss's "promises" give a view into the action they are prepared to take. If she is being 'managed' by the ERG, they will aim to destroy as much of the state workings as they can before the party leaves office. Following what they have already done, this action would make it very difficult for those following them to revive it.

This government has been so much further to the right than what we would previously recognise as Conservative. If you obliterate as much of the "state" that you can, you will later be hailed a hero by those who want to believe in you when you return a minimum. If this were to happen, it wouldn't be unreasonable to suppose that the bit of the "state" returned would not be there to help those who need it most.

In 2020 George Monbiot wrote an article in the Guardian entitled "The Conservatives are shrinking the state – to make room for money and privilege". He wasn't wrong then and it is still happening. They haven't finished with us yet.

Thanks Casdon for keeping going.
We live in a very different society than in the 1930’s. Many young people don’t join unions, even if they work in areas where union membership is traditional.
Mick Lynch is imo rightly popular. Union leaders when I was an active member for over 35 years, often weren’t popular amongst members. They often were seen as extremists who didn’t represent the general membership.
I’d like to see political parties state sponsored

MayBee70

DaisyAnne

State funding has always seemed a tempting solution to me Maizie. Does anyone know of a country where that happens?

Peerages should not be bartered, in the way that we do now. If the lower house was an English Parliament and the upper house a revising body for all the UK countries, you could still call them Lord/Lady, etc., as opposed to a senator if that's what the country wanted.

We need to separate them from those getting other honours. They should never be for services to a political party. The Prime Minister should never be able to "stuff" the House of Lords as he appears to be trying to do recently.

My opinion only. I don't know of any work being done on this but that doesn't mean parties aren't.

They said on The rest is politics that neither Gordon Brown or Tony Blair created any peers when they left office ( although I’m sure that Blair did create peers at other times?). I do need to listen to it again, though. Johnson has single handedly destroyed a political system that has evolved over 100’s of years.

Blair's creation of Labour peers -known as Tony's Cronies was an attempt to rebalance the H of L. The silly thing being if one party can do it so can another- so Cameron created Dave's Fave's. Stuffing the H ofL isn't new but finding a rhyme for Boris's appointments is difficult!

TOP SECRET: Jeremy Corbyn on the Report Mainstream Media Doesn't Want You To Know About

m.youtube.com/watch?v=tglgldqEHpE

I don’t give a flying flamingo about Corbyn. He is no longer the leader of the Labour Party. Leaders that lose elections usually have the decency to lie low for a few years, especially when they give their opposition the biggest majority possible. All Corbyn knows what to do is sit on the back benches and moan about everything. If he had any decency he’d just let Labour get on with winning an election and repairing the damage caused by 12 years of Tory rule.

What win an election with fraud wooden Starmer

Grany

What win an election with fraud wooden Starmer

You really do want another 10 year of the Tories don’t you just to spite people for not voting for Corbyn!

Left wing MPs demand parliament is recalled to address cost of living crisis

A group of left wing parliamentarians have written to Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer and the speakers of both the House of Commons and Lords demanding that parliament is recalled in order to take action to address the cost of living crisis. The group of MPs and peers – which includes former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell – have asked for the parliamentary recess to be broken once Ofgem has announced its revised cap on energy bills on August 26.

What power do they have. Corbyn isn’t even a Labour MP. He handed that power to the Conservative party two years ago.