[Politics] Keir Starmer

[sparkie]

Starmer will be a very, very poor PM who won't fix the UK's problems.

But he'll be a tiny sliver better than the current lot.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So he comes out with Labour’s seemingly first ever ‘policy’ which is to exacerbate the part of the labour shortage caused by Brexit. So we will continue to have veg rotting in the fields unpicked, farmers will plant less as a result and we will import more. Brilliant. The problem is nothing to do with pay but the fact that those ‘unemployed’ Brits don’t want to do the hard graft.
So disappointing. I want Labour to offer something new and to give the country hope for the future. Sounding like the ERG doesn’t cut it for me

Hope for the future - like fair wages to actually live above the poverty line?

Your line that you state as 'fact' right out of the Daily Mail playbook - blame the poor that they don't like hard graft. Meanwhile record profits for supermarkets, energy companies, record dividends paid to share holders. But the fault lies with the unemployed Brits not wanting to pick fruit and veg for min wage that they can barely live on.

Interesting, economies that survive financial turmoil better are the ones where the gap between low and high pay is smaller, so that your poor in your economy have a decent standard of living that retains their input into the economy. The UK and US have both massively increased the gap between the rich and poor and both are paying a heavier economic price than many other countries that have the same consequences of covid, and fuel crisis.

 

[abc]

Hope for the future - like fair wages to actually live above the poverty line?

Your line that you state as 'fact' right out of the Daily Mail playbook - blame the poor that they don't like hard graft. Meanwhile record profits for supermarkets, energy companies, record dividends paid to share holders. But the fault lies with the unemployed Brits not wanting to pick fruit and veg for min wage that they can barely live on.

Interesting, economies that survive financial turmoil better are the ones where the gap between low and high pay is smaller, so that your poor in your economy have a decent standard of living that retains their input into the economy. The UK and US have both massively increased the gap between the rich and poor and both are paying a heavier economic price than many other countries that have the same consequences of covid, and fuel crisis.

Where an earth did I say ‘blame the poor’ ?!

We have exceptionally low unemployment which in my book is a good thing. This leads to increases in wages. Veg pickers can earn considerably more than the minimum wage but the simple reality is that most Brits faced with the prospect of hard physical work in a field vs say working on a office, from home or in a supermarket will avoid the harder graft. Nothing wrong with that and I would do the same. But if we don’t therefore have enough people to pick the veg then we will end up importing more which helps no one and certainly not those on the lowest incomes.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Where an earth did I say ‘blame the poor’ ?!

We have exceptionally low unemployment which in my book is a good thing. This leads to increases in wages. Veg pickers can earn considerably more than the minimum wage but the simple reality is that most Brits faced with the prospect of hard physical work in a field vs say working on a office, from home or in a supermarket will avoid the harder graft. Nothing wrong with that and I would do the same. But if we don’t therefore have enough people to pick the veg then we will end up importing more which helps no one and certainly not those on the lowest incomes.

You stated: 'The problem is nothing to do with pay but the fact that those ‘unemployed’ Brits don’t want to do the hard graft.' I'm not sure where else I was supposed to be reading where you lay the blame?

Problem is, like many positions that skew our employment figures, these are not fixed incomes, they're not guaranteed work for security - because by it's very nature what you have looked at specifically is seasonal - not because there is a great avoidance of hard graft.

 

[sparkie]

So he comes out with Labour’s seemingly first ever ‘policy’ which is to exacerbate the part of the labour shortage caused by Brexit. So we will continue to have veg rotting in the fields unpicked, farmers will plant less as a result and we will import more. Brilliant. The problem is nothing to do with pay but the fact that those ‘unemployed’ Brits don’t want to do the hard graft.
So disappointing. I want Labour to offer something new and to give the country hope for the future. Sounding like the ERG doesn’t cut it for me

I think it is to do with pay.

Plenty would pick crops for, say, £1K per week guaranteed for 48 weeks each year.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think it is to do with pay.

Plenty would pick crops for, say, £1K per week guaranteed for 48 weeks each year.

My starting price for standing in a muddy field in Kent will need to be a more than that.

 

[abc]

You stated: 'The problem is nothing to do with pay but the fact that those ‘unemployed’ Brits don’t want to do the hard graft.' I'm not sure where else I was supposed to be reading where you lay the blame?

Problem is, like many positions that skew our employment figures, these are not fixed incomes, they're not guaranteed work for security - because by it's very nature what you have looked at specifically is seasonal - not because there is a great avoidance of hard graft.

Fair comment re seasonal nature, Therefore logic says we should encourage people who are happy to work seasonally i.e. foreign labour on seasonal only visas. This is all the farming unions are asking for

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Fair comment re seasonal nature, Therefore logic says we should encourage people who are happy to work seasonally i.e. foreign labour on seasonal only visas. This is all the farming unions are asking for

Indeed. And it is beyond the red line of the present government (who are still in thrall to the ERG)

 

[highflyer]

Starmers rhetoric on wages would carry a lot more weight with me if he wasn't so desperately trying to distance hmself and his party (the party of...ummmm 'Labour') from the workers and unions fighting for better pay and conditions.

 

[abc]

Indeed. And it is beyond the red line of the present government (who are still in thrall to the ERG)

Absolutely and now the same appears to apply to Starmer.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Starmers rhetoric on wages would carry a lot more weight with me if he wasn't so desperately trying to distance hmself and his party (the party of...ummmm 'Labour') from the workers and unions fighting for better pay and conditions.

I think it is the right thing to do. One of the reasons we end up with these right wing governments is that many of those who would vote Labour are reluctant to do so for fears unions would hold the country to ransom. Labour needs to show it's ready for governance. I think Starmer has tried to distance the party from industrial action, but not the fundamentals of what unions represent.

 

[abc]

You stated: 'The problem is nothing to do with pay but the fact that those ‘unemployed’ Brits don’t want to do the hard graft.' I'm not sure where else I was supposed to be reading where you lay the blame?

I wasn't 'laying blame' and I'm not sure why you assume that those who are unemployed are 'poor'.

Whilst I acknowledge all economic theory appears to be open to question now, it has always been accepted that c.5% unemployment is 'full employment' ie the % of the population who are unavailable to work (eg financially able not to (and therefore not 'poor), students travelling etc), are unable to work (eg those with particular disabilities), are between jobs, or prefer benefits to working (and whatever your political bias, there will always be people in this category). The fact that our current unemployment rate is below this level indicates that most people who are available for work have a job (though of course there will be regional variation).
Therefore the 'hard graft' jobs have to attract people who currently have 'easier' jobs. Regardless of pay this is unlikely to be an attractive 'ask'. Yes, if a farmer offered £100 000 for a 30 hour week picking cabbages, I am sure some people would consider making the switch. However, the cost of home grown cabbages would go through the roof, the supermarkets wouldn't pay, the farmer would stop growing cabbages, and we would import all of our cabbages from somewhere else with lower pay.

The fact that we have full employment without people having to break their backs in a muddy field is surely something to celebrate. But as we need to produce our own food, why not allow people who want to do this work come in and do it?

This shouldn't be a political battle ground, it just makes sense

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Absolutely and now the same appears to apply to Starmer.

Mmmm.....I don't see it like that. If Starmer is opposed to 'undercutting the British worker' (the sort of talk you get from unions) by inviting in a lot of cheap labour, his end game is not going to be the same as the ERG's. Which of the two do you think favour well paid jobs that attract British workers?

It's all pub talk till after the election, in any case. I am not especially motivated to pick holes in labour's plans presently any more than I'd pick holes in a doctor's CV if I needed medical attention.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Hope for the future - like fair wages to actually live above the poverty line?

Your line that you state as 'fact' right out of the Daily Mail playbook - blame the poor that they don't like hard graft. Meanwhile record profits for supermarkets, energy companies, record dividends paid to share holders. But the fault lies with the unemployed Brits not wanting to pick fruit and veg for min wage that they can barely live on.

Interesting, economies that survive financial turmoil better are the ones where the gap between low and high pay is smaller, so that your poor in your economy have a decent standard of living that retains their input into the economy. The UK and US have both massively increased the gap between the rich and poor and both are paying a heavier economic price than many other countries that have the same consequences of covid, and fuel crisis.

So if the supermarkets cut their prices so they made no profit at all, what would you do with the £1 a week that you saved?

I really don't see why people get outraged about the average combined supermarket profits (for the big 4) of £60 per person per year. It's not a fortune, and there are few people's lives who would be changed if their profits were halved or even abolished. (If they cut prices by 3%, that would put them on zero profit.)

 

[Bold Seagull]

So if the supermarkets cut their prices so they made no profit at all, what would you do with the £1 a week that you saved?

I really don't see why people get outraged about the average combined supermarket profits (for the big 4) of £60 per person per year. It's not a fortune, and there are few people's lives who would be changed if their profits were halved or even abolished. (If they cut prices by 3%, that would put them on zero profit.)

That's a bit like saying why don't you just tax everyone an extra £1 per week as they're not going to miss it.

It's not outrage at supermarkets per se, it is a system that favours short term goals for shareholders rather than decisions for the greater good. Same could be said for energy companies, utility providers, transport. A system rigged on the belief profit drives efficiency and quality of service - to the extent that much of our transport is run by foreign states who making profit off our transport systems investing that in their own. Who would have thought privatising it all would make other people money and our services worse off. Is that what they call Blue Sky thinking?

 

[dsr-burnley]

That's a bit like saying why don't you just tax everyone an extra £1 per week as they're not going to miss it.

It's not outrage at supermarkets per se, it is a system that favours short term goals for shareholders rather than decisions for the greater good. Same could be said for energy companies, utility providers, transport. A system rigged on the belief profit drives efficiency and quality of service - to the extent that much of our transport is run by foreign states who making profit off our transport systems investing that in their own. Who would have thought privatising it all would make other people money and our services worse off. Is that what they call Blue Sky thinking?

If that's what you think it meant, then I haven't expressed it clearly enough. The point about supermarket profits is that supermarkets are an efficient way of getting goods to the general population at cheap prices, and that even if they made no profits at all our food would not be noticeably cheaper.

That 3% profit may stick in the craw if you believe even 3% is too much profit for a supermarket to make. But if they were banned from making that profit and they all closed, or were taken over by government or some other "non-profit" organisation, we would soon be paying a lot more for our food. Paying a 3% surcharge for the convenience of having a supermarket is (IMO) a lot less than the surcharge we would pay for any other system.

 

[Bold Seagull]

If that's what you think it meant, then I haven't expressed it clearly enough. The point about supermarket profits is that supermarkets are an efficient way of getting goods to the general population at cheap prices, and that even if they made no profits at all our food would not be noticeably cheaper.

That 3% profit may stick in the craw if you believe even 3% is too much profit for a supermarket to make. But if they were banned from making that profit and they all closed, or were taken over by government or some other "non-profit" organisation, we would soon be paying a lot more for our food. Paying a 3% surcharge for the convenience of having a supermarket is (IMO) a lot less than the surcharge we would pay for any other system.

There is so much in there I haven't said, it's not that it isn't clear, it's just off on a tangent.

 

[Randy McNob]

Where an earth did I say ‘blame the poor’ ?!

We have exceptionally low unemployment which in my book is a good thing. This leads to increases in wages. Veg pickers can earn considerably more than the minimum wage but the simple reality is that most Brits faced with the prospect of hard physical work in a field vs say working on a office, from home or in a supermarket will avoid the harder graft. Nothing wrong with that and I would do the same. But if we don’t therefore have enough people to pick the veg then we will end up importing more which helps no one and certainly not those on the lowest incomes.

The problem is there are millions of jobs out there for mainly unskilled workers (I wonder why). The Tories ridiculously celebrate this as a win. It's crippling businesses, wages increasing has nothing to do with it, I heard they offered 40 quid an hour to pick brocoli and still couldn't get the staff. Freedom of movement worked, you could hire people from across europe at a moments notice and start working. No one is going to bother to jump through hoops getting visas to work in the fields. How many billions of tax revenues are we missing due to 1m+ unfilled vacancies? all through political choice. I think the wage surpression lies they parade only concerned a few industries such as construction and only during a boom time during the late 90's and early 00's. in most other sectors like care homes they are a god send

 

[Randy McNob]

I think it is the right thing to do. One of the reasons we end up with these right wing governments is that many of those who would vote Labour are reluctant to do so for fears unions would hold the country to ransom. Labour needs to show it's ready for governance. I think Starmer has tried to distance the party from industrial action, but not the fundamentals of what unions represent.

The problem is the media, every report you see they paint the workers as the bad guys, never do they go after the management and give them a dressing down as to why they are cutting pay and sacking staff

 

[A1X]

Wonderful as it would be for Starmer to stand up and offer a full throated defence of Freedom of Movement, the fact is Britain simply isn’t ready to hear that yet. Some still think Brexit will solve all their ills.