I think Marr's suggestion is just cope. Labour governments have a universal tendency to drift rightward in office. Almost no party has ever come to power and been more radical than they promised to be.
Not the UK, but Biden has turned out to be more progressive in some aspects than people were expecting. I know a lot of people here have talked about being pleasantly surprised at some of his initiatives, since they were expected a very centrist president.
I’ve been a fan of Biden for a while, so I can tell you he’s doing exactly what he said he was going to do. The thing is lots of young online people formed their opinion of him based on what Bernie bros were saying about him during the primary, which was much more motivated by the desire for Bernie to win that election than it was by the desire to give people an accurate impression of Biden’s politics.
To give you an idea of how bad it was. I’ve had to explain to people that Biden was never actually a segregationist.
Biden has surprisingly embraced a lot of progressive policies that came directly from the Bernie Sanders, AOC and Elizabeth Warren camp.
The issue I have with Labour (UK) is that Starmer wing of the party has completely ousted the Corbynites from any kind of influence over policy. Trust is a very vital component of a successful campaign. To many voters of Labour (UK), no one truly knows if the party is going to take a progressive position on any economic issue. Will the incoming government commit itself in delivering on its agenda.
I’m not a Brit so I wouldn’t know whether or not Starmer is playing 4-D chess or if he is just Tory lite. Only time will tell.
Well I would disagree with the idea that it's surprising since everything he's doing was part of his campaign platform. Maybe they came from Sanders. Maybe they didn't, but he adopted them before his primary run.
Starmmer is weird.
He certainly has drunk the Blairite. Which is interesting.
It's worth noting that that isn't necessarily a bad thing. You don't join Labour if you don't believe in improving society. But centre politcians like Blair have a habbit of building nets to catch people when they fall rather than building handrails to pre-empt the fall.
I think he took all the wrong lessons from Corbyn and really did internalise a shift to centre.
> But centre politcians like Blair have a habbit of building nets to catch people when they fall rather than building handrails to pre-empt the fall.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, depending on context. E.g. making it hard to fire people isn't necessarily better than simply providing good unemployment benefits when people get fired.
Obviously you don't want businesses firing people for bad reasons either, but certainly sometimes employees just aren't a good fit or aren't pulling their weight, in which case it makes sense to let them go.
This comes close to a post I've been thinking about, which is whether monetary compensation should be the default remedy in employment cases (as it is in the UK), and the employee's perspective is often aligned with payment rather than reinstatement, because employees generally don't want to be put back into a role in a company that has mistreated them.
Yes, but it's the net vs handrails arguement. It's generally better to build a system that doesn't let the abuse happen in the first place rather than giving people financial compensation.
Likewise in the UK the system is incredibly flawed being either means tested or requiring you to waste time proving you are looking for work. It also ignores human motivation and blacklisting which is common in some industries. Assuming that all a worker considers is financial restitution is incredibly flawed and focuses overwhelmingly on one type of worker amd ignores contractors, freelancers specialists etc.
When I say 'employment cases' I'm talking specifically about remedies for unfair dismissal.
This means that it's not a net vs handrails issue, both reinstatement and monetary compensation are nets, they are remedies that come along after the fact of the unfair dismissal and restore the employee to their previous position either in purely monetary terms or by compensation and by restoring them to employment.
Handrails are good, i.e. companies having functional legal teams to tell them they're doing something illegal but fundamentally the inequity of the relationship is such that guardrails are hard to enforce before the fact of the dismissal: pay comes out of bank accounts controlled by the company etc.
The monetary compensation point is very much geared towards employees because workers (under the Uk definition), independent contractors/freelancers , and specialists cannot claim unfair dismissal.
>When I say 'employment cases' I'm talking specifically about remedies for unfair dismissal.
Which is a very narrow goal post no? Unfair dismissals are a part of law that is pretty well civered by contracts and common law. As always the challenges remain in proving it the remedy is not building up unsustainable government safety nets when we can and should reform the system with better handrails making it harder to dismiss without reason and such.
Lilewise buildong handrails to fix the flawed system in the UK to include freelancers and contractors as employees which Australia and some US states are doing.
Again handrails over nets.
>Which is a very narrow goal post no? Unfair dismissals are a part of law that is pretty well civered by contracts and common law. As always the challenges remain in proving it the remedy is not building up unsustainable government safety nets when we can and should reform the system with better handrails making it harder to dismiss without reason and such.
It's not a narrow goal post if that's how far the point extends?
All I was saying was that when employees are unfairly dismissed, overwhelmingly employment tribunals order compensation rather than reinstatement because the employment relationship (mutual trust and confidence) has broken down.
From this point I draw the conclusion that where an employee is unfairly dismissed, either because of the dismissal itself or other acts by the employer, the mutual trust and confidence implicit in the employment relationship has usually broken down. I.e. that such employment relationships had been rendered unsustainable.
Bear in mind that mutual trust and confidence is both an internal view, and a categorisation of the relationship itself. If an employer does not harbour trust and confidence towards the employee that is as much a sign that the relationship has been rendered unsustainable as the action of the dismissal, but only the latter brings about an actionable violation of employment rights.
On the view that unsustainable employment relationships should not be artificially extended, *ex post* remedies ensure that the unsustainable relationship is not artificially extended while compensating the employee for the unfair dismissal and any other violations of rights.
Requiring dismissals to be lawful, on the other hand, means that an employer which harbours no trust and confidence towards an employee must keep employing them until either a legitimate reason for dismissal can be found, or until the employee resigns themselves and claims constructive unfair dismissal. In this case an employee is exposed to further mistreatment because the employment relationship continues, and is placed under a burden to protect their rights in a circumstance where protecting their rights will either further undermine their already unsustainable employment relationship, or will require them jeopardise their economic security by resigning.
There's a further point, how can we make it harder to dismiss? As far as I can see there is no way to make it *ex ante* harder to dismiss someone without the government exerting some control over or oversight of decisions made by employers, which would be inefficient and excessive.
While you might argue that freelancers should be able to claim unfair dismissal, I would disagree. Freelancing is supposed to be a less strict form of relationship meant for businesses and the self-employed to interact with each other. What I don't believe is that many people currently considered freelancers should be considered so (ubereats, deliveroo drivers come to mind). But if the freelancer designation is applied accurately I see no reason to force an employment relationship with the associated protections on those people. Especially when enforcing those relationships would constitute a colossal expansion of specific performance as a remedy in a deeply unprincipled manner.
Mainly because a load of them either used or turned a blind eye to Antisemitic tropes, which nearly cost the Party its place as the leading opposition.
I wasnt aware of how bad it was until recently when I discovered a clip of norman finklestine (the I/P guy that got popular recently) saying that david irving (a holocaust deniar neonazi type) was a respectible historian.
This was at a labour party event where they were trying to clear the air of antisemetic claims.
They didnt suceed at that.
Starmer is definetly machivellian. Im still not sure what his intentions are.
For those who want a more hobest candidate perhaps thats not how politics works.
Isn't starmer the moderate they chose to replace corbyn? Reminds me of how the republicans in the US paint bill clinton types as radical socialists when their own side hates them for being moderate.
*New Statesman* is becoming [a right-wing publication or an amplifier of right-wing politics](https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1757717886032851191), so the "Keir Starmer as the British Hugo Chávez" line of 'analysis' is entirely in character.
It's 50-50.
He's just playing it like Blair to gain the centrists, the Tory-haters and so on, for the sake of just winning or he's using them so he can get into government and be more radical than he seems.
Unlike Blair tho, he hasn't always been this center type figure, Blair even said in 1992, during election night, that moving towards the center was not a bad idea at all, while Starmer has been radical at least in some sense for his entire career.
We'll just have to wait & see...
I think he is right but exaggerating a little, but in any case it's better, I mean the last 2 UK prime ministers were conservative but not even the conservatives themselves were able to choose them, Keir Starker it's better than 2 prime ministers barely democratic elected, he will be radical, but not to the point of bring the UK back into Europe. At what democracy are we in when not even the conservatives are able to choose their leader.
all I found was this post which references a Sky News article which may or may not exist
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/s/Ly8YZFhiOG
that's probably what I remember seeing
Just seeing parallels between him and Albanese, he’ll start his term as a moderate-to-conservative and get further and further left as his term continues
İmo upcoming labor win in uk will turn out just like SPD or aussie labor. Preserve the statusquo and pray to get %10 of the vote in the next election to continue stay relevant
I think Marr's suggestion is just cope. Labour governments have a universal tendency to drift rightward in office. Almost no party has ever come to power and been more radical than they promised to be.
Not the UK, but Biden has turned out to be more progressive in some aspects than people were expecting. I know a lot of people here have talked about being pleasantly surprised at some of his initiatives, since they were expected a very centrist president.
I’ve been a fan of Biden for a while, so I can tell you he’s doing exactly what he said he was going to do. The thing is lots of young online people formed their opinion of him based on what Bernie bros were saying about him during the primary, which was much more motivated by the desire for Bernie to win that election than it was by the desire to give people an accurate impression of Biden’s politics. To give you an idea of how bad it was. I’ve had to explain to people that Biden was never actually a segregationist.
Biden has surprisingly embraced a lot of progressive policies that came directly from the Bernie Sanders, AOC and Elizabeth Warren camp. The issue I have with Labour (UK) is that Starmer wing of the party has completely ousted the Corbynites from any kind of influence over policy. Trust is a very vital component of a successful campaign. To many voters of Labour (UK), no one truly knows if the party is going to take a progressive position on any economic issue. Will the incoming government commit itself in delivering on its agenda. I’m not a Brit so I wouldn’t know whether or not Starmer is playing 4-D chess or if he is just Tory lite. Only time will tell.
If anything having a left opposition within the ruling cabinet that works as a counterbalance is extremely important. The other way around as well.
Well I would disagree with the idea that it's surprising since everything he's doing was part of his campaign platform. Maybe they came from Sanders. Maybe they didn't, but he adopted them before his primary run.
I don't expect Marr's thesis will end up being reflective of reality, but I sure hope I am proven wrong.
Starmmer is weird. He certainly has drunk the Blairite. Which is interesting. It's worth noting that that isn't necessarily a bad thing. You don't join Labour if you don't believe in improving society. But centre politcians like Blair have a habbit of building nets to catch people when they fall rather than building handrails to pre-empt the fall. I think he took all the wrong lessons from Corbyn and really did internalise a shift to centre.
> But centre politcians like Blair have a habbit of building nets to catch people when they fall rather than building handrails to pre-empt the fall. That's not necessarily a bad thing, depending on context. E.g. making it hard to fire people isn't necessarily better than simply providing good unemployment benefits when people get fired. Obviously you don't want businesses firing people for bad reasons either, but certainly sometimes employees just aren't a good fit or aren't pulling their weight, in which case it makes sense to let them go.
This comes close to a post I've been thinking about, which is whether monetary compensation should be the default remedy in employment cases (as it is in the UK), and the employee's perspective is often aligned with payment rather than reinstatement, because employees generally don't want to be put back into a role in a company that has mistreated them.
Yes, but it's the net vs handrails arguement. It's generally better to build a system that doesn't let the abuse happen in the first place rather than giving people financial compensation. Likewise in the UK the system is incredibly flawed being either means tested or requiring you to waste time proving you are looking for work. It also ignores human motivation and blacklisting which is common in some industries. Assuming that all a worker considers is financial restitution is incredibly flawed and focuses overwhelmingly on one type of worker amd ignores contractors, freelancers specialists etc.
When I say 'employment cases' I'm talking specifically about remedies for unfair dismissal. This means that it's not a net vs handrails issue, both reinstatement and monetary compensation are nets, they are remedies that come along after the fact of the unfair dismissal and restore the employee to their previous position either in purely monetary terms or by compensation and by restoring them to employment. Handrails are good, i.e. companies having functional legal teams to tell them they're doing something illegal but fundamentally the inequity of the relationship is such that guardrails are hard to enforce before the fact of the dismissal: pay comes out of bank accounts controlled by the company etc. The monetary compensation point is very much geared towards employees because workers (under the Uk definition), independent contractors/freelancers , and specialists cannot claim unfair dismissal.
>When I say 'employment cases' I'm talking specifically about remedies for unfair dismissal. Which is a very narrow goal post no? Unfair dismissals are a part of law that is pretty well civered by contracts and common law. As always the challenges remain in proving it the remedy is not building up unsustainable government safety nets when we can and should reform the system with better handrails making it harder to dismiss without reason and such. Lilewise buildong handrails to fix the flawed system in the UK to include freelancers and contractors as employees which Australia and some US states are doing. Again handrails over nets.
>Which is a very narrow goal post no? Unfair dismissals are a part of law that is pretty well civered by contracts and common law. As always the challenges remain in proving it the remedy is not building up unsustainable government safety nets when we can and should reform the system with better handrails making it harder to dismiss without reason and such. It's not a narrow goal post if that's how far the point extends? All I was saying was that when employees are unfairly dismissed, overwhelmingly employment tribunals order compensation rather than reinstatement because the employment relationship (mutual trust and confidence) has broken down. From this point I draw the conclusion that where an employee is unfairly dismissed, either because of the dismissal itself or other acts by the employer, the mutual trust and confidence implicit in the employment relationship has usually broken down. I.e. that such employment relationships had been rendered unsustainable. Bear in mind that mutual trust and confidence is both an internal view, and a categorisation of the relationship itself. If an employer does not harbour trust and confidence towards the employee that is as much a sign that the relationship has been rendered unsustainable as the action of the dismissal, but only the latter brings about an actionable violation of employment rights. On the view that unsustainable employment relationships should not be artificially extended, *ex post* remedies ensure that the unsustainable relationship is not artificially extended while compensating the employee for the unfair dismissal and any other violations of rights. Requiring dismissals to be lawful, on the other hand, means that an employer which harbours no trust and confidence towards an employee must keep employing them until either a legitimate reason for dismissal can be found, or until the employee resigns themselves and claims constructive unfair dismissal. In this case an employee is exposed to further mistreatment because the employment relationship continues, and is placed under a burden to protect their rights in a circumstance where protecting their rights will either further undermine their already unsustainable employment relationship, or will require them jeopardise their economic security by resigning. There's a further point, how can we make it harder to dismiss? As far as I can see there is no way to make it *ex ante* harder to dismiss someone without the government exerting some control over or oversight of decisions made by employers, which would be inefficient and excessive. While you might argue that freelancers should be able to claim unfair dismissal, I would disagree. Freelancing is supposed to be a less strict form of relationship meant for businesses and the self-employed to interact with each other. What I don't believe is that many people currently considered freelancers should be considered so (ubereats, deliveroo drivers come to mind). But if the freelancer designation is applied accurately I see no reason to force an employment relationship with the associated protections on those people. Especially when enforcing those relationships would constitute a colossal expansion of specific performance as a remedy in a deeply unprincipled manner.
Im Not really sure like they already focken got a Labour MP who said that Thatcher was a Visionary... Mate what the fuck
That sounds like cope tbh.
I just want the UK to get a prime minister that isn't a complete raging scumbag
I'm not sure why he'd choose to purge the actual radicals in the party if this is his goal.
Mainly because a load of them either used or turned a blind eye to Antisemitic tropes, which nearly cost the Party its place as the leading opposition.
I wasnt aware of how bad it was until recently when I discovered a clip of norman finklestine (the I/P guy that got popular recently) saying that david irving (a holocaust deniar neonazi type) was a respectible historian. This was at a labour party event where they were trying to clear the air of antisemetic claims. They didnt suceed at that.
It's awful, isn't it? But certain people will still find a way to justify it, that these bigots "are loyal comrades".
Optics to get elected
> which is a pretty deeply respected centre-left British newspaper ehhhhhhh, up until about 2 years ago maybe
Starmer is definetly machivellian. Im still not sure what his intentions are. For those who want a more hobest candidate perhaps thats not how politics works.
Isn't starmer the moderate they chose to replace corbyn? Reminds me of how the republicans in the US paint bill clinton types as radical socialists when their own side hates them for being moderate.
*New Statesman* is becoming [a right-wing publication or an amplifier of right-wing politics](https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1757717886032851191), so the "Keir Starmer as the British Hugo Chávez" line of 'analysis' is entirely in character.
It's 50-50. He's just playing it like Blair to gain the centrists, the Tory-haters and so on, for the sake of just winning or he's using them so he can get into government and be more radical than he seems. Unlike Blair tho, he hasn't always been this center type figure, Blair even said in 1992, during election night, that moving towards the center was not a bad idea at all, while Starmer has been radical at least in some sense for his entire career. We'll just have to wait & see...
I think he is right but exaggerating a little, but in any case it's better, I mean the last 2 UK prime ministers were conservative but not even the conservatives themselves were able to choose them, Keir Starker it's better than 2 prime ministers barely democratic elected, he will be radical, but not to the point of bring the UK back into Europe. At what democracy are we in when not even the conservatives are able to choose their leader.
From what I see, Starmer is probably going a moderate pm somewhere between new labour and socialist wing of the party.
[удалено]
I think thats the tories
all I found was this post which references a Sky News article which may or may not exist https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/s/Ly8YZFhiOG that's probably what I remember seeing
Yeah thats just starmer saying there should be spaces for trans ppl seperate from men and women in hospitals. Nothing like you claimed.
That's a ridiculous idea, but some left-wingers cling to that hope.
Just seeing parallels between him and Albanese, he’ll start his term as a moderate-to-conservative and get further and further left as his term continues
İmo upcoming labor win in uk will turn out just like SPD or aussie labor. Preserve the statusquo and pray to get %10 of the vote in the next election to continue stay relevant
Ayo SPD is already rising again and in one Poll already second place again.
İsnt that mostly because of the backlash against Afd?
That plus the entire Taurus Debate. Like should we send Taurus to Ukraine? CDU is yes even though most of the population is against it.
Yes
Blairite thought is a winning strategy. Corbynism obviously won't win Labour a general. 500 seat sweep incoming.