And again, where did I say they shouldn't be allowed to strike? Stop making things up man
. I said a prospective prime minister is right not to support a strike, which is not at all the same as making them illegal.You're right that most care, though by no means all, residential or at home, is provided by the private sector, but the funding is almost all public. There are people paying £3k a month from their own pocket, but not many. Yes there should be a mechanism, public ownership for a start. And voting for a party that would do that would indeed help. My question to raven was why aren't there more posts on here about their situation, but thanks for your answer, every little helps.
So you support them striking but would not vote for someone who does the same?And again, where did I say they shouldn't be allowed to strike? Stop making things up man
The conversation was about the role of a prime minister, or prospective one in this case, and I contend that they should be looking at the public sector as a whole and not just one group, so no, that wasn't whataboutism, it was a fair question
I wasn't talking about perceptions of anti semitism among the public, I was talking about actual anti semitism that the EHCR found Labour was culpable for. I raise this point because we argued about it on this forum incessantly, it was dismissed by a certain part of the left in a way that it wouldn't have been if it'd involved any other ethnic group. It's shameful.
I'm frustrated to see the same old tropes repeated that's all - I'm not trying to be hostile but it's hard to see this all being repeated when many of us at the time, were warning 2019's result was inevitable because of the choice of leader. Labour was crushed in 2019 not just defeated yet the policies, leadership and ideology that got you there, is repeated unchallenged.
If the press was the determining factor as you say, why did Corbyn do OK in 2017, according to your definition, and not so OK in 2019, given the press coverage was uniformly hostile both times? And if the press is so critical in shaping the electorate's vote as you contend, why on earth go into an election with a leader who was known to be such a massive target for the press?
No, I am not a Tory voter. Like many, I am fairly practical when it comes to voting. I have voted Labour many times and I'd like to do so again.
Oh totally, this is the fault of Tory voters. But my goodness, Labour's made it easy for them and it didn't have to be this bad.
And my point is, there aren't enough people who identify with politics in those terms anymore.
That's now three consecutive posts where you have completely made something up, where did I say that or anything like that? I'll answer you one more time but be aware you are moving close to reporting territory.
Reporting territory... behave yourselfThat's now three consecutive posts where you have completely made something up, where did I say that or anything like that? I'll answer you one more time but be aware you are moving close to reporting territory.
I did not say I support NHS workers striking, and I explained in post 5748 (in reply to you!) why I did not. You are correct for once in saying I would not vote for a prospective prime minister that supported NHS workers striking, probably because I said exactly that three posts earlier, post 5745.
I've already said or hinted at in earlier posts, because an NHS strike would be terrible for those people who are poor, aging or less able to look after themselves and 'fight their corner' as others, for a whole variety of reasons, and because I think a leader needs to balance the needs of all sections of society and not just those with the strongest union and most muscle.Reporting territory... behave yourself
Why is a leader supporting an NHS strike a red line issue for you? If (big if) he gets anywhere near power, he won't need to worry about it because he can just pay them fairly.
Of course, they are. They have influence again.
I see this repeated a lot these days but I don't think it's true. People are still either rich or poor or somewhere in the middle. People may have fooled themselves into thinking that class has gone away or isn't important but I'm not sure even that is true. Working class people voting for conservative governments isn't new. If the working class voted for workers' parties, the conservatives wouldn't be an entity.
This is naive. The press want to influence and shape opinion whilst turning a profit. They can have more than one objective. And those objectives can vary from publication to publication.
Not so.
Press power has changed since the days of independent newspapers, where most of the circulation is now goes through News Corp, the Daily Mail Group, Barclays Bros, etc.
There has been an element of chicken and egg over the years, eg The Sun's switch to Labour under Blair. Even the Telegraph and the DM have struggled to cheer lead Johnson at times through the pandemic, but yeah, these tend to be aberrations before the return to the customary jingoistic tubthumping.
If those terms have disappeared, they've certainly been eroded as the middle class has grown. I'd be interested to know how many people actively identify as 'working class' - the only surveys I can find are a few years old. Obviously class barriers remain, but there is much more social mobility these days and I'd be surprised if young people in particular viewed themselves through the traditional class lens.
Billionaires own the press. Making a profit is a nice to have not a need to have. Especially in these times.
When faced against a Labour party under Corbyn who would've taxed the billionaire owners correctly and also implanted Leveson 2. I think it is obvious why the press were almost unified against Corbyn's Labour.
Well, no, he certainly wasn't going to lure them from the Tories for any number of reasons. I doubt for a minute that they thought him getting in was a realistic outcome though, so it's not like they were panicking over tax or Leveson2. Whatever tax reforms Corbyn had enacted, it's highly unlikely he'd have been able to snare offshore billionaires like Lord Rothermere or Murdoch.
I'm not sure they will either, but even if they had the greatest argument in the world the hole would still be too deep to dig out of in a single parliament (who knows though, politics is volatile at the moment). Maybe there's a coalition to be had, I could settle for that. Re: the leadership, I'd settle for a Kinnock or John Smith type - a person who lays foundations/paves the way.
This will stick in your throats, but Corbyn really could have done more to prevent the Press taking chunks out of him. He could have done a deal over Levenson 2 for starters, or tax, or similar - the Tories would have. But Corbyn really wasn't a very good at that kind of pragmatic, making-enemies-friends dealmaking sort of politics - which I think a successful PM has to be - and here we are with 5 years of Tories running the place.
I agree with much of this. Only you don't have to be a coal miner to be working class. The distinction is if you have to sell your labour in order to live, or belong to a class where that distinction holds (family, peers, and so on), then you are working class, a member of the proletariat. Doctors, bank managers, and other members of the bourgeous, typically had either an income which meant they could retain capital or owned land. They didn't strictly need to work. Though there have always been other distinctions in play, like the aristocratic family which is asset rich but cash poor, or asset poor, cash poor, but class rich (the upper class distinction is institutionalised and carries over even if they cease owning land and having capital).
You could run a working class, democratic socialist, platform without mentioning class at all. You would just have to focus on education, healthcare, housing, and tax reform. It might be better to drop the class terms but only if you still focus on the underlying issues which class politics is about.
Nahh, an awful lot of papers run at a loss. This is because their function is not to turn a profit but to engineer society.
Newspapers serve many functions. They would like to turn a profit if they could but very few can and this isn't new. The prestige newspapers are all either located behind a paywall or owned by a trust. The papers that do run at a loss are usually those which only represent tiny parts of much broader media conglomerates. The value for the owners of newspapers is that papers still set the editorial agenda. The newspapers publish, the television and radio broadcast news regurgitates, and the online news (twitter and the like) tend to act as a running commentary. Newspapers are also valuable here because they allow state and non-state broadcasters to set biased editorial agendas with get out of jail free cards (they can support their editorial bias simply by saying "we must report the news" or "In the Times today...").
What you've described is social engineering.
A very good friend of mine who is an editor of a daily newspaper would very much beg to differ.
Is his paper raking in the cash is it?
Your friend would not have been given that job role if he had "begged to differ".
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What a pack of utter cretins the current iteration of Labour is.
You know him do you?
The media owners will employ someone who, in general, agrees with, or will promote key parts of their agenda. Why would they hire someone who doesn't?
If banning them caused unemployment to rise, as some people think, why not reform them instead, see if they can be made to work better?
Because 0 hour contracts guarantee you nothing. Hence the term 0 hour. How would you suggest we reform them so that they're fit for purpose?
Maybe he will go full Tory and suggest 1 hour minimum contracts.
0 hour contracts mean you work when they like, not when you like
Good... you can't repeat that often enough, becsuse people seem to think it gives the employee some sort of say.
I'm not sure what type of contract @esmufc07 was on but I don't think it was a 0 hour. Anyone arguing in favour of 0 hour contracts is an enemy of the working person.
