*I know the opt-in/opt-out part is a problem. As is peer-pressure to join a union.
The second part can be true, but there are jobs which aren't de jure closed shops but are de facto. You'd have to be mad to teach and not be a member of a teaching union, for example - just for the workplace representation.
However there are so many teaching unions that you can (usually) choose one that fits your worldview when it comes to 'does it fund the Labour Party? Yes/no' and/or 'will I be pressured not to opt out of the political levy?'
The answer for all teaching unions is the same on both questions: "no". And Voice promise never to do anything collectively to actually protect their members, if that's what you want from a union.
Even then, there are people who hate unions enough to pay another organisation to (partially) represent them. Edapt is the most common.
Now try the same approach in an industry with one union. Take it or leave it - if you want to be safe at work, you join us and fund the Labour Party.
From another angle this seems very much like you want to pick and choose which bits of collectivity you would like to subscribe to.
It depends on what you think "collectivity" means. Should it mean all union members stand in support of their colleagues if they are treated badly by management? Yes, of course. Should it mean all union members have to give their assent and support to any and all political opinions and campaigns of whomever happens to be the current leader of their union, even at severe cost to themselves? No, I would say not - and that is ultimately what brought down the unions in the 70s/80s. Does it mean directly funding the Labour Party regardless of whether you agree with their policies and performance? Jog the fuck on, sunshine.
I'm glad I'm part of a union that permits me to opt out of the political donation without anyone else (other than a few staff at Head Office, presumably) knowing about it.
Now try the same approach in an industry with one union. Take it or leave it - if you want to be safe at work, you join us and fund the Labour Party.
From another angle this seems very much like you want to pick and choose which bits of collectivity you would like to subscribe to.
Why is that a problem? I have a collective arrangement with some of my neighbours to watch each other's kids as necessary. That doesn't mean that we need to be in some sort of group marriage.
I'm glad I'm part of a union that permits me to opt out of the political donation without anyone else (other than a few staff at Head Office, presumably) knowing about it.
Now try the same approach in an industry with one union. Take it or leave it - if you want to be safe at work, you join us and fund the Labour Party.
From another angle this seems very much like you want to pick and choose which bits of collectivity you would like to subscribe to.
Why is that a problem? I have a collective arrangement with some of my neighbours to watch each other's kids as necessary. That doesn't mean that we need to be in some sort of group marriage.
The situations aren't really analogous. The parallel would be if there were some kind of group marriage already in place and you wished to join it but on different terms to everyone else.
I think most unions need to be a bit more instrumental in their political support, and a number of them are the associational equivalent of rotten boroughs because of the low turnout in internal elections and their strong ties with certain sections of the Labour Party (ironically usually the old Labour Right in the case of unions like GMB). But what unions do in representing members is inherently political and the introduction of a separate political fund was in itself a political act by opponents of unions to tame their effectiveness.
Absent de-jure closed shops, you are always free not to join.
The situations aren't really analogous. The parallel would be if there were some kind of group marriage already in place and you wished to join it but on different terms to everyone else.
And that's not a problem. That's Norway being in the EEA but not the EU.
Some Unions (possibly all) will use their political funds for more than just supporting Labour financially, because political campaigning for the benefit of members (and, non-members in the same industries) is more than just giving money to a political party. Campaigning for (say) increases in minimum wage will involve the costs of rallies, organising petitions and letter writing etc - and for that example cooperation across multiple Unions and other campaign groups.
Of course, that means that the simple opt-out of the political fund becomes more complex, with questions of whether you want to support the political campaigning of the Union (and, if you're in a Union surely that's one of the things you want) but not support for a particular political party. The political fund for my Union (UCU) is explicitly not used to financially support Labour (or, any other Party), if members want to support a political party then they can do that individually but our fees don't go to any Party. As the Greens have become a more significant party, there are now two nominally socialist options for workers to support. Many Green candidates are also members of a Union, and it would be odd if some of their Union membership fees were automatically syphoned off to support someone they're standing against.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it. Collective is collective. That sort of cherry picking destroys collectivity and is why workers rights are being destroyed.
And unions are under the control of their members. Unlike governments, which are under the control of corporations whose bidding they do without question.
The situations aren't really analogous. The parallel would be if there were some kind of group marriage already in place and you wished to join it but on different terms to everyone else.
And that's not a problem. That's Norway being in the EEA but not the EU.
And unions are under the control of their members. Unlike governments, which are under the control of corporations whose bidding they do without question.
Unions are under the control of their members in exactly the same way the government is under the control of the people - via periodical elections, in between which the leadership pretty much do whatever they want.
...and frankly, that sort of collectivism is nonsense. A group of workers have a shared interest in working conditions, safety, pay, benefits, workers not being treated unfairly by management, and so on. In many cases, they have an interest in those things being legislated by the government (decent working conditions enforced by statute rather than being negotiated, rights for the union to exist and operate, etc.)
It does not follow that that group of workers should have the same interest in the political situation in Israel and Gaza, or the charitable status of private education, the funding of the NHS, or whether to tax imports from China.
...and frankly, that sort of collectivism is nonsense.
Not at all. The brand of collectivism that eventually inspired the union movement owed much to internationalism and the recognition that none of us are truly free until all of us are free. Or more prosaically, if there was a class of people somewhere who could be exploited, their plight would be used to undermine the working conditions of everyone else.
Other ideologies are available, and if you think a Voice/Professional Association of Teachers approach works better for you, then the organisational opportunity is open.
I see Downing Street have now stated that the PM, Deputy PM and Chancellor will no longer take donations for clothing, which leaves a number of questions un-addressed, not least the question of influence:
I see Downing Street have now stated that the PM, Deputy PM and Chancellor will no longer take donations for clothing, which leaves a number of questions un-addressed, not least the question of influence:
I see Downing Street have now stated that the PM, Deputy PM and Chancellor will no longer take donations for clothing, which leaves a number of questions un-addressed, not least the question of influence:
This is the same Labour Party who were furious when the provost of Glasgow claimed thousands on expenses for clothes and shoes using exactly the same rationale about being expected to dress well. And she didn't even have conflict of interest problems because she wasn't taking freebies from donors. They don't accept these arguments from others.
I have some sympathy because the same media that pursues cases like this has a terrible record of pillorying and mocking people (especially women) who they think haven't met unreasonable or sexist standards of appearance, but taking thousands of pounds worth of gifts that causes conflict of interest and goes to very well paid people who are demanding very poor people face hardship (and hounding by the DWP if they make even small mistakes about money) is outrageous.
Are you seriously suggesting that, in accepting a gift from a supporter, a peer ofbe realm, the former Director of Public Prosecutions was knowingly receiving a bribe? Because that is what you seem to be saying.
That's your suggestion. I'm not talking about bribery I'm talking about the way taking these kind of personal gifts can raise potential for conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest and can be perceived as greedy and tone deaf.
taking thousands of pounds worth of gifts that causes conflict of interest and goes to very well paid people who are demanding very poor people face hardship (and hounding by the DWP if they make even small mistakes about money) is outrageous.
Austerity has only ever been for the little people. All that’s changed is the colour of the rosette worn by the big people.
taking thousands of pounds worth of gifts that causes conflict of interest and goes to very well paid people who are demanding very poor people face hardship (and hounding by the DWP if they make even small mistakes about money) is outrageous.
Austerity has only ever been for the little people. All that’s changed is the colour of the rosette worn by the big people.
Comment I saw somewhere that Starmer has taken the Labour strand of self help and turned it into Help Yourself.
That strikes me as a dangerous game to play, but at the rate this shower are going I reckon within the next six months, never mind the first year.
I doubt this prediction.
What we are seeing is a very aggressive media campaign to magnify certain behaviours and issues. Note here that however I may feel about certain things, Starmer, Raynor and Reeves are being vilified for following the rules.
The tweets from various Tories jumping up and down on this are by equal measure ridiculous and shameless and shameful.
However, this is basically CurryGate and HouseGate again. The budget, the NHS winter, how the economy goes next year, these are the things that matter to most people.
I suspect that very few care. Whether they should is a different question.
AFZ
P.s. For entirely different reasons, I've heard from sources that Lammy's position might not be that secure. I have nothing against him personally but believe Douglas Alexander would be a better choice. YMMV, of course. However, I think Kier wishes to have a settled cabinet for as long as possible.
I think you're wrong and that this has cut through - it's come up in conversation with people who're not normally interested in politics and who should be natural Labour voters. It's the juxtaposition of 'we take expensive freebies - you get hardship', that makes it look so bad, and as I said before, Labour kicked up an absolute stink when someone else did similar and vilified her despite her 'following the rules'. They don't now get to say 'But it's OK if we take expensive clothes!' and 'How dare the press!'
TurquoiseTastic beat me to it in posting the poll that shows Starmer's 45 point drop in approval since July. Self preservation alone should tell Labour supporters that their apologetics for this and their austerity-style mis-steps aren't landing and that they need to course correct.
The reality is that a lot these stories are coming from within Labour itself - which is source of catty asides like this from the likes of Hyde:
Let’s hope not. Lord Alli was ennobled by Tony Blair – who, until he became one of them, was always pathetically impressed with very rich people – and is now the purchaser of the Starmers’ wardrobes and arsenal of fancy specs. This latest piece of beneficence seems to have earned his lordship at least a temporary Downing Street security pass. As for the type of person we’re dealing with … listen, I don’t want to say Waheed Alli “divides opinion”, because you know what? This week I asked several people in the know about him to give their opinion and they all said the exactly same thing. Unfortunately, it’s a single word that we don’t use in the Guardian unless it’s in reported speech.
That’s not a source unfriendly to this iteration of Labour. That’s the writer beloved of centrist-dads writing in the Guardian.
It’s possible that the cause lies in this, one of the more boring details in a breathless piece from the Times:
Most if not all of the mission boards have met twice,” a senior official said. “But they are not yet fully up to speed. They’ll be there within a couple of months.” The explanation is that, even three months into the job, Starmer and his team have not yet defined precisely what they are trying to achieve.
The reality is that a lot these stories are coming from within Labour itself - which is source of catty asides like this from the likes of Hyde:
Let’s hope not. Lord Alli was ennobled by Tony Blair – who, until he became one of them, was always pathetically impressed with very rich people – and is now the purchaser of the Starmers’ wardrobes and arsenal of fancy specs. This latest piece of beneficence seems to have earned his lordship at least a temporary Downing Street security pass. As for the type of person we’re dealing with … listen, I don’t want to say Waheed Alli “divides opinion”, because you know what? This week I asked several people in the know about him to give their opinion and they all said the exactly same thing. Unfortunately, it’s a single word that we don’t use in the Guardian unless it’s in reported speech.
That’s not a source unfriendly to this iteration of Labour. That’s the writer beloved of centrist-dads writing in the Guardian.
It’s possible that the cause lies in this, one of the more boring details in a breathless piece from the Times:
Most if not all of the mission boards have met twice,” a senior official said. “But they are not yet fully up to speed. They’ll be there within a couple of months.” The explanation is that, even three months into the job, Starmer and his team have not yet defined precisely what they are trying to achieve.
On LBC the general secretary of Unite has just said that Labour needs to come up with a vision…
The reality is that a lot these stories are coming from within Labour itself - which is source of catty asides like this from the likes of Hyde:
Let’s hope not. Lord Alli was ennobled by Tony Blair – who, until he became one of them, was always pathetically impressed with very rich people – and is now the purchaser of the Starmers’ wardrobes and arsenal of fancy specs. This latest piece of beneficence seems to have earned his lordship at least a temporary Downing Street security pass. As for the type of person we’re dealing with … listen, I don’t want to say Waheed Alli “divides opinion”, because you know what? This week I asked several people in the know about him to give their opinion and they all said the exactly same thing. Unfortunately, it’s a single word that we don’t use in the Guardian unless it’s in reported speech.
That’s not a source unfriendly to this iteration of Labour. That’s the writer beloved of centrist-dads writing in the Guardian.
It’s possible that the cause lies in this, one of the more boring details in a breathless piece from the Times:
Most if not all of the mission boards have met twice,” a senior official said. “But they are not yet fully up to speed. They’ll be there within a couple of months.” The explanation is that, even three months into the job, Starmer and his team have not yet defined precisely what they are trying to achieve.
On LBC the general secretary of Unite has just said that Labour needs to come up with a vision…
Labour Together - the ginger group set up to support the post-Corbyn shift by the Labour Right - have released a report report on the election:
A number of points; First, that while Labour had built a lot of their hopes on 'Hero Voters' (Tory->Labour voters), only 12% of their vote is from people switching in this way. Of course in their reckoning these voters count "double" - but is hard to see how long this logic persists given the relatively fragile voting coalition coupled with the decrease in voter loyalty.
Of course these voters also are much more in favour of additional spending on public services than the median:
"The Conservatives tried to make tax central to the campaign, through baseless claims that Labour planned a £2,000 annual ‘bombshell’. But tax was not among the top issues for these voters (or any other voter group). Indeed, Conservative to Labour switchers are slightly more likely than the average voter to say that taxes should go up somewhat to fund public services."
And while immigration was a salient issue it came behind ones on which Labour are traditionally strong:
"Conservative to Labour switchers cared about the cost of living, health and the economy, followed by immigration, just like the average voter. But migration is much more important to this part of Labour’s coalition than it is for Labour voters on average."
Of course, if you look at the overall picture for all voters; they have roughly the same view on the top three issues (with immigration being even further down overall).
Yet so far the big announcements and the pre and post election messaging have contained a large focus on immigration, with very little sign of any kind of strategy on the other issues (apart from somehow 'growth')
On LBC the general secretary of Unite has just said that Labour needs to come up with a vision…
Which seems a fair comment. To a large extent, the "vision" presented to the people, which got them elected in July, was "we're not the Conservatives". That was enough to win an election, but doesn't give a programme for government. It doesn't help when a few months later the "we're not the Conservatives" has been translated into maintaining Conservative fiscal rules forcing Labour to adopt Conservative looking austerity, and now following Conservative looking practices of accepting the perks of power. The appearances are that the Labour government is no different from the Conservatives, a change of rosette without a change in substance. Labour still need to present a visionary programme for government that puts clear water between them and the Conservative government they replaced.
taking thousands of pounds worth of gifts that causes conflict of interest and goes to very well paid people who are demanding very poor people face hardship (and hounding by the DWP if they make even small mistakes about money) is outrageous.
Austerity has only ever been for the little people. All that’s changed is the colour of the rosette worn by the big people.
Comment I saw somewhere that Starmer has taken the Labour strand of self help and turned it into Help Yourself.
Hardly a bolt from the blue - or have you all forgotten this from 11 years ago?
taking thousands of pounds worth of gifts that causes conflict of interest and goes to very well paid people who are demanding very poor people face hardship (and hounding by the DWP if they make even small mistakes about money) is outrageous.
Austerity has only ever been for the little people. All that’s changed is the colour of the rosette worn by the big people.
Comment I saw somewhere that Starmer has taken the Labour strand of self help and turned it into Help Yourself.
Hardly a bolt from the blue - or have you all forgotten this from 11 years ago?
There are many things to criticise in Starmer's spell as DPP, not least his closeness to Washington and his behaviour around the London Riots. This however is Guido levels of bad, that was the standard for dealing with DPP Pensions set by the Government of the time rather than the matter for someone who wasn't going to be MP for another two years.
I think it's a bit unfair to give Scotland the money to spend on things that cannot be afforded in the rest of the UK
England could afford it if their priorities were straight.
According to the House of Comons Library the total government spend per captia across the UK was in 2022/23 £12,549. The breakdown outside England was:-
Scotland: £14,456 (15% above the UK average)
Wales: £13,967 (11% above the UK average)
Northern Ireland: £14,453 (15% above the UK average).
Across the board (crude but defensible, and its a persistent trend) public sector delivery and effectiveness is generally significantly worse in the three smaller countries than England. Moral: throwing money at problems is not enough. A customer focussed delivery model has to be implemented first or it is good money being wasted on a bad system.
The less advantaged areas of England are beginning to rebel against this long-standing unfairness. Such discontent is felt deeply. It must surely lie underneath the recent riots in the 'left-behind' areas; sadly migrants are bearing the brunt of that anger.
I'm not sure those raw figures tell you much without knowing what the spend was on. If you're counting investment in power lines to bring power from the Highlands and Islands down to England as part of money spent in Scotland then that's a problem. Conversely if you count spend on things deemed "national infrastructure" as spread equally among the four nations then you miss the fact that most benefit London and its commuter belt. Likewise Scotland and Wales will have a higher spend on disability benefits because industrial decline has left a population sicker than the average in England. There are good reasons for e.g. NE England to be aggrieved at how it has been treated, but the blame is squarely with the London-centric policies of Westminster.
Going back to the union thing, I joined mine over a decade ago online, there was a clearly labelled box to tick if you wanted to opt out of the political levy. I've had forms sent in the post giving the option to change or confirm that decision several times since and it can be easily revisited online at my convenience should I so desire.
The union are always up front about saying they'd prefer you to pay it, which given the historic labour/tuc relationship is fair do's. It might be something to do with the very freelance nature of the sector but I've never come across a closed shop or shop stewards breathing down your neck etc.
Going back to the union thing, I joined mine over a decade ago online, there was a clearly labelled box to tick if you wanted to opt out of the political levy. I've had forms sent in the post giving the option to change or confirm that decision several times since and it can be easily revisited online at my convenience should I so desire.
The union are always up front about saying they'd prefer you to pay it, which given the historic labour/tuc relationship is fair do's. It might be something to do with the very freelance nature of the sector but I've never come across a closed shop or shop stewards breathing down your neck etc.
I've always worked (apart from student jobs) in the public sector and never had any pressure there either.
Governments do things. Otherwise they're a bit pointless.
It's completely normal for ministers to visit all kinds of endeavours that fall within their remit, and it's normal for governments to tell the people what they are doing. These days, that involves photographs, so having government photographers recording ministers doing these kinds of things seems entirely reasonable.
It's always reasonable to ask the question about where the line is between the government communicating what it's doing and the governing party campaigning for its politics, and the truth is that these lines are always somewhat blurred.
This seems to be more like a right-wing tabloid trying to make up a story than an actual issue.
Totally agree - some of the criticism in the last few days has got legs IMO (and I'm not going to relitigate it now), but the photographer story is just the sort of really pointless/substanceless muckraking that actually muddies the waters.
The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has employed a photographer to document and promote its work. Sections of the media, presumably judging on the basis of the previous government, are assuming that the person is employed for Angela Rayner’s personal benefit.
Next they’ll be going on about how many cleaners are employed for her at taxpayers’ expense on the basis of the number on the payroll, and a ministry spokesperson will have to explain that the cleaners are employed for the work of the ministry and not to clean her home.
The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has employed a photographer to document and promote its work. Sections of the media, presumably judging on the basis of the previous government, are assuming that the person is employed for Angela Rayner’s personal benefit.
Why do they need to promote the work of a government department ?
The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has employed a photographer to document and promote its work. Sections of the media, presumably judging on the basis of the previous government, are assuming that the person is employed for Angela Rayner’s personal benefit.
Why do they need to promote the work of a government department ?
Presumably so people are informed about what it is actually doing and are less susceptible to misinformed or deliberately misleading stories spread by the Daily Mail and GB "News".
Comments
The answer for all teaching unions is the same on both questions: "no". And Voice promise never to do anything collectively to actually protect their members, if that's what you want from a union.
Even then, there are people who hate unions enough to pay another organisation to (partially) represent them. Edapt is the most common.
It depends on what you think "collectivity" means. Should it mean all union members stand in support of their colleagues if they are treated badly by management? Yes, of course. Should it mean all union members have to give their assent and support to any and all political opinions and campaigns of whomever happens to be the current leader of their union, even at severe cost to themselves? No, I would say not - and that is ultimately what brought down the unions in the 70s/80s. Does it mean directly funding the Labour Party regardless of whether you agree with their policies and performance? Jog the fuck on, sunshine.
I'm glad I'm part of a union that permits me to opt out of the political donation without anyone else (other than a few staff at Head Office, presumably) knowing about it.
Why is that a problem? I have a collective arrangement with some of my neighbours to watch each other's kids as necessary. That doesn't mean that we need to be in some sort of group marriage.
Exactly as it should be.
The situations aren't really analogous. The parallel would be if there were some kind of group marriage already in place and you wished to join it but on different terms to everyone else.
I think most unions need to be a bit more instrumental in their political support, and a number of them are the associational equivalent of rotten boroughs because of the low turnout in internal elections and their strong ties with certain sections of the Labour Party (ironically usually the old Labour Right in the case of unions like GMB). But what unions do in representing members is inherently political and the introduction of a separate political fund was in itself a political act by opponents of unions to tame their effectiveness.
Absent de-jure closed shops, you are always free not to join.
And that's not a problem. That's Norway being in the EEA but not the EU.
Of course, that means that the simple opt-out of the political fund becomes more complex, with questions of whether you want to support the political campaigning of the Union (and, if you're in a Union surely that's one of the things you want) but not support for a particular political party. The political fund for my Union (UCU) is explicitly not used to financially support Labour (or, any other Party), if members want to support a political party then they can do that individually but our fees don't go to any Party. As the Greens have become a more significant party, there are now two nominally socialist options for workers to support. Many Green candidates are also members of a Union, and it would be odd if some of their Union membership fees were automatically syphoned off to support someone they're standing against.
It's more akin to post-Brexit cakeism.
Unions are under the control of their members in exactly the same way the government is under the control of the people - via periodical elections, in between which the leadership pretty much do whatever they want.
It does not follow that that group of workers should have the same interest in the political situation in Israel and Gaza, or the charitable status of private education, the funding of the NHS, or whether to tax imports from China.
Not at all. The brand of collectivism that eventually inspired the union movement owed much to internationalism and the recognition that none of us are truly free until all of us are free. Or more prosaically, if there was a class of people somewhere who could be exploited, their plight would be used to undermine the working conditions of everyone else.
Other ideologies are available, and if you think a Voice/Professional Association of Teachers approach works better for you, then the organisational opportunity is open.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyvpv1lzq6o
Is this a confession that they have been a bit naughty ?
It's true that an announcement that you are going to stop doing something raises the question of why you were doing it in the first place.
Sir Keir is keen to stress that he broke no rules but ignores the morality issue.
Seems to be preemptive ahead of today’s story in the Financial Times about what Rayner and Reeves have claimed for.
I have some sympathy because the same media that pursues cases like this has a terrible record of pillorying and mocking people (especially women) who they think haven't met unreasonable or sexist standards of appearance, but taking thousands of pounds worth of gifts that causes conflict of interest and goes to very well paid people who are demanding very poor people face hardship (and hounding by the DWP if they make even small mistakes about money) is outrageous.
Austerity has only ever been for the little people. All that’s changed is the colour of the rosette worn by the big people.
It's just horse apples all the way through.
Comment I saw somewhere that Starmer has taken the Labour strand of self help and turned it into Help Yourself.
I doubt this prediction.
What we are seeing is a very aggressive media campaign to magnify certain behaviours and issues. Note here that however I may feel about certain things, Starmer, Raynor and Reeves are being vilified for following the rules.
The tweets from various Tories jumping up and down on this are by equal measure ridiculous and shameless and shameful.
However, this is basically CurryGate and HouseGate again. The budget, the NHS winter, how the economy goes next year, these are the things that matter to most people.
I suspect that very few care. Whether they should is a different question.
AFZ
P.s. For entirely different reasons, I've heard from sources that Lammy's position might not be that secure. I have nothing against him personally but believe Douglas Alexander would be a better choice. YMMV, of course. However, I think Kier wishes to have a settled cabinet for as long as possible.
Yes and no.
That's his personal rating. In voting intention, there's little change. And 5 years from an election it's of very little importance.
But let's get some perspective.
Labour is being slated for what it reported.
The Tories were fined more for non-reporting than Starmer has been gifted in clothes
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/conservative-party-fined-downing-street-flat-donation-boris-johnson-carrie-b970898.html
You wanna go to a zero gift policy? Fine. I'm all for that but let's stop pretending this is worse than what went before. It looks and is ridiculous.
AFZ
TurquoiseTastic beat me to it in posting the poll that shows Starmer's 45 point drop in approval since July. Self preservation alone should tell Labour supporters that their apologetics for this and their austerity-style mis-steps aren't landing and that they need to course correct.
You’re absolutely right - being on the take for things you can well afford looks and is ridiculous.
With the Tories it’s priced in. with Labour it’s just so tawdry, cheap and disappointing.
If you want ridiculous you could do worse than start with this interview with Philipson:
https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1837759449169097040
What is this justification exactly ?
The reality is that a lot these stories are coming from within Labour itself - which is source of catty asides like this from the likes of Hyde:
That’s not a source unfriendly to this iteration of Labour. That’s the writer beloved of centrist-dads writing in the Guardian.
It’s possible that the cause lies in this, one of the more boring details in a breathless piece from the Times:
On LBC the general secretary of Unite has just said that Labour needs to come up with a vision…
Labour Together - the ginger group set up to support the post-Corbyn shift by the Labour Right - have released a report report on the election:
https://www.labourtogether.uk/how-labour-won-2024-report
A number of points; First, that while Labour had built a lot of their hopes on 'Hero Voters' (Tory->Labour voters), only 12% of their vote is from people switching in this way. Of course in their reckoning these voters count "double" - but is hard to see how long this logic persists given the relatively fragile voting coalition coupled with the decrease in voter loyalty.
Of course these voters also are much more in favour of additional spending on public services than the median:
"The Conservatives tried to make tax central to the campaign, through baseless claims that Labour planned a £2,000 annual ‘bombshell’. But tax was not among the top issues for these voters (or any other voter group). Indeed, Conservative to Labour switchers are slightly more likely than the average voter to say that taxes should go up somewhat to fund public services."
And while immigration was a salient issue it came behind ones on which Labour are traditionally strong:
"Conservative to Labour switchers cared about the cost of living, health and the economy, followed by immigration, just like the average voter. But migration is much more important to this part of Labour’s coalition than it is for Labour voters on average."
Of course, if you look at the overall picture for all voters; they have roughly the same view on the top three issues (with immigration being even further down overall).
Yet so far the big announcements and the pre and post election messaging have contained a large focus on immigration, with very little sign of any kind of strategy on the other issues (apart from somehow 'growth')
Hardly a bolt from the blue - or have you all forgotten this from 11 years ago?
There are many things to criticise in Starmer's spell as DPP, not least his closeness to Washington and his behaviour around the London Riots. This however is Guido levels of bad, that was the standard for dealing with DPP Pensions set by the Government of the time rather than the matter for someone who wasn't going to be MP for another two years.
According to the House of Comons Library the total government spend per captia across the UK was in 2022/23 £12,549. The breakdown outside England was:-
Scotland: £14,456 (15% above the UK average)
Wales: £13,967 (11% above the UK average)
Northern Ireland: £14,453 (15% above the UK average).
Across the board (crude but defensible, and its a persistent trend) public sector delivery and effectiveness is generally significantly worse in the three smaller countries than England. Moral: throwing money at problems is not enough. A customer focussed delivery model has to be implemented first or it is good money being wasted on a bad system.
The less advantaged areas of England are beginning to rebel against this long-standing unfairness. Such discontent is felt deeply. It must surely lie underneath the recent riots in the 'left-behind' areas; sadly migrants are bearing the brunt of that anger.
The union are always up front about saying they'd prefer you to pay it, which given the historic labour/tuc relationship is fair do's. It might be something to do with the very freelance nature of the sector but I've never come across a closed shop or shop stewards breathing down your neck etc.
I've always worked (apart from student jobs) in the public sector and never had any pressure there either.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13881175/Angela-Rayner-whisky-vanity-photographer.html
Governments do things. Otherwise they're a bit pointless.
It's completely normal for ministers to visit all kinds of endeavours that fall within their remit, and it's normal for governments to tell the people what they are doing. These days, that involves photographs, so having government photographers recording ministers doing these kinds of things seems entirely reasonable.
It's always reasonable to ask the question about where the line is between the government communicating what it's doing and the governing party campaigning for its politics, and the truth is that these lines are always somewhat blurred.
This seems to be more like a right-wing tabloid trying to make up a story than an actual issue.
Next they’ll be going on about how many cleaners are employed for her at taxpayers’ expense on the basis of the number on the payroll, and a ministry spokesperson will have to explain that the cleaners are employed for the work of the ministry and not to clean her home.
Why do they need to promote the work of a government department ?
Presumably so people are informed about what it is actually doing and are less susceptible to misinformed or deliberately misleading stories spread by the Daily Mail and GB "News".