Gonzo McFee posted:

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1183038432584581121?s=19

*looks straight at the camera as the laugh track plays. *

The Jess Philips for leadership campaign has begun.

OwlFancier posted:

I can't imagine she would do very well with the membership up against a proper left wing candidate.

Cerv posted:

but with a legion of £3 have a go voters behind her anything is possible

Firos posted:

It’s £25 now last I heard lol.

Gonzo McFee posted:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1182942602078965760?s=19

Lol

Cerv posted:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/12/crunch-time-for-corbyn-labour-enforcer-sidelined-as-nerves-jangle

I’m liking the last line of this for next month’s thread title

gh0stpinballa posted:

she'll be writing a lifestyle and advice column for the mail on sunday inside 10 years, it's fine

Jaeluni Asjil posted:

I see the Graun/Observer is still pushing the line that women MPs are facing deselection because they're women and allowing the reader (by not pointing out that it's not in this case and Hodges case) to imagine that it is the left of the party pushing these. Only near the bottom do they mention that MPs opposed to Corbyn have survived the process.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/12/kate-osamor-becomes-fifth-female-labour-mp-to-face-deselection

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Something sweet is surely the last thing they need.

thespaceinvader posted:

I mean, it's frequently the exact thing they need, assuming type 1 diabetes.

WhatEvil posted:

Been thinking about something recently, not really connected to anything going on, just in general:

In socialism (to whatever degree) there would most likely still be businesses or business-like structures. Like, there has to be some entity which, for example, makes washing machines. Of course you can remove the profit motive from that and have pay structures be what you want them to be etc. but ultimately there will still be some entity, factory or whatever that makes them.

I reckon, something you'd want is government-run "efficiency teams", like business/operations analysts who go around to factories, workplaces (including services), whatever and look at ways in which they can improve efficiency, be it in changing work practices, implementing new/different management systems, including computer/software systems, all that kind of thing, maybe even machinery etc. Not only that, if you have a pretty high degree of socialism then this team could also have the power to give grants/government money to implement these things. Also they'd have a goal not to improve efficiency the way "improving efficiency" is applied now (i.e. making cuts, making things cheaper but worse, firing people and making the remaining workers work harder) but like *actual* efficiency not just in the way things are made but also their longevity. There is no reason a washing machine shouldn't last you a lifetime if it's made robustly and designed to be repaired, as opposed to say the 10 years you might get out of one made with a profit motive.

It should actually be a thing where everybody benefits - the workers and consumers, and also the environment.

Essentially, if you're producing something or providing a service that is seen to be in the public good then it should be a good thing to be made as efficient as possible, and if you're running a small/medium business then presumably you might want that help also.

So here's the thing: Why not do that anyway, even without full socialism? You could have a constraint on it like, the business has to pay a living wage (at the very least), or it has to have a profit share with workers or a certain percentage of worker ownership, or even that the business has to be fully co-operatively owned to qualify. If you can convince business owners that if they make their business worker-owned so that they get a smaller slice of the pie, but then that they'll qualify for loads of government investment and therefore every worker (including themselves) benefits from it, maybe not in terms of total income but in terms of security and stuff, that'd be a good thing. It'd also bring the balance back from huge multi-nationals towards SMEs. If nothing else, the government could just loving nationalise or co-operative-ise any business that goes bust (assuming there aren't like, fundamental reasons why it has gone bust like just being a lovely idea for a business in the first place).

There'd have to be really strong safeguards to make sure that it didn't just line the pockets of owners but then something like the co-operative ownership thing would solve that.

Obviously there'd need to be wrangling of the finer details but like, is there anything I'm fundamentally missing here?

The Gov already does stuff like give tax relief on business investment in machinery and R&D and stuff, this is just taking that kind of thing further. It'd also allow Labour to be "pro-business*" in the sense that it could counter some of the accusations of lefties "just wanting free stuff" - it'd put the focus on "well, business can still exist (for now) but we want it to work for the workers and not just for fatcat owners" - which again they already seem to be doing to some degree and they seem to have convinced e.g. the FT that it's a good idea.

CGI Stardust posted:

poo poo or bust, the eternal question

Ratjaculation posted:

If you improve efficiency you'd de-facto have less need for staff, wouldn't you?

Sanitary Naptime posted:

Yeah, these companies already exist to find efficiencies, and every time it's done, it's in the name of more profit, because the first thing to always be cut is labour costs.

What you're talking about makes total sense if you remove a profit motive, but even doing this in any society where there isn't a safety net that guarantees a good standard of living. Just having some regulations around business wouldn't be enough.

ThomasPaine posted:

My dream is to be the guy who inspects the inspector of the inspector so I can just spend my whole day playing videogames

e: I'm sorry I'm breaking my self-imposed rule but this self-own is too impressive

https://twitter.com/francesweetman/status/1183084456804081664?s=20

ThomasPaine posted:

e2: actually, actual question related to this: why do centrists seem unable not to double down on their terrible poo poo at all times even when they're clearly wrong and admitting as much wouldn't threaten them ideologically? Weetabix could easily have just said 'yeah, my bad, poor wording' without having to admit to being wrong about anything. But instead this anti-racist campaigner is just spluttering away despite a bunch of people who are usually on her side going 'yeah... maybe don't do that...'. You'd think in this kind of situation admitting fault would actually play into their 'non-ideological sensible politics' ideological brand.

ThomasPaine posted:

Ratjaculation posted:

It benefits services like the NHS, where there aren't enough staff for the work required, keeping everything running as smoothly as possibly is important when you have 5,000 fewer staff.

ShaneMacGowansTeeth posted:

https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/1183098796248653829

ShaneMacGowansTeeth posted:

https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/1183098796248653829

quote:

I’m suddenly not convinced any more that her backbench credentials are so strong. She thinks the identity aspect of Labour is important and is an ardent Remainer. But isn’t her job to represent the views of her constituents, who she admits don’t think those things?

“I’m not here to satiate people’s needs – I’m here to do what I think is best for them, with them and bring them round to a way of thinking,” she counters.

I’m worried that her view of her role hints slightly at an implied false consciousness of her constituents. She disagrees.

“If I followed what everyone in my constituency thought – bearing in mind they don’t all think the same thing – and acted like a delegate, it would be an incredibly boring place to work, and they don’t want that.”

quote:

“When I don’t write it, it gets said wrong”, she explains, when I ask about her acclaimed new book, Everywoman. “I wouldn’t ever say that I felt I had to write a book – that’s far too pompous a statement. That’s a really arrogant thing to say, but I felt like I had a lot to say and it wasn’t difficult to write it.”

quote:

The moment is now, for Jess Phillips, it seems. When, then, is she running for the leadership? It’s a question she shrugs off at first.

“It’ll probably never happen. I feel like, when I’m asked that question, I have a duty to the kind of people who I want to read my book [Penguin, £14.99], to say ‘yes, of course I could become leader of the Labour Party’ and that I should want to do it. It’s like an obligation to do it. Why the hell shouldn’t someone like me become the leader of the Labour Party?”

Stranger things have happened, of course, as she quickly picks up. “If Donald Trump can become President of the United States, I can become leader of the Labour Party.”

Well, does she want it? “Who wouldn’t? Who wouldn’t want to have all that power to do all the things you thought were right?”

Sanitary Naptime posted:

Eh, I think the solution there really is "hire more staff", at least in the current system, as it's most likely to help lift people out of poverty by giving them work.

The best case scenario is obviously "we don't have to hire more people" so more people don't have to work, but that usually means they end up poor and dead as it is.

Rarity posted:

Jess Phillips is never winning a leadership contest. The membership can't stand her, she's almost at Tom Watson levels.

OwlFancier posted:

Because they aren't sensible or non ideological, they are entirely identified with the superficial trappings of progressivism, they are progressive, therefore anything they do must also be, and everyone else, including reality, must be wrong if it indicates otherwise.

Julio Cruz posted:

jesus christ man just send her a DM or something

CGI Stardust posted:

Couple of bits from a Phillips interview in this article from 2017

ThomasPaine posted:

Her running still wouldn't be ideal though because when Corbyn obviously beats her the headlines write themselves - how dare labour reject a female leader, how feminist of them, such misogyny as well as all that racism.

CGI Stardust posted:

Couple of bits from a Phillips interview in this article from 2017

Ratjaculation posted:

It's both, because you can't instantly hire X number of nurses, doctors, etc. If you got rid of tuition fees and bursaried the poo poo out of medicine courses, you're still waiting 4 years at minimum before any of those were starting F1, let alone fully tained.

It's the same issue that popped up when Corbs promised to get 20k cops back on the street when there aren't enough people left trained to train them lol

Rarity posted:

I think at this point it's a safe bet Corbyn won't be running in the next leadership election, whenever that ends up being, so that won't be an issue.

ThomasPaine posted:

He absolutely will if they mount a challenge before a GE, I think.

CGI Stardust posted:

“If Donald Trump can become President of the United States, I can become leader of the Labour Party.”

Ratjaculation posted:

If you improve efficiency you'd de-facto have less need for staff, wouldn't you?

OwlFancier posted:

The article does say she would do it "if he stepped down"