Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour continues to lose the economy blame game: EdM needs

24

Comments

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @carl

    "I'm in the last group, but that certainly won't stop me voting Labour or Lib Dem in order to get rid of the Tories."

    Could you explain why you want to "get rid of the Tories" - you could be helping out EdM.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2013

    I see Enoch Bryant's speech has gone down well.

    You can hear the version of it that is very different from what he briefed to the Telegraph at 10am - I think its on Sky.
  • @Plato He's still going ahead with it? Very brave.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Chris Bryant, considered by many in the Labour Party as one of their stars...oh woe....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,098
    carl said:

    I don't think Labour will be too bothered about this polling. The numbers could (and probably will) stay roughly the same until the election and they could still win fairly big.

    Simply because I don't think the 30 odd % who entirely blame the last Govt, or equally partisan / stupid 20 odd who entirely blame this Govt, will change their minds or decide the outcome in 2010.

    The key segment is the 20 odd % who hold a more realistic belief that the last Govt takes some blame for presiding over the crisis, this Govt takes some blame for implementing the cuts in a somewhat cackhanded manner (or some variation of that theme).

    I'm in the last group, but that certainly won't stop me voting Labour or Lib Dem in order to get rid of the Tories.

    The difficulty is that although far from cackhanded-free, this govt has implemented cuts and there has been a recovery.

    So that 20% need to believe that although the last Lab govt were to some extent to blame, they would nevertheless have had a Damascene conversion, somehow managed the recovery/cuts process perfectly (having famously opposed most cuts) and delivered...what? Growth? We have that. Better growth? Difficult to argue 'cos all politicos do. A different kind of recovery for different people (ie for non-OEs also)? Perhaps, but it's quite a nuanced position and the stronger the recovery, the more people it will touch so that line gets more difficult.

    I think many of the 20% are more likely not to go Lab and some of them (perhaps enough, perhaps not) quite likely to go Cons.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    ONS @statisticsONS
    71% of foreign nationals and 67% UK nationals were economically active in England and Wales #2011census data shows bit.ly/1bhw0o7
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    At the core of Chris Bryant's travails, there's a genuinely important point: in a world of mass immigration, to what extent is it legitimate for employers to take advantage of the increased supply of labour to keep wage costs down?
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    You can guarantee that PBTories who are laying into Bryant on here today would be in full "good to see a politician brave enough to take on PC and speak the truth" mode had it been a Tory making these comments.

    Bryant's made an idiot of himself though. Whilst picking a scrap with supermarkets isn't exactly a vote loser, he would have been better leaving out the crass pesky furreners stuff and focussing on unfair pricing and competition, poor working conditions etc.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807

    Living standards falling as per BBC headline last night - an open goal for Labour surely?

    "Indeed, the failure to get basic facts straight seriously undermines Bryant, who has just made a catastrophic appearance on Today (more on that later). And it embarrasses Ed Miliband, making his commitment to control immigration look insincere."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/bryants-migrant-workers-boob-adds-to-pressure-on-ed-miliband/

    That'll be the BBC headline that had to be rewritten when it was pointed out that they were passing-off a Labour press release as independent research.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    @Plato He's still going ahead with it? Very brave.

    Bet he wishes he'd never tried to puff it up in advance. Or attention sought across the media this morning. One-man multiple pile up.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    More good news

    Tim Gatt @TimGattITV
    @ITVLauraK: Recruiters organisation, REC, says Chris Bryant is 'painfully uninformed' about employment rules”
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,098
    carl said:

    You can guarantee that PBTories who are laying into Bryant on here today would be in full "good to see a politician brave enough to take on PC and speak the truth" mode had it been a Tory making these comments.

    Bryant's made an idiot of himself though. Whilst picking a scrap with supermarkets isn't exactly a vote loser, he would have been better leaving out the crass pesky furreners stuff and focussing on unfair pricing and competition, poor working conditions etc.

    He didn't pick a scrap with a supermarket. He echoed an old Labour mantra of "British jobs for British workers".

    Although there are plenty of idiotic Tory MPs, I can't see any of them making such comments.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,786
    antifrank said:

    At the core of Chris Bryant's travails, there's a genuinely important point: in a world of mass immigration, to what extent is it legitimate for employers to take advantage of the increased supply of labour to keep wage costs down?

    We have a national minimum wage. I'm not entirely sure why we need more than that.

    Besides isn't it the left's argument that increased immigration doesn't drive wages down, and doesn't take jobs away from 'locals'. When they actually get clear on their arguments in the first place then we can debate a bit more sensibly.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Quite. Unless you are Chris Bryant who lost an argument with himself

    antifrank said:

    At the core of Chris Bryant's travails, there's a genuinely important point: in a world of mass immigration, to what extent is it legitimate for employers to take advantage of the increased supply of labour to keep wage costs down?

    We have a national minimum wage. I'm not entirely sure why we need more than that.

    Besides isn't it the left's argument that increased immigration doesn't drive wages down, and doesn't take jobs away from 'locals'. When they actually get clear on their arguments in the first place then we can debate a bit more sensibly.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Rexel56 said:

    That'll be the BBC headline that had to be rewritten when it was pointed out that they were passing-off a Labour press release as independent research.

    It was independent research.

    And let's be honest about this -- any voters with an IQ above room temperature will know if their own standards of living have risen or fallen, so I'm not really sure what is the point of the spin.

    This is what I call the Bottomley fallacy, named for the former Health Secretary. There is no point spinning or fiddling the figures where people can see with their own eyes.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Carl..what evidence do you have of poor working conditions, where, at what level.. are there different conditions for diferent nationalities..It helps if you chant the slogan to back it up with some facts.
    From experience I can tell you that working at a coal face has some fairly poor working conditions.
    Picking crops in a field, in all weathers, is tough too, how would you change that..slogans dont hack it..
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I'm devastated. Chris Bryant has just listed a huge number of famous immigrants. He missed off Cliff Richard.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,786
    I'm sure tim will be along soon to tell us how this is great for Ed that labours 'going hard' on immigration, and labour talking about immigration is good for labour and bad for UKIP, whilst the tories its bad for them, and good for UKIP

    Well, when he gets his memo for the lines for the day to take...
  • *Anecdotal evidence alert*

    Personally my living standards have risen. Though I had a tricky period of unemployment starting in December 2010 I'm now back in work, earning slightly more than I did back then and the price rises in the shops appear to have slowed right down. So doing alright and feeling optimistic about the future. But then I've always been a good economic bellweather.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    On topic: I think Mike is wrong on this, for the reason DavidL and others have given: ditching Balls would be a massive admission of defeat, proof incontrovertible that Labour now accepts that Osborne was right all along and all that guff about 'too far too fast' and 'ideologically-motivated cuts' was utter garbage. Of course it was utter garbage, and of course Labour politicians know this, but I can't see any electoral advantage in making it crystal-clear that they know it. Anyway, having Balls as well as Burnham seething with frustration on the front benches would hardly help fraternal relations.

    The truth is, Labour's problems on the economy go back to Brown and his extraordinary refusal to face up to the reality that tax revenues had dropped like a stone and weren't going to recover any time soon. Having gone into an election in deficit denial mode (despite Mandelson's and Darling's sterling efforts to drag Gordon Brown towards some vague acknowledgement of reality), the blunder was then compounded by Ed Miliband's total failure to provide the leadership the party needed if it were to stop collapsing further into the same mistake - which they duly did for two years, giving the impression of opposing every saving the government proposed. Indeed, it is still completely unclear whether Ed Miliband himself has the slightest interest in sound finances; the party lurches between deficit denial and sporadic bouts of paying lip-service to the need for control of public spending.

    Of course, Labour's real fear shouldn't be that they lose because of this, it should be that they win despite it. Then what?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,709

    antifrank said:

    At the core of Chris Bryant's travails, there's a genuinely important point: in a world of mass immigration, to what extent is it legitimate for employers to take advantage of the increased supply of labour to keep wage costs down?

    We have a national minimum wage. I'm not entirely sure why we need more than that.

    Besides isn't it the left's argument that increased immigration doesn't drive wages down, and doesn't take jobs away from 'locals'. When they actually get clear on their arguments in the first place then we can debate a bit more sensibly.
    TBF this is more an internationalist-vs-nationalist or elite-vs-populist disagreement than a left-right one. You wouldn't get a unanimous opinion either way on the right either, to the extent that there are people on the right who sincerely believe in free markets.

    But I think it's pretty obvious Bryant is just pandering on this one. Even if he genuinely believed he'd identified a problem that needed solving, he wouldn't have a meaningful solution to it while staying in the EU.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    Off topic: Chris Bryant is a prize berk. This is hardly news, though.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,786

    On topic: I think Mike is wrong on this, for the reason DavidL and others have given: ditching Balls would be a massive admission of defeat, proof incontrovertible that Labour now accepts that Osborne was right all along and all that guff about 'too far too fast' and 'ideologically-motivated cuts' was utter garbage. Of course it was utter garbage, and of course Labour politicians know this, but I can't see any electoral advantage in making it crystal-clear that they know it. Anyway, having Balls as well as Burnham seething with frustration on the front benches would hardly help fraternal relations.

    The truth is, Labour's problems on the economy go back to Brown and his extraordinary refusal to face up to the reality that tax revenues had dropped like a stone and weren't going to recover any time soon. Having gone into an election in deficit denial mode (despite Mandelson's and Darling's sterling efforts to drag Gordon Brown towards some vague acknowledgement of reality), the blunder was then compounded by Ed Miliband's total failure to provide the leadership the party needed if it were to stop collapsing further into the same mistake - which they duly did for two years, giving the impression of opposing every saving the government proposed. Indeed, it is still completely unclear whether Ed Miliband himself has the slightest interest in sound finances; the party lurches between deficit denial and sporadic bouts of paying lip-service to the need for control of public spending.

    Of course, Labour's real fear shouldn't be that they lose because of this, it should be that they win despite it. Then what?

    If labour ditch Balls, Burnham and now Bryant they'll be accussed of being anti-'B' names.

    Maybe time for a new post, does labour have a 'B' problem?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I'm devastated. Chris Bryant has just listed a huge number of famous immigrants. He missed off Cliff Richard.

    in other news

    Markit Economics @MarkitEconomics
    UK Regional PMIs: Recovery strengths again in July, led by strong output growth across North West England & London twitpic.com/d7v0to

    https://twitpic.com/show/full/d7v0to
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    There is something deeply satisfying in someone as odious as Bryant making himself look a complete dickhead.
  • I have a soft spot for Andy Burnham.

    Make him Shadow Chancellor.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    There is something deeply satisfying in someone as odious as Bryant making himself look a complete dickhead.

    This is an epically awful speech. I assume he re-wrote it in between the BBC studios and the venue - he started 20mins late. He'd be better off if he hadn't made it at all.
  • Clearly Bryant has made an utter tit of himself. Luckily for him and Labour no-one is going to notice. But a decent leadership would have more control over shadow minister output. That Bryant can get in such a mess indicates pretty clearly there is little topdown discipline in place. That's just not good enough.

    On topic: blame for the cuts is not a huge problem for Labour. Most don't blame the party; those that do are not all going to vote against them just because of that. As I always say on threads discussing this topic, though, why aren't the Tories proud of what they've done? They are a small state party. Which cuts will they reverse once we finally get sustained and decent growth?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,260
    edited August 2013

    Off topic: Chris Bryant is a prize berk. This is hardly news, though.

    I thought the nickname Reverend Underpants was a sign of respect for his talent and intellect?

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,709

    I'm sure tim will be along soon to tell us how this is great for Ed that labours 'going hard' on immigration, and labour talking about immigration is good for labour and bad for UKIP, whilst the tories its bad for them, and good for UKIP

    Tim's opinion aside there's a genuine question about what happens when _Labour_ talk up UKIP-friendly issues that they don't have solutions to.
    a) There are more UKIP-curious voters in Con, so it doesn't matter who raises the issue, Con go down more than Lab.
    b) Lab talking up an issue disproportionately persuades Lab voters that it needs dealing with, so when the voters realize the Labour solution to the problem Labour have raised is to frown and criticize employers rather than doing anything meaningful, it's Lab voters who disproportionately jump to UKIP.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    If you fancy reading his speech in full - http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/08/12/chris-bryant-immigration-speech-in-full

    I assume this was the one that's currently making my ears bleed.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413

    As I always say on threads discussing this topic, though, why aren't the Tories proud of what they've done? They are a small state party. Which cuts will they reverse once we finally get sustained and decent growth?

    Eh? Of course we're extremely proud of the progress which has been made in getting spending back towards some semblance of sanity, but there's still a lot further to go. Productivity in the public sector remains abysmal - as Frank Field pointed out before the last election, if the NHS had managed to improve efficiency as much as the private sector had over the previous 10 years, there would have been £26bn per annum saved or available for other priorities like care for the elderly.

    Equally, IDS has made huge strides in slowing the inexorable growth of the welfare monster, but it's still a monster by any standard.

    So of course no cuts will be reversed - we'll continue with the hard slog of getting better public services for less money.
  • Mr Bryant is achieving a personal meltdown of epic proportions it seems...

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/video-chris-bryant-tries-to-defuse-row-with-a-fat-woman-joke/

    Ian Birrell‏@ianbirrell3m
    .@ChrisBryantMP deserves to be reviled for pathetic, shameful attempt to ride anti-immigration bandwagon. As does Labour leader endorsing it
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited August 2013
    Well Bryant seems to have turned an opportunity into a crisis for himself and his party.
    He should have properly researched this and used irrefutable facts. By doing so he would have helped improve the image of his party on immigration. Instead he is, as others have said, just pants. Will it be enough for madEdM to shuffle him out? Is he just a mysogynistic leftie who called Gordon's friend Kay "A bit dim".
    http://www.theguardian.com/media/blog/2010/sep/09/kay-burley-chris-bryant
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,845
    Chris Bryant has done none of the following, which is why his speech has been such a dog's dinner.

    1) Identify and specify a problem well.
    2) Work out potential solutions.
    3) Work out the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.
    4) Decide on a solution (or none, if the disadvantages are too large)
    5) Sell not just the solution, but the problem as well.

    To make matters worse, he got his facts utterly wrong, and picked unnecessary fights (I think because, like many politicians, he has to have someone to blame).

    At least with the zero-hours mess Labour did identify a genuine problem, although they did not specify it well (unlike Cable, who did). Which allowed Burnham (who apparently is not a front bencher) to call for them to be banned.

    Not that the coalition are particularly better at following this process either.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    antifrank said:

    At the core of Chris Bryant's travails, there's a genuinely important point: in a world of mass immigration, to what extent is it legitimate for employers to take advantage of the increased supply of labour to keep wage costs down?

    We have a national minimum wage. I'm not entirely sure why we need more than that.

    Besides isn't it the left's argument that increased immigration doesn't drive wages down, and doesn't take jobs away from 'locals'. When they actually get clear on their arguments in the first place then we can debate a bit more sensibly.
    And therein is the paradox, that a minimum wage depresses wages.

    In the days before the minimum wage an employer would have to offer the rate of pay that would hire an employee with the skills and attitude that the employer required. There was price competition between employers with upward pressure. Now there is a minimum wage, an employer has a low end bench mark and can work from that level upwards. I would be certain (if a survey was carried out) that there are now more many jobs closer to the bottom of the pay scale than there were before the introduction of the minimum wage.

    An unintended consequence of imposing a minimum is that it becomes a norm.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited August 2013
    antifrank said:

    At the core of Chris Bryant's travails, there's a genuinely important point: in a world of mass immigration, to what extent is it legitimate for employers to take advantage of the increased supply of labour to keep wage costs down?

    As a nation, we have rewarded ourselves too well for decades and so are vastly uncompetitive in the global economy. So we outsourced the manufacture of things we used to make to where they could be made cheaper (including exporting the manufacturing facilities themselves) - we even outsourced services (call centres) - the result - increasing UK unemployment and less money with which to pay for these imports.

    We still have some areas of technology but in general have downgraded our education and so reduced our skill sets. In the meantime other countries (e.g. BRIC) have uprated their education, increased their skill sets and are able to compete with us technically at a far lower cost base.

    If you run a private sector operation, you are on a cost reduction exercise permanently - there is no bail out for overspending coming from the banks or HMG (or putting up local taxes) - you just go bankrupt. And the sooner that Labour and the LDs learn that very simple fact of life, the better the UK will be.
  • As I always say on threads discussing this topic, though, why aren't the Tories proud of what they've done? They are a small state party. Which cuts will they reverse once we finally get sustained and decent growth?

    Eh? Of course we're extremely proud of the progress which has been made in getting spending back towards some semblance of sanity, but there's still a lot further to go. Productivity in the public sector remains abysmal - as Frank Field pointed out before the last election, if the NHS had managed to improve efficiency as much as the private sector had over the previous 10 years, there would have been £26bn per annum saved or available for other priorities like care for the elderly.

    Equally, IDS has made huge strides in slowing the inexorable growth of the welfare monster, but it's still a monster by any standard.

    So of course no cuts will be reversed - we'll continue with the hard slog of getting better public services for less money.

    So "blame" is not really an electoral issue - unless the Tories believe that the electorate see cuts as bad things. And if that is the case, they are not dictating the terms of the debate.

  • No wonder Bryant failed as a vicar. He barely has a christian bone in his body (yes I have seen the pants pic). He just comes across as a nasty person full of hate. But will EdM sack him?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,845

    Clearly Bryant has made an utter tit of himself. Luckily for him and Labour no-one is going to notice. But a decent leadership would have more control over shadow minister output. That Bryant can get in such a mess indicates pretty clearly there is little topdown discipline in place. That's just not good enough.

    On topic: blame for the cuts is not a huge problem for Labour. Most don't blame the party; those that do are not all going to vote against them just because of that. As I always say on threads discussing this topic, though, why aren't the Tories proud of what they've done? They are a small state party. Which cuts will they reverse once we finally get sustained and decent growth?

    No-one is going to notice?

    Lead story on BBC News online. ("Labour in foreign workers claim row")
    Lead story on radio 4 this am.
    Lead story on radio 5 this am (and on the phone-in).

    True, it'll probably all be forgotten in a few weeks if Bryant and Labour are lucky. But it may be trotted out every so often (in the same manner Brown's "British jobs for British workers" is).

    The current media narrative is also rather largely against Labour, and for self-inflicted reasons. This story just adds to that.

    He has also pi**ed off two big British companies.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,786

    Clearly Bryant has made an utter tit of himself. Luckily for him and Labour no-one is going to notice. But a decent leadership would have more control over shadow minister output. That Bryant can get in such a mess indicates pretty clearly there is little topdown discipline in place. That's just not good enough.

    On topic: blame for the cuts is not a huge problem for Labour. Most don't blame the party; those that do are not all going to vote against them just because of that. As I always say on threads discussing this topic, though, why aren't the Tories proud of what they've done? They are a small state party. Which cuts will they reverse once we finally get sustained and decent growth?

    No-one is going to notice?

    Lead story on BBC News online. ("Labour in foreign workers claim row")
    Lead story on radio 4 this am.
    Lead story on radio 5 this am (and on the phone-in).

    True, it'll probably all be forgotten in a few weeks if Bryant and Labour are lucky. But it may be trotted out every so often (in the same manner Brown's "British jobs for British workers" is).

    The current media narrative is also rather largely against Labour, and for self-inflicted reasons. This story just adds to that.

    He has also pi**ed off two big British companies.
    Non-story, clearly....
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited August 2013

    So "blame" is not really an electoral issue - unless the Tories believe that the electorate see cuts as bad things. And if that is the case, they are not dictating the terms of the debate.

    Yes, I've always said that the question doesn't actually make sense. The true answer to it is that no-one is to 'blame'; it's like asking who's to blame for the laws of compound interest. Spending has to be cut because the government is over-spending. It's as simple as that.

    Of course, respondents are probably answering a different question, which is a general one about whether the previous government ran the economy well, and whether the current government is managing it better.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @Financier I have quite a lot of sympathy with that line of argument, but it's rough on the individuals who see their real living standards cut back sharply over a short period of time. At the age of 16, it's not easy to see which skills that are currently valued highly in the UK will be relatively less vulnerable to global competition and which skills will be of enduring high value. But the choices made then will have set many on a course from which they will now find it difficult to deviate.

    If Mr Jones were around right now, he would probably note that the middle classes gave the skilled working class no sympathy when they found their wages undercut by Polish plumbers and builders, and that it's their turn now.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,301
    Is there a transcript for Bryant's R4 car crash out there?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    SO..Bryant seems to have no problems with making a total tit of himself, he has been doing it since entering Parliament..one wonders why he is a Shadow Minister
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,230
    On topic - Labour don't need a new SCotE. They need a new recent history. The reason the voters blame Labour is because Labour is to blame. Swapping the players around will not hide that truth.

    The last election did not decide many things. But it did decide that Labour were not fit to manage the economy. And that voters did not want Gordon Brown to be their Prime Minister. Too many clever people seem to have spent three years missing the point: that the next election will also not decide many things. But it will decide that Labour are still not fit to manage the economy. And that the voters will not want Ed Miliband to be their next Prime Minister.
  • Clearly Bryant has made an utter tit of himself. Luckily for him and Labour no-one is going to notice. But a decent leadership would have more control over shadow minister output. That Bryant can get in such a mess indicates pretty clearly there is little topdown discipline in place. That's just not good enough.

    On topic: blame for the cuts is not a huge problem for Labour. Most don't blame the party; those that do are not all going to vote against them just because of that. As I always say on threads discussing this topic, though, why aren't the Tories proud of what they've done? They are a small state party. Which cuts will they reverse once we finally get sustained and decent growth?

    No-one is going to notice?

    Lead story on BBC News online. ("Labour in foreign workers claim row")
    Lead story on radio 4 this am.
    Lead story on radio 5 this am (and on the phone-in).

    True, it'll probably all be forgotten in a few weeks if Bryant and Labour are lucky. But it may be trotted out every so often (in the same manner Brown's "British jobs for British workers" is).

    The current media narrative is also rather largely against Labour, and for self-inflicted reasons. This story just adds to that.

    He has also pi**ed off two big British companies.

    I am sure the two British companies will get over it. Bryant probably won't. The media narrative in August is followed by very few people, hence the term silly season. This is a bubble story if ever there was one. But, as I say, it does indicate a very poor lead from the top which reflects badly on EdM. Shadow ministers need to be a lot more disciplined, even during the school holidays when no-one is watching.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Billy Blofeld @billyblofeld
    "the only speech in British political history to be attacked live on air by the politician actually delivering it"
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Ed Miliband, like David Cameron, has no previous experience of management. It's not surprising that both of them have been mediocre at best in the deployment of their resources.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,423
    Why does Ed Milibands Labour party hate business and Australians?

    Discuss.
  • Clearly Bryant has made an utter tit of himself. Luckily for him and Labour no-one is going to notice. But a decent leadership would have more control over shadow minister output. That Bryant can get in such a mess indicates pretty clearly there is little topdown discipline in place. That's just not good enough.

    On topic: blame for the cuts is not a huge problem for Labour. Most don't blame the party; those that do are not all going to vote against them just because of that. As I always say on threads discussing this topic, though, why aren't the Tories proud of what they've done? They are a small state party. Which cuts will they reverse once we finally get sustained and decent growth?

    No-one is going to notice?

    Lead story on BBC News online. ("Labour in foreign workers claim row")
    Lead story on radio 4 this am.
    Lead story on radio 5 this am (and on the phone-in).

    True, it'll probably all be forgotten in a few weeks if Bryant and Labour are lucky. But it may be trotted out every so often (in the same manner Brown's "British jobs for British workers" is).

    The current media narrative is also rather largely against Labour, and for self-inflicted reasons. This story just adds to that.

    He has also pi**ed off two big British companies.

    I am sure the two British companies will get over it. Bryant probably won't. The media narrative in August is followed by very few people, hence the term silly season. This is a bubble story if ever there was one. But, as I say, it does indicate a very poor lead from the top which reflects badly on EdM. Shadow ministers need to be a lot more disciplined, even during the school holidays when no-one is watching.
    Bryant's speech will come to be regarded as the defining moment in EdM's rotten opposition. Labour has nothing to say and it says it badly.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    antifrank said:

    @Financier I have quite a lot of sympathy with that line of argument, but it's rough on the individuals who see their real living standards cut back sharply over a short period of time. At the age of 16, it's not easy to see which skills that are currently valued highly in the UK will be relatively less vulnerable to global competition and which skills will be of enduring high value. But the choices made then will have set many on a course from which they will now find it difficult to deviate.

    If Mr Jones were around right now, he would probably note that the middle classes gave the skilled working class no sympathy when they found their wages undercut by Polish plumbers and builders, and that it's their turn now.

    @antifrank:

    The answer you should be looking for is what skills are valued highly globally - we have to think globally because that is what our competition is doing. Not longer can we sit in the UK and expect the jobs to come to us. Our families will need to go to wherever the jobs are.

    Before the industrial revolution, there were not vast numbers of people in the S Wales Valleys, in the NE or NW - the people came there because the jobs emerged there due to mainly geological reasons.

    We have to face the fact that some areas of the UK (and Europe) have too many people in the wrong places for historic reasons that are no longer valid.

    The tragedy of the last 20 years, is that HMGs were so short-sighted and only had five year visions that they missed the obvious.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I honestly can't think of the last time he said anything nice about anyone. He's rent-a-smear and you-are-a-victim

    On the long list of MPs - he's only second to Tom Watson. Another Brownite thug.

    No wonder Bryant failed as a vicar. He barely has a christian bone in his body (yes I have seen the pants pic). He just comes across as a nasty person full of hate. But will EdM sack him?

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,845

    Clearly Bryant has made an utter tit of himself. Luckily for him and Labour no-one is going to notice. But a decent leadership would have more control over shadow minister output. That Bryant can get in such a mess indicates pretty clearly there is little topdown discipline in place. That's just not good enough.

    On topic: blame for the cuts is not a huge problem for Labour. Most don't blame the party; those that do are not all going to vote against them just because of that. As I always say on threads discussing this topic, though, why aren't the Tories proud of what they've done? They are a small state party. Which cuts will they reverse once we finally get sustained and decent growth?

    No-one is going to notice?

    Lead story on BBC News online. ("Labour in foreign workers claim row")
    Lead story on radio 4 this am.
    Lead story on radio 5 this am (and on the phone-in).

    True, it'll probably all be forgotten in a few weeks if Bryant and Labour are lucky. But it may be trotted out every so often (in the same manner Brown's "British jobs for British workers" is).

    The current media narrative is also rather largely against Labour, and for self-inflicted reasons. This story just adds to that.

    He has also pi**ed off two big British companies.

    I am sure the two British companies will get over it. Bryant probably won't. The media narrative in August is followed by very few people, hence the term silly season. This is a bubble story if ever there was one. But, as I say, it does indicate a very poor lead from the top which reflects badly on EdM. Shadow ministers need to be a lot more disciplined, even during the school holidays when no-one is watching.
    The fact you admit that Bryant probably won't get over it shows that the story has been damaging to Labour despite it being the silly season. A damaged minister becomes easy prey for more stories, as many cabinet and shadow cabinet MPs have found to their cost.

    And like the zero-hours mess, it is utterly self-inflicted.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited August 2013
    Bryants speech is a desperate, pleading, attempt to get Dave to make reference to him at PMQ's.
    And he will...
  • Financier said:

    antifrank said:

    At the core of Chris Bryant's travails, there's a genuinely important point: in a world of mass immigration, to what extent is it legitimate for employers to take advantage of the increased supply of labour to keep wage costs down?

    As a nation, we have rewarded ourselves too well for decades and so are vastly uncompetitive in the global economy. So we outsourced the manufacture of things we used to make to where they could be made cheaper (including exporting the manufacturing facilities themselves) - we even outsourced services (call centres) - the result - increasing UK unemployment and less money with which to pay for these imports.

    We still have some areas of technology but in general have downgraded our education and so reduced our skill sets. In the meantime other countries (e.g. BRIC) have uprated their education, increased their skill sets and are able to compete with us technically at a far lower cost base.

    If you run a private sector operation, you are on a cost reduction exercise permanently - there is no bail out for overspending coming from the banks or HMG (or putting up local taxes) - you just go bankrupt. And the sooner that Labour and the LDs learn that very simple fact of life, the better the UK will be.

    Private sector companies always have to be cost aware, but one of the problems with the UK private sector is the over-focus on cost reduction. That's why we so often fail to compete on quality, when we can't compete on price. There are plenty of lessons for all UK political parties to learn from the private sector; just not necessarily from the British one, which tends to be far too short-term.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,709

    Clearly Bryant has made an utter tit of himself. Luckily for him and Labour no-one is going to notice. But a decent leadership would have more control over shadow minister output. That Bryant can get in such a mess indicates pretty clearly there is little topdown discipline in place. That's just not good enough.

    On topic: blame for the cuts is not a huge problem for Labour. Most don't blame the party; those that do are not all going to vote against them just because of that. As I always say on threads discussing this topic, though, why aren't the Tories proud of what they've done? They are a small state party. Which cuts will they reverse once we finally get sustained and decent growth?

    No-one is going to notice?

    Lead story on BBC News online. ("Labour in foreign workers claim row")
    Lead story on radio 4 this am.
    Lead story on radio 5 this am (and on the phone-in).

    True, it'll probably all be forgotten in a few weeks if Bryant and Labour are lucky. But it may be trotted out every so often (in the same manner Brown's "British jobs for British workers" is).

    The current media narrative is also rather largely against Labour, and for self-inflicted reasons. This story just adds to that.

    He has also pi**ed off two big British companies.
    I hope this thing hurts Labour, but there's a reason why the parties do things like this and the stunt with the van. Even if the actual stunt falls apart on closer inspection, it leaves an impression with people after they've forgotten the detail.

    Labour made a claim, they got a lot of press, Tesco denied it. Labour didn't actually propose to do anything about it, but the fact that they were having the argument with Tesco made it sound like they did. If you're unemployed, or you've got family unemployed, one day you go to Tesco and there's a foreigner working there, you remember Labour talking about this, and think maybe they'll do something about it.

    In an ideal world with intelligent voters who were paying attention this would have been a disastrous news cycle for Labour, but in the actual world we live in it might actually work out OK for them.
  • antifrank said:

    Ed Miliband, like David Cameron, has no previous experience of management. It's not surprising that both of them have been mediocre at best in the deployment of their resources.

    Actually Dave did have 7 years experience in private sector of which most if not all involved managing professional staff. But I agree he did not have CEO level of experience which is what a PM does need. David Davis comes closest to that ideal.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    "Last June Ed Miliband appeared at the IPPR think tank in London and delivered a solemn pledge on immigration. “I am not going to promise 'British jobs for British workers,” he said. “There is nothing wrong with anyone employing Polish builders, a French chef, or a Swedish childminder.” And Miliband has been true to his word; he’s not promised British jobs for British workers. He’s sent Chris Bryant out to do it for him instead.

    Or, at least, that was the plan. This morning Chris was due to deliver a new speech to the IPPR. In this speech he was going to tell his audience there was something wrong with people employing Polish workers after all. Very wrong.

    Next and Tesco were doing it, and were examples of "unscrupulous employers", he was going to say. The precise phrase British jobs for British workers wouldn’t have been used. Instead, Labour’s shadow home affairs minister was going to say: “It is unfair that unscrupulous employers whose only interest seems to be finding labour as cheaply as possible will recruit workers in large numbers in low-wage countries in the EU, bring them to the UK, charge the costs of their travel and their substandard accommodation against their wages and still not even meet the national minimum wage. That is unfair. It exploits migrant workers and it makes it impossible for settled workers with mortgages and a family to support at British prices to compete.” To re-emphasise; Ed Miliband is not demanding British jobs for British workers. He’s just demanding British workers for British jobs.

    Except that Chris Bryant appeared on the Today programme at 8.10 this morning and started to rebut himself vigorously. Tesco and Next weren’t unscrupulous at all. They were “going the extra mile..." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100230711/the-issue-with-chris-bryants-slow-motion-immigration-car-crash-isnt-the-incoherence-its-the-hypocrisy/
  • Financier said:



    We have to face the fact that some areas of the UK (and Europe) have too many people in the wrong places for historic reasons that are no longer valid.

    Are they in the wrong places? Surely, in a globalised economy, it shouldn't matter where they live. If secretarial services can be outsourced to India, surely they could also be outsourced to Barnsley?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Michael Deacon @MichaelPDeacon
    Chris Bryant: "I'm quite used to being a disappointment." Host of event: "Rather than leave it on that note, we'll take another question..."
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    antifrank said:

    At the core of Chris Bryant's travails, there's a genuinely important point: in a world of mass immigration, to what extent is it legitimate for employers to take advantage of the increased supply of labour to keep wage costs down?


    Why would they do anything else?
  • Clearly Bryant has made an utter tit of himself. Luckily for him and Labour no-one is going to notice. But a decent leadership would have more control over shadow minister output. That Bryant can get in such a mess indicates pretty clearly there is little topdown discipline in place. That's just not good enough.

    On topic: blame for the cuts is not a huge problem for Labour. Most don't blame the party; those that do are not all going to vote against them just because of that. As I always say on threads discussing this topic, though, why aren't the Tories proud of what they've done? They are a small state party. Which cuts will they reverse once we finally get sustained and decent growth?

    No-one is going to notice?

    Lead story on BBC News online. ("Labour in foreign workers claim row")
    Lead story on radio 4 this am.
    Lead story on radio 5 this am (and on the phone-in).

    True, it'll probably all be forgotten in a few weeks if Bryant and Labour are lucky. But it may be trotted out every so often (in the same manner Brown's "British jobs for British workers" is).

    The current media narrative is also rather largely against Labour, and for self-inflicted reasons. This story just adds to that.

    He has also pi**ed off two big British companies.

    I am sure the two British companies will get over it. Bryant probably won't. The media narrative in August is followed by very few people, hence the term silly season. This is a bubble story if ever there was one. But, as I say, it does indicate a very poor lead from the top which reflects badly on EdM. Shadow ministers need to be a lot more disciplined, even during the school holidays when no-one is watching.
    The fact you admit that Bryant probably won't get over it shows that the story has been damaging to Labour despite it being the silly season. A damaged minister becomes easy prey for more stories, as many cabinet and shadow cabinet MPs have found to their cost.

    And like the zero-hours mess, it is utterly self-inflicted.

    I think you may be over-egging things, but we'll have to wait and see.

  • antifrank said:

    Ed Miliband, like David Cameron, has no previous experience of management. It's not surprising that both of them have been mediocre at best in the deployment of their resources.

    Actually Dave did have 7 years experience in private sector of which most if not all involved managing professional staff. But I agree he did not have CEO level of experience which is what a PM does need. David Davis comes closest to that ideal.

    Has any British PM had CEO experience? There are any number os mediocre CEOs out there, many earning huge sums of money.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,845

    No-one is going to notice?

    Lead story on BBC News online. ("Labour in foreign workers claim row")
    Lead story on radio 4 this am.
    Lead story on radio 5 this am (and on the phone-in).

    True, it'll probably all be forgotten in a few weeks if Bryant and Labour are lucky. But it may be trotted out every so often (in the same manner Brown's "British jobs for British workers" is).

    The current media narrative is also rather largely against Labour, and for self-inflicted reasons. This story just adds to that.

    He has also pi**ed off two big British companies.
    I hope this thing hurts Labour, but there's a reason why the parties do things like this and the stunt with the van. Even if the actual stunt falls apart on closer inspection, it leaves an impression with people after they've forgotten the detail.

    Labour made a claim, they got a lot of press, Tesco denied it. Labour didn't actually propose to do anything about it, but the fact that they were having the argument with Tesco made it sound like they did. If you're unemployed, or you've got family unemployed, one day you go to Tesco and there's a foreigner working there, you remember Labour talking about this, and think maybe they'll do something about it.

    In an ideal world with intelligent voters who were paying attention this would have been a disastrous news cycle for Labour, but in the actual world we live in it might actually work out OK for them.
    So you are in the any-news-is-good-news camp?

    All Labour and Bryant have done with the if-you're-unemployed-or-have-family-unemployed brigade is spread more distrust of immigrants. Which is the last thing we need.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik
  • Not a fan of Melissa, but this C4 programme could be the starting point for changing our welfare state. If only a Labour Leader had the courage to do so. And maybe only Labour could do it, because the BBC led media is holding back the Conservative moves.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2389525/The-extraordinary-experiment-PROVES-welfare-state-lost-way-In-new-documentary-benefit-claimants-challenged-live-handouts-applied-welfare-state-began-1949-The-results-astonish-infuriate-you.html
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    antifrank said:

    Ed Miliband, like David Cameron, has no previous experience of management. It's not surprising that both of them have been mediocre at best in the deployment of their resources.

    What? EdM was SoS at DECC - was he an office of one? Cameron was Dir at Carlton - another office of one?

    Nonsense on stilts.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413

    There are plenty of lessons for all UK political parties to learn from the private sector; just not necessarily from the British one, which tends to be far too short-term.

    This is often said, but I really don't think it stands up. Just look through the FTSE 100: are you really going to claim that Rolls Royce, Diageo, GlaxoSmithKline, Vodafone, Reckitt Benkiser, Tesco, ARM, BAe, BG, Compass, Capita, National Grid, easyJet, Hargreaves Lansdown, Standard Chartered, HSBC, or WPP are companies which take a short-term view? They seem to me to be a bunch of world-class companies which have invested over decades in their brands, skill and businesses, improving quality against tough competition whilst doggedly bearing down on costs.
  • isam said:

    antifrank said:

    At the core of Chris Bryant's travails, there's a genuinely important point: in a world of mass immigration, to what extent is it legitimate for employers to take advantage of the increased supply of labour to keep wage costs down?


    Why would they do anything else?

    Someone with a long-term investment in a country/county/city may turn out to be a better long/term bet as a productive employee than one who is mobile and willing to move around. So even if they cost more in the short term you get more from them in the long term.

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,786
    Guido Fawkes ‏@GuidoFawkes 1m
    The best picture of Ed in Tescos you will see today. Looks like the soon-to-be-sacked graduate trainee manager: [PIC] pic.twitter.com/GXCqQX8YWb

    Heh- Ed really does have 'crap lower-middle manger' written all over him doesn't he..
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2013
    This is just perfect - the epitome of back-tracking

    "Chris Bryant, the shadow immigration minister, has dropped a claim that Tesco told British workers they could only keep their jobs if they took a pay cut – a pretty explosive charge to lay against one of Britain's biggest employers. The key section of this morning's speech, briefed to the Sunday Telegraph this weekend, read:

    Take the case of Tesco, who recently decided to move their distribution centre in Kent. The new centre is larger and employs more people, but the staff at original site, most of them British, were told that they could only move to the new centre if they took a cut in pay. The result? A large percentage of the staff at the new centre are from Eastern bloc.

    Whereas the speech he delivered this morning read:

    Take Tesco. A good employer and an important source of jobs in Britain. They take on young people, operate apprenticeships and training schemes and often recruit unemployed or disabled staff through job centres. Yet when a distribution centre was moved to a new location existing staff said they would have lost out by transferring and the result was a higher proportion of staff from A8 countries taking up the jobs. Tesco are clear they have tried to recruit locally. And I hope they can provide more reassurance for their existing staff. But the fact that staff are raising concern shows how sensitive the issue has become.

    On Next, the original speech accused the clothing chain of circumventing labour regulations:

    Look at Next PLC, who last year brought 500 Polish workers to work in their South Elmsall [West Yorkshire] warehouse for their summer sale and another 300 this summer. They were recruited in Poland and charged £50 to find them accommodation. The advantage to Next? They get to avoid Agency Workers Regulations which apply after a candidate has been employed for over 12 weeks, so Polish temps end up considerably cheaper than the local workforce which includes many former Next employees.

    Whereas this morning's speech went... blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/matthewholehouse/100230722/compare-chris-bryants-rewritten-immigration-speech/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    What strikes me about Bryantgate is it is an illustration of the sheer indolence of labour's opposition. Bryant didn't even bother to research the matter he was speaking about at all. What a lazy g*t.

    All labour have done for three years is take what the coalition have done and said they are against it.

    There's a complete lack of energy and rigour in everything they are doing. Or rather, not doing.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    I have just Googled the CEOs of Tesco and Next and can confirm that Labour is sticking to its policy of using immigration to "make the white man angry"...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,709


    So you are in the any-news-is-good-news camp?

    No, I'm in the "Pandering idiocy often works, because the voters are gullible cretins" camp.


    All Labour and Bryant have done with the if-you're-unemployed-or-have-family-unemployed brigade is spread more distrust of immigrants. Which is the last thing we need.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

    I agree. It's mildly encouraging that when British politicians try to do this kind of thing they always seem to trip over their own shoelaces, but I still think there may be enough of the people in the Southpark clip around paying little enough attention to make it worth their while.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    At the core of Chris Bryant's travails, there's a genuinely important point: in a world of mass immigration, to what extent is it legitimate for employers to take advantage of the increased supply of labour to keep wage costs down?


    Why would they do anything else?
    King Cnut had a go...
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Financier said:



    We have to face the fact that some areas of the UK (and Europe) have too many people in the wrong places for historic reasons that are no longer valid.

    Are they in the wrong places? Surely, in a globalised economy, it shouldn't matter where they live. If secretarial services can be outsourced to India, surely they could also be outsourced to Barnsley?
    If you answer your own question as to why they were outsourced to India (and not Barnsley) then you will find the answer. It may not be valid now but it was believed to be valid then.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,985
    This is Ed's big problem. I think I've said before that Balls is an issue but the reason he's still there is because there isn't an obvious alternative. Reeves has the relevant background but she'd make Osborne look mature! Sure way to kill someone's political career by promoting them too soon. Replacing Balls with his wife would just be odd, although that's a bit unfair on her, she wasn't really part of the Brown gang. Did her sex exclude her? Darling would be effective but I tend to think he'd be softer on the city than EdM would like. I just don't think there are many amongst the older generation in Labour who really believe in economic reform.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    What matters is who EdM appoints as his Chancellor.
  • Plato said:

    antifrank said:

    Ed Miliband, like David Cameron, has no previous experience of management. It's not surprising that both of them have been mediocre at best in the deployment of their resources.

    What? EdM was SoS at DECC - was he an office of one? Cameron was Dir at Carlton - another office of one?
    Nonsense on stilts.
    Yes Ed had a couple of years experience of a few managerial tasks but much more limited than in the private sector. Plato, does a SoS does really manage all their public servants, they seem to manage the SoS?
  • Will Tesco and Next be bold enough to start legal actions against Bryant? Then the fun would really start.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,786

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    At the core of Chris Bryant's travails, there's a genuinely important point: in a world of mass immigration, to what extent is it legitimate for employers to take advantage of the increased supply of labour to keep wage costs down?


    Why would they do anything else?

    Someone with a long-term investment in a country/county/city may turn out to be a better long/term bet as a productive employee than one who is mobile and willing to move around. So even if they cost more in the short term you get more from them in the long term.

    With globalisation, and the growth in truly multinational companies, then that 'long term' historical investment is going to be eroded over time.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,985
    surbiton said:

    What matters is who EdM appoints as his Chancellor.

    He's got to get into government first. I think Mike is pushing it too far by saying he can't win with Balls at his side, but he's a serious impediment.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    "can confirm that Labour is sticking to its policy of using immigration to "make the white man angry"...

    Is that why they let three million in??
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited August 2013
    Chris Bryant's original text accused Tesco of breaking the law: "..still not even meet the national minimum wage. That is unfair." More to the point it's illegal.

    I wonder whether he got a letter from the company's solicitors?
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807

    Will Tesco and Next be bold enough to start legal actions against Bryant? Then the fun would really start.

    I think it's clear from the opening words from Bryant on R4 and the revised paragraph in his speech that Bryant has now trotted out the form of words that Tesco's lawyers instructed him to... so legal action won't happen
  • antifrank said:

    Ed Miliband, like David Cameron, has no previous experience of management. It's not surprising that both of them have been mediocre at best in the deployment of their resources.

    Actually Dave did have 7 years experience in private sector of which most if not all involved managing professional staff. But I agree he did not have CEO level of experience which is what a PM does need. David Davis comes closest to that ideal.
    Has any British PM had CEO experience? There are any number os mediocre CEOs out there, many earning huge sums of money.
    Studies in the past indicate that the failure rate of CEOs is circa 50%. The failure rate of PMs is closer to 90%.
  • There are plenty of lessons for all UK political parties to learn from the private sector; just not necessarily from the British one, which tends to be far too short-term.

    This is often said, but I really don't think it stands up. Just look through the FTSE 100: are you really going to claim that Rolls Royce, Diageo, GlaxoSmithKline, Vodafone, Reckitt Benkiser, Tesco, ARM, BAe, BG, Compass, Capita, National Grid, easyJet, Hargreaves Lansdown, Standard Chartered, HSBC, or WPP are companies which take a short-term view? They seem to me to be a bunch of world-class companies which have invested over decades in their brands, skill and businesses, improving quality against tough competition whilst doggedly bearing down on costs.

    There are some great UK companies, but nowhere near enough for a country of our size.

  • Jim @toryjim
    Chris Bryant will go down in history as the first person involved in a one car pile up.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    antifrank said:

    Ed Miliband, like David Cameron, has no previous experience of management. It's not surprising that both of them have been mediocre at best in the deployment of their resources.

    Actually Dave did have 7 years experience in private sector of which most if not all involved managing professional staff. But I agree he did not have CEO level of experience which is what a PM does need. David Davis comes closest to that ideal.

    Has any British PM had CEO experience? There are any number os mediocre CEOs out there, many earning huge sums of money.
    I believe that Harold MacMillan was a partner in the family publishing firm for 20 years.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,423
    edited August 2013
    Can you imagine what will happen if these clowns do somehow luck their way into Downing Street on 33% of the popular vote?

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I wonder whether he got a letter from the company's solicitors?

    Could a company, hypothetically, take legal action against a political party? Bryant was, after all, speaking as a labour MP.
  • taffys said:

    I wonder whether he got a letter from the company's solicitors?
    Could a company, hypothetically, take legal action against a political party? Bryant was, after all, speaking as a labour MP.

    Yes but does Labour have any cash to pay?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I think he's made an ample numpty of himself already.

    Will Tesco and Next be bold enough to start legal actions against Bryant? Then the fun would really start.

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,786

    There are plenty of lessons for all UK political parties to learn from the private sector; just not necessarily from the British one, which tends to be far too short-term.

    This is often said, but I really don't think it stands up. Just look through the FTSE 100: are you really going to claim that Rolls Royce, Diageo, GlaxoSmithKline, Vodafone, Reckitt Benkiser, Tesco, ARM, BAe, BG, Compass, Capita, National Grid, easyJet, Hargreaves Lansdown, Standard Chartered, HSBC, or WPP are companies which take a short-term view? They seem to me to be a bunch of world-class companies which have invested over decades in their brands, skill and businesses, improving quality against tough competition whilst doggedly bearing down on costs.

    There are some great UK companies, but nowhere near enough for a country of our size.

    So, I expect that the vast majority of people which work for them are in the higher levels of education (and intelligence). There's only so much of that skilled labour which a country can provide, due to simple genetics and demographics of populations.

    Which raises the main issue...what do you do with the other 60%-80% (or however much) of the population which simply can't learn the skills to let them compete. In the past we had manufacturing and manual labour, the industries of which don't exist now.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,709

    Chris Bryant's original text accused Tesco of breaking the law: "..still not even meet the national minimum wage. That is unfair." More to the point it's illegal.

    I wonder whether he got a letter from the company's solicitors?

    Was the subject of that sentence actually Tesco, or did he use the classic political bullshitting technique of talking about something specific, then switching the subject to something more general before you make the serious claims?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Oh

    CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden
    CIPD Labour Market Survey shows net hiring at highest level since 2008. #Employment onrec.com/news/news-arch…
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited August 2013
    CORRECTION Latest Populus online shares are:
    Lab 39 (↑1)
    Cons 33 (↑1)
    LD 12 (↔)
    UKIP 10 (↑1)
This discussion has been closed.