Definitely hit a ceiling now in max possible, which is a bit disappointing after hitting 600k a couple of weeks ago.
I'd guess that it's a a supply ceiling and that Pfizer doses are being held back for second doses at this point. We're two weeks away from needing to do first and second doses simultaneously so building up a stock of Pfizer is probably a pretty urgent concern right now.
There's also the issue that the number left in tiers 1-4 has been so reduced that they've run out of people to do this week.
I know of a few people in tiers 5-6 who have booked vaccination slots for next week.
No they shouldn't, they should be allocated in relation to the percentage of A* grade pupils from Eton relative to A* grade pupils in sixth forms across the country
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
The next problem will be enforcement. I suspect there is a reason that forged vaccination stickers/cards have already turned up.
Easier in the UK where vaccinations can be checked against NHS numbers etc. Less easy for those recruited from overseas.
A relative of min runs a building company. At one point some Eastern European gentlemen applied for work. Complete with shiny new UK passports. This was before accession of their country to the EU.
Interestingly the passports weren't forged - issued by the Home Office. They had absolutely no right to them, though....
Shouldn’t happen how as you have to have a “first passport interview” in person (or via a video link during the pandemic) but until relatively recently the Day of the Jackal method of getting a passport was scarily easy.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
I apologise for the rogue apostrophe. I promise it is autocorrect.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
The next problem will be enforcement. I suspect there is a reason that forged vaccination stickers/cards have already turned up.
Easier in the UK where vaccinations can be checked against NHS numbers etc. Less easy for those recruited from overseas.
A relative of min runs a building company. At one point some Eastern European gentlemen applied for work. Complete with shiny new UK passports. This was before accession of their country to the EU.
Interestingly the passports weren't forged - issued by the Home Office. They had absolutely no right to them, though....
Shouldn’t happen how as you have to have a “first passport interview” in person (or via a video link during the pandemic) but until relatively recently the Day of the Jackal method of getting a passport was scarily easy.
This was a number of years ago.
He was later told by an immigration lawyer he consulted on this, that there was a known problem with some passport issuing offices - not so much corruption as waving through applications on essentially no evidence.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
I think that is the idea of some people, take the best bits from x modify y bring z etc. I get the feeling for a lot of people that was the whole idea for Starmer, he would say nice things about Blair and Corbyn and thus bridge divide in the party whilst maybe bringing policies as above.
I wasn't on the Starmer train originally but I saw it as an okay journey, I think it turned into something more of a revenge trip than somewhere meaningful.
TBH even a watered down 2017 would get a decent section of the left add in some good new policies like yours above to maybe replace ones that are gone and maybe a bit less kick the left PR campaign and you've probably got a more settled better performing party.. the press will probably be a bit meaner but you'll probably have more voters.
Liverpool's leaky defence looking a dodgy as ever....
What defence?
I don't understand why we didn't sign a defender in the January window. We don't have a defence currently.
I thought when Man City lost Kompany that they might struggle there. Seems Dias has now plugged the key gap they had there though. Van Dijk being injured is huge for Liverpool, you can't just replace players like that.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
Thank you for repeating the same assertions. Do you have evidence, please? Because, again, the evidence I saw said something very different. I’m willing to be corrected if you can prove your statements. (Incidentally, again, the polling I saw suggested that individual policies were popular but nobody thought they were properly costed.)
I don't think there's any doubt that the policies were popular as shown here - I don't remember a specific question on being properly costed, but the public are always sceptical (and they're usually right) about parties claiming that, and will often vote for a party on the basis that if they turn out to be able to afford half of it that's not bad. Corbyn was competitive with May as the BBC link shows, though many will think that a low bar - my recollection is that he attracted both more enthusiasm and more hostility than May but it evened out in 2017. What people think/thought of Corbyn is a bit irrelevant now, of course - we're discussing the policies.
There was also a survey (which I can't find) suggesting that Labour's vote increased more among people who thought Labour might win than people who didn't, which is a pretty normal pattern but contradicts the theory that people voted Labour because they were sure they'd lose. People don't in general think like that, in my experience.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
So you attribute no blame at all to Corybn and his policies and positions?
You realise there is a difference between agreeing with others that Corbyn and left wingers are the source of all evil in the world and that Corbyn is the perfect person.
Labour policies and positions along with Corbyn are a large part of why it did so much better in 2017 than previous leaders Brexit a large part of of the loss of votes from 2017 to 2019 (which combined with the previous big increases in Tory vote led to a disaster)
What evidence do you have for that? All the evidence I have seen suggests the opposite - that in 2017 Remainers voted a Labour to protest at Tory rhetoric in spite of Corbyn’s ‘fully costed’ policies (such as £300 million for 10,000 extra police) and then in 2019 they voted Tory because of his woeful leadership and unrealistic policies.
I've showed you the reasons people voted for Labour in 2017 previously, you purposefully forget because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Maybe they all lied and secretly told you the real reason they were voting Labour?
I'll take your word for it.
I do not recall you ever providing any evidence of this before. That is not because I am a liar, or because it doesn’t suit my agenda, it is simply that I cannot recall it. You may have done, or may not, but amazingly I don’t remember every word you post.
Are you going to be abusive merely for being asked for some evidence for an unsupported assertion that suits your own agenda? Unfortunately, if so you are rather underlining why Labour seemed to have ceased listening to voters.
I’ll check this out. Thank you for finally providing it.
I don't think the link says what Jezziah thinks it says.
According to that link only 41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Labour policies or due to supporting Corbyn. So 59% of Labour voters had other reasons.
It was claimed Labour vote increase was because of Brexit, it has all the reason listed there so If I have it wrong and Brexit was a cause of a huge amount of the votes you can point to it perhaps?
I can't see anything there that confirms Brexit was the cause of the increase in votes.
Liverpool's leaky defence looking a dodgy as ever....
What defence?
I don't understand why we didn't sign a defender in the January window. We don't have a defence currently.
I thought when Man City lost Kompany that they might struggle there. Seems Dias has now plugged the key gap they had there though. Van Dijk being injured is huge for Liverpool, you can't just replace players like that.
Had it been just Van Dijk it would have been bad enough but it's been pretty much every defender we have. Which then means we don't have our midfield either since our midfielders are makeshift defenders instead.
So no full time defenders and no full time midfield either.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
This is genuinely a really interesting and educational conversation for me. Cheers guys. PB at its best.
I think that is the idea of some people, take the best bits from x modify y bring z etc. I get the feeling for a lot of people that was the whole idea for Starmer, he would say nice things about Blair and Corbyn and thus bridge divide in the party whilst maybe bringing policies as above.
I wasn't on the Starmer train originally but I saw it as an okay journey, I think it turned into something more of a revenge trip than somewhere meaningful.
TBH even a watered down 2017 would get a decent section of the left add in some good new policies like yours above to maybe replace ones that are gone and maybe a bit less kick the left PR campaign and you've probably got a more settled better performing party.. the press will probably be a bit meaner but you'll probably have more voters.
I'm talking about a core idea that embraces a wider grouping. Not positioning. An actual position.
Competition in public service, without privatisation. A government based on providing *service* to its customers. As opposed to brutal monstering the welfare system seems to specialise in, for example, since the days of the Poor Law.
Thank you for repeating the same assertions. Do you have evidence, please? Because, again, the evidence I saw said something very different. I’m willing to be corrected if you can prove your statements. (Incidentally, again, the polling I saw suggested that individual policies were popular but nobody thought they were properly costed.)
I don't think there's any doubt that the policies were popular as shown here - I don't remember a specific question on being properly costed, but the public are always sceptical (and they're usually right) about parties claiming that, and will often vote for a party on the basis that if they turn out to be able to afford half of it that's not bad. Corbyn was competitive with May as the BBC link shows, though many will think that a low bar - my recollection is that he attracted both more enthusiasm and more hostility than May but it evened out in 2017. What people think/thought of Corbyn is a bit irrelevant now, of course - we're discussing the policies.
There was also a survey (which I can't find) suggesting that Labour's vote increased more among people who thought Labour might win than people who didn't, which is a pretty normal pattern but contradicts the theory that people voted Labour because they were sure they'd lose. People don't in general think like that, in my experience.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
So you attribute no blame at all to Corybn and his policies and positions?
You realise there is a difference between agreeing with others that Corbyn and left wingers are the source of all evil in the world and that Corbyn is the perfect person.
Labour policies and positions along with Corbyn are a large part of why it did so much better in 2017 than previous leaders Brexit a large part of of the loss of votes from 2017 to 2019 (which combined with the previous big increases in Tory vote led to a disaster)
What evidence do you have for that? All the evidence I have seen suggests the opposite - that in 2017 Remainers voted a Labour to protest at Tory rhetoric in spite of Corbyn’s ‘fully costed’ policies (such as £300 million for 10,000 extra police) and then in 2019 they voted Tory because of his woeful leadership and unrealistic policies.
I've showed you the reasons people voted for Labour in 2017 previously, you purposefully forget because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Maybe they all lied and secretly told you the real reason they were voting Labour?
I'll take your word for it.
I do not recall you ever providing any evidence of this before. That is not because I am a liar, or because it doesn’t suit my agenda, it is simply that I cannot recall it. You may have done, or may not, but amazingly I don’t remember every word you post.
Are you going to be abusive merely for being asked for some evidence for an unsupported assertion that suits your own agenda? Unfortunately, if so you are rather underlining why Labour seemed to have ceased listening to voters.
I’ll check this out. Thank you for finally providing it.
I don't think the link says what Jezziah thinks it says.
According to that link only 41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Labour policies or due to supporting Corbyn. So 59% of Labour voters had other reasons.
It was claimed Labour vote increase was because of Brexit, it has all the reason listed there so If I have it wrong and Brexit was a cause of a huge amount of the votes you can point to it perhaps?
I can't see anything there that confirms Brexit was the cause of the increase in votes.
I would put that potentially under anti Tory, anti Theresa May, bad bunch and other. Which is nearly a third of the votes.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 436,925 3,733 12,733,865 East Of England 55,627 473 1,536,889 London 51,432 325 1,449,924 Midlands 86,711 442 2,415,791 North East And Yorkshire 70,991 896 2,003,006 North West 46,711 422 1,698,709 South East 70,956 906 2,074,342 South West 52,052 254 1,486,769
London: still pants, alas
Wont London have a lower age profile and hence naturally behind the others?
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
Definitely hit a ceiling now in max possible, which is a bit disappointing after hitting 600k a couple of weeks ago.
I'd guess that it's a a supply ceiling and that Pfizer doses are being held back for second doses at this point. We're two weeks away from needing to do first and second doses simultaneously so building up a stock of Pfizer is probably a pretty urgent concern right now.
There's also the issue that the number left in tiers 1-4 has been so reduced that they've run out of people to do this week.
I know of a few people in tiers 5-6 who have booked vaccination slots for next week.
I've been told by my GP to expect my second Pfizer jab in the second week of March.
The Alice Roberts Stonehenge documentary last night on BBC2 is well worth a watch
Indeed. Watching In was reminded of the book on the genetics of the British and how they showed the patterns of migration, the title of which I cannot remember, but which opined that the evidence demonstrated that post Ice-Age Britain was repopulated from two main and one minor directions; up the west coast of what is now France, from Iberia and into the Western part of the British Isles and from the East, across the Channel and North Sea. The Westerners uniting with the Easterners might well have accounted for the movement of the Henge.
That was Oppenheimer's book. I enjoyed that too, and found it convincing - especially the earlier chapters before it descended deeply into the minutiae of the DNA.
But Tyndall told me it has mostly since been discredited.
New evidence sadly. It is now apparent that the original post glacial inhabitants of the British isles were almost entirely wiped out at the end of the Neolithic. It appears there is a 90% plus annihilation of the pre-existing population of the British isles within perhaps as little as one generation and their replacement by a new peoples originating (we think) in Spain. I was educated in the 80s in exactly the sort of migration hypothesis you talk about but it is now well out of date.
It is not clear what actually led to the almost complete removal of the native population - disease is the most obvious cause with the new arrivals inadvertently bringing something with them that they themselves were immune to. But no one knows for sure.
This is how the Independent reported the new hypothesis back in 2018
Interesting. I might read his book again to see where, other than looking for evidence for a preferred conclusion, his analysis might be flawed
I don't think it is necessarily fair to say his analysis was flawed. It was based on the evidence available in the early 2000s. Obviously if he was still persisting in claiming everything he said was true one might question whether he is rather stuck in the mud. But the new evidence only emerged in 2018 so I don't think he can be accused of preferring a particular conclusion at the time of writing
As I recall, a big part of his conclusion was that the population of much of England was already speaking some form of Germanic language before the anglo saxons arrived, and therefore before the Romans arrived, rather than being celtic as often assumed. The prior population replacement by the beaker people post-2000 BC isn’t in itself total disproof
Not sure that is a popular theory with linguists. Much of the naming of rivers and other natural features are definitely not Germanic and I have never seen any evidence that there as widespread usage of any form of Germanic language in Britain before the Romans. What is possible is that during the RB period there was a massive influx of Germanic speakers as Foederati and settlers but that doesn't support the idea of an extant Germanic population prior to the 1st century AD.
The whole period 400 to 600 is such a blank canvass in our country's history. What do you think happened during that period?
Historically it is blank. Archaeologically not so much. For example at West Heslerton in Yorkshire they have been able to use isotope analysis of teeth to understand where the inhabitants in the supposedly Anglo-Saxon cemetery grew up. Somewhat surprisingly in spite of dating to the start of the invasion period and being dressed in an Anglian fashion, the majority were born and grew up in Lancashire and Cumbria.
Personally I think the picture developed by Francis Pryor which is now pretty mainstream is probably the most accurate.
Starting with the Roman occupation, you have the land stripped of most of its Iron-age inhabitants who are concentrated into towns and onto large Roman industrial farming villas. Across much of Southern and Eastern Britain native occupation outside of the villa economy almost ceases to exist.
Later there are large influxes of Germanic peoples well prior to the end of the RB period as a result of the use of Foederati from the German tribes and the associated settlement.
This is followed by a series of great plagues across the Empire during the 4th century and the withdrawal of the main Roman authority from Britain at the start of the 5th century. This results in the collapse of the villa landscape and the whole economy. Due to the previous dominance of the villa landscape this leaves much of lowland Britain effectively unoccupied or at least sparsely occupied.
You then get the continuation of the mass migrations of Germanic peoples into Britain but rather than coming as aggressive conquerors they are coming to settle in a much underpopulated landscape. This is, to a large extent, a peaceful settlement with most of the conflict being in the West on the fringes of what was Roman Britain where the native population survived.
At West Haslerton there is continuous occupation of the site from the Bronze Age to the late AS period with the first indications of violence not occurring until the 9th century when the Danes arrived. There are many cemeteries across the country where RB and AS funerary practices are seen side by side in the same cemetery from the same period.
Is this a true reflection of what happened - probably not exactly but it certainly matches the evidence far better than the traditional narrative which is why it is .
Thank you for repeating the same assertions. Do you have evidence, please? Because, again, the evidence I saw said something very different. I’m willing to be corrected if you can prove your statements. (Incidentally, again, the polling I saw suggested that individual policies were popular but nobody thought they were properly costed.)
I don't think there's any doubt that the policies were popular as shown here - I don't remember a specific question on being properly costed, but the public are always sceptical (and they're usually right) about parties claiming that, and will often vote for a party on the basis that if they turn out to be able to afford half of it that's not bad. Corbyn was competitive with May as the BBC link shows, though many will think that a low bar - my recollection is that he attracted both more enthusiasm and more hostility than May but it evened out in 2017. What people think/thought of Corbyn is a bit irrelevant now, of course - we're discussing the policies.
There was also a survey (which I can't find) suggesting that Labour's vote increased more among people who thought Labour might win than people who didn't, which is a pretty normal pattern but contradicts the theory that people voted Labour because they were sure they'd lose. People don't in general think like that, in my experience.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
So you attribute no blame at all to Corybn and his policies and positions?
You realise there is a difference between agreeing with others that Corbyn and left wingers are the source of all evil in the world and that Corbyn is the perfect person.
Labour policies and positions along with Corbyn are a large part of why it did so much better in 2017 than previous leaders Brexit a large part of of the loss of votes from 2017 to 2019 (which combined with the previous big increases in Tory vote led to a disaster)
What evidence do you have for that? All the evidence I have seen suggests the opposite - that in 2017 Remainers voted a Labour to protest at Tory rhetoric in spite of Corbyn’s ‘fully costed’ policies (such as £300 million for 10,000 extra police) and then in 2019 they voted Tory because of his woeful leadership and unrealistic policies.
I've showed you the reasons people voted for Labour in 2017 previously, you purposefully forget because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Maybe they all lied and secretly told you the real reason they were voting Labour?
I'll take your word for it.
I do not recall you ever providing any evidence of this before. That is not because I am a liar, or because it doesn’t suit my agenda, it is simply that I cannot recall it. You may have done, or may not, but amazingly I don’t remember every word you post.
Are you going to be abusive merely for being asked for some evidence for an unsupported assertion that suits your own agenda? Unfortunately, if so you are rather underlining why Labour seemed to have ceased listening to voters.
I’ll check this out. Thank you for finally providing it.
I don't think the link says what Jezziah thinks it says.
According to that link only 41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Labour policies or due to supporting Corbyn. So 59% of Labour voters had other reasons.
It was claimed Labour vote increase was because of Brexit, it has all the reason listed there so If I have it wrong and Brexit was a cause of a huge amount of the votes you can point to it perhaps?
I can't see anything there that confirms Brexit was the cause of the increase in votes.
I would put that potentially under anti Tory, anti Theresa May, bad bunch and other. Which is nearly a third of the votes.
I am going to question best of a bad bunch, but that is only 3.
Anti Tory is 15 and Anti Theresa May 4 which is 19% of the vote. Quite frankly I am surprised Anti Tory isn't higher, there are a lot of anti Tories out there and for a hell of a lot more reasons than Brexit. Some small part of it maybe.
Anti Theresa May at 4 is tiny, quite frankly unless every Labour voter (that didn't have a better reason) loved here Anti Theresa May has plenty of reasons outside of Brexit. I think you'd be generous to attribute one point of that as Brexit.
I think you would be generous calling in 3-4% in total
Although I wonder if anyone could answer me this...
YouGov have Brexit as a standalone reason for Conservative voters, surely the only reason Labour don't have similar is because not enough Labour voters made it the reason for their vote for it to escape out of the other category.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 436,925 3,733 12,733,865 East Of England 55,627 473 1,536,889 London 51,432 325 1,449,924 Midlands 86,711 442 2,415,791 North East And Yorkshire 70,991 896 2,003,006 North West 46,711 422 1,698,709 South East 70,956 906 2,074,342 South West 52,052 254 1,486,769
London: still pants, alas
Wont London have a lower age profile and hence naturally behind the others?
London’s R number yesterday was estimated at being 0.6. There’s a good chance that the gap has been filled by people there with prior infection immunity.
The Alice Roberts Stonehenge documentary last night on BBC2 is well worth a watch
Indeed. Watching In was reminded of the book on the genetics of the British and how they showed the patterns of migration, the title of which I cannot remember, but which opined that the evidence demonstrated that post Ice-Age Britain was repopulated from two main and one minor directions; up the west coast of what is now France, from Iberia and into the Western part of the British Isles and from the East, across the Channel and North Sea. The Westerners uniting with the Easterners might well have accounted for the movement of the Henge.
That was Oppenheimer's book. I enjoyed that too, and found it convincing - especially the earlier chapters before it descended deeply into the minutiae of the DNA.
But Tyndall told me it has mostly since been discredited.
New evidence sadly. It is now apparent that the original post glacial inhabitants of the British isles were almost entirely wiped out at the end of the Neolithic. It appears there is a 90% plus annihilation of the pre-existing population of the British isles within perhaps as little as one generation and their replacement by a new peoples originating (we think) in Spain. I was educated in the 80s in exactly the sort of migration hypothesis you talk about but it is now well out of date.
It is not clear what actually led to the almost complete removal of the native population - disease is the most obvious cause with the new arrivals inadvertently bringing something with them that they themselves were immune to. But no one knows for sure.
This is how the Independent reported the new hypothesis back in 2018
Interesting. I might read his book again to see where, other than looking for evidence for a preferred conclusion, his analysis might be flawed
I don't think it is necessarily fair to say his analysis was flawed. It was based on the evidence available in the early 2000s. Obviously if he was still persisting in claiming everything he said was true one might question whether he is rather stuck in the mud. But the new evidence only emerged in 2018 so I don't think he can be accused of preferring a particular conclusion at the time of writing
As I recall, a big part of his conclusion was that the population of much of England was already speaking some form of Germanic language before the anglo saxons arrived, and therefore before the Romans arrived, rather than being celtic as often assumed. The prior population replacement by the beaker people post-2000 BC isn’t in itself total disproof
Not sure that is a popular theory with linguists. Much of the naming of rivers and other natural features are definitely not Germanic and I have never seen any evidence that there as widespread usage of any form of Germanic language in Britain before the Romans. What is possible is that during the RB period there was a massive influx of Germanic speakers as Foederati and settlers but that doesn't support the idea of an extant Germanic population prior to the 1st century AD.
The whole period 400 to 600 is such a blank canvass in our country's history. What do you think happened during that period?
Historically it is blank. Archaeologically not so much. For example at West Heslerton in Yorkshire they have been able to use isotope analysis of teeth to understand where the inhabitants in the supposedly Anglo-Saxon cemetery grew up. Somewhat surprisingly in spite of dating to the start of the invasion period and being dressed in an Anglian fashion, the majority were born and grew up in Lancashire and Cumbria.
Personally I think the picture developed by Francis Pryor which is now pretty mainstream is probably the most accurate.
Starting with the Roman occupation, you have the land stripped of most of its Iron-age inhabitants who are concentrated into towns and onto large Roman industrial farming villas. Across much of Southern and Eastern Britain native occupation outside of the villa economy almost ceases to exist.
Later there are large influxes of Germanic peoples well prior to the end of the RB period as a result of the use of Foederati from the German tribes and the associated settlement.
This is followed by a series of great plagues across the Empire during the 4th century and the withdrawal of the main Roman authority from Britain at the start of the 5th century. This results in the collapse of the villa landscape and the whole economy. Due to the previous dominance of the villa landscape this leaves much of lowland Britain effectively unoccupied or at least sparsely occupied.
You then get the continuation of the mass migrations of Germanic peoples into Britain but rather than coming as aggressive conquerors they are coming to settle in a much underpopulated landscape. This is, to a large extent, a peaceful settlement with most of the conflict being in the West on the fringes of what was Roman Britain where the native population survived.
At West Haslerton there is continuous occupation of the site from the Bronze Age to the late AS period with the first indications of violence not occurring until the 9th century when the Danes arrived. There are many cemeteries across the country where RB and AS funerary practices are seen side by side in the same cemetery from the same period.
Is this a true reflection of what happened - probably not exactly but it certainly matches the evidence far better than the traditional narrative which is why it is .
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
Is it legal to offer a bonus to staff who do take it? Or reward them out of saved overheads?
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
Is it legal to offer a bonus to staff who do take it? Or reward them out of saved overheads?
From my own field, financial rewards in sectors with already reasonable levels of pay are not very effective motivators in the medium- to long-term. If you want engaged and motivated workers, you need to organize around making it self-motivating for them, rather than relying on external motivators like cash.
This, though, is clearly sector and job specific. People in inherently dull, low-pay positions are probably more motivated by cash, but professionals more by other things, and cash rewards* can actually be detrimental.
* edit - i.e. on top of the basic pay package and linked to specific performance metrics
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
The problem with companies that indemnify you though is that you have to do exactly what they say to stay indemnified - whatever your internal risk profile. It’s employment law by numbers. There are a range of options and tactics you can take to change contracts (making a pay rise or promotion contingent on one for example) and a range of risk profiles, from near zero to suicidal, you can take also.
The Alice Roberts Stonehenge documentary last night on BBC2 is well worth a watch
Indeed. Watching In was reminded of the book on the genetics of the British and how they showed the patterns of migration, the title of which I cannot remember, but which opined that the evidence demonstrated that post Ice-Age Britain was repopulated from two main and one minor directions; up the west coast of what is now France, from Iberia and into the Western part of the British Isles and from the East, across the Channel and North Sea. The Westerners uniting with the Easterners might well have accounted for the movement of the Henge.
That was Oppenheimer's book. I enjoyed that too, and found it convincing - especially the earlier chapters before it descended deeply into the minutiae of the DNA.
But Tyndall told me it has mostly since been discredited.
New evidence sadly. It is now apparent that the original post glacial inhabitants of the British isles were almost entirely wiped out at the end of the Neolithic. It appears there is a 90% plus annihilation of the pre-existing population of the British isles within perhaps as little as one generation and their replacement by a new peoples originating (we think) in Spain. I was educated in the 80s in exactly the sort of migration hypothesis you talk about but it is now well out of date.
It is not clear what actually led to the almost complete removal of the native population - disease is the most obvious cause with the new arrivals inadvertently bringing something with them that they themselves were immune to. But no one knows for sure.
This is how the Independent reported the new hypothesis back in 2018
Interesting. I might read his book again to see where, other than looking for evidence for a preferred conclusion, his analysis might be flawed
I don't think it is necessarily fair to say his analysis was flawed. It was based on the evidence available in the early 2000s. Obviously if he was still persisting in claiming everything he said was true one might question whether he is rather stuck in the mud. But the new evidence only emerged in 2018 so I don't think he can be accused of preferring a particular conclusion at the time of writing
As I recall, a big part of his conclusion was that the population of much of England was already speaking some form of Germanic language before the anglo saxons arrived, and therefore before the Romans arrived, rather than being celtic as often assumed. The prior population replacement by the beaker people post-2000 BC isn’t in itself total disproof
Not sure that is a popular theory with linguists. Much of the naming of rivers and other natural features are definitely not Germanic and I have never seen any evidence that there as widespread usage of any form of Germanic language in Britain before the Romans. What is possible is that during the RB period there was a massive influx of Germanic speakers as Foederati and settlers but that doesn't support the idea of an extant Germanic population prior to the 1st century AD.
The whole period 400 to 600 is such a blank canvass in our country's history. What do you think happened during that period?
Historically it is blank. Archaeologically not so much. For example at West Heslerton in Yorkshire they have been able to use isotope analysis of teeth to understand where the inhabitants in the supposedly Anglo-Saxon cemetery grew up. Somewhat surprisingly in spite of dating to the start of the invasion period and being dressed in an Anglian fashion, the majority were born and grew up in Lancashire and Cumbria.
Personally I think the picture developed by Francis Pryor which is now pretty mainstream is probably the most accurate.
Starting with the Roman occupation, you have the land stripped of most of its Iron-age inhabitants who are concentrated into towns and onto large Roman industrial farming villas. Across much of Southern and Eastern Britain native occupation outside of the villa economy almost ceases to exist.
Later there are large influxes of Germanic peoples well prior to the end of the RB period as a result of the use of Foederati from the German tribes and the associated settlement.
This is followed by a series of great plagues across the Empire during the 4th century and the withdrawal of the main Roman authority from Britain at the start of the 5th century. This results in the collapse of the villa landscape and the whole economy. Due to the previous dominance of the villa landscape this leaves much of lowland Britain effectively unoccupied or at least sparsely occupied.
You then get the continuation of the mass migrations of Germanic peoples into Britain but rather than coming as aggressive conquerors they are coming to settle in a much underpopulated landscape. This is, to a large extent, a peaceful settlement with most of the conflict being in the West on the fringes of what was Roman Britain where the native population survived.
At West Haslerton there is continuous occupation of the site from the Bronze Age to the late AS period with the first indications of violence not occurring until the 9th century when the Danes arrived. There are many cemeteries across the country where RB and AS funerary practices are seen side by side in the same cemetery from the same period.
Is this a true reflection of what happened - probably not exactly but it certainly matches the evidence far better than the traditional narrative which is why it is .
Thanks. So, the sharp fall in levels of population really took place prior to 400?
Do you think the fact that three early kings of Wessex had British, not Germanic, names suggests this was originally a native dynasty?
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
You stated earlier that you have abstained from voting as often as you have voted Labour, so it looks like some form of mutant DNA.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
The problem with companies that indemnify you though is that you have to do exactly what they say to stay indemnified - whatever your internal risk profile. It’s employment law by numbers. There are a range of options and tactics you can take to change contracts (making a pay rise or promotion contingent on one for example) and a range of risk profiles, from near zero to suicidal, you can take also.
My take is that the more professional the average level of your employees, the less you want to do anything, let alone something as fundamental as their employment contract, by numbers.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 436,925 3,733 12,733,865 East Of England 55,627 473 1,536,889 London 51,432 325 1,449,924 Midlands 86,711 442 2,415,791 North East And Yorkshire 70,991 896 2,003,006 North West 46,711 422 1,698,709 South East 70,956 906 2,074,342 South West 52,052 254 1,486,769
London: still pants, alas
Wont London have a lower age profile and hence naturally behind the others?
London’s R number yesterday was estimated at being 0.6. There’s a good chance that the gap has been filled by people there with prior infection immunity.
I'd be interested to see what data that is based on - the case data doesn't show a recent drop in R. Using MaxPB's formula, it come out to about 0.78 average over London over the past month, bouncing around, but not dropping from that.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
The problem with companies that indemnify you though is that you have to do exactly what they say to stay indemnified - whatever your internal risk profile. It’s employment law by numbers. There are a range of options and tactics you can take to change contracts (making a pay rise or promotion contingent on one for example) and a range of risk profiles, from near zero to suicidal, you can take also.
My take is that the more professional the average level of your employees, the less you want to do anything, let alone something as fundamental as their employment contract, by numbers.
With professionals tell them their promotion/pay rise/bonus is contingent on a new contract.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
The problem with companies that indemnify you though is that you have to do exactly what they say to stay indemnified - whatever your internal risk profile. It’s employment law by numbers. There are a range of options and tactics you can take to change contracts (making a pay rise or promotion contingent on one for example) and a range of risk profiles, from near zero to suicidal, you can take also.
Well precisely. 'Grandfathering' old contracts so any pay rises or promotions etc require signing the new one is easier to handle than an automatic mass switchover with termination for anyone who refuses to sign it.
If we're talking about this pandemic and not wanting to expect homes to take on unnecessary legal risk then a law change is far more realistic in a timely fashion than expecting contactual switchovers. If you rely upon grandgathering then by the time old contracts are all gone the pandemic would be long since over.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 436,925 3,733 12,733,865 East Of England 55,627 473 1,536,889 London 51,432 325 1,449,924 Midlands 86,711 442 2,415,791 North East And Yorkshire 70,991 896 2,003,006 North West 46,711 422 1,698,709 South East 70,956 906 2,074,342 South West 52,052 254 1,486,769
London: still pants, alas
Wont London have a lower age profile and hence naturally behind the others?
London’s R number yesterday was estimated at being 0.6. There’s a good chance that the gap has been filled by people there with prior infection immunity.
I'd be interested to see what data that is based on - the case data doesn't show a recent drop in R. Using MaxPB's formula, it come out to about 0.78 average over London over the past month, bouncing around, but not dropping from that.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 436,925 3,733 12,733,865 East Of England 55,627 473 1,536,889 London 51,432 325 1,449,924 Midlands 86,711 442 2,415,791 North East And Yorkshire 70,991 896 2,003,006 North West 46,711 422 1,698,709 South East 70,956 906 2,074,342 South West 52,052 254 1,486,769
London: still pants, alas
Wont London have a lower age profile and hence naturally behind the others?
It won't be different enough to account for the large differences in performance. Bear in mind that its numbers are lower than those for the East and the South West, which both have substantially lower populations - and I believe that's been a fairly consistent pattern for weeks.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
The problem with companies that indemnify you though is that you have to do exactly what they say to stay indemnified - whatever your internal risk profile. It’s employment law by numbers. There are a range of options and tactics you can take to change contracts (making a pay rise or promotion contingent on one for example) and a range of risk profiles, from near zero to suicidal, you can take also.
My take is that the more professional the average level of your employees, the less you want to do anything, let alone something as fundamental as their employment contract, by numbers.
With professionals tell them their promotion/pay rise/bonus is contingent on a new contract.
Hard to do with those working on minimum wage like care homes are dealing with.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
In the time honoured tradition of 5 years old everywhere... you did start the join a different party and I am fully fed up with being told by public school boys and girls (which might not necessarily be you) on the Labour right that I (or as part of the left) am posh and they are somehow the working class or they are more Labour than me, I am sure there are some people out there who can argue a more 'working class Labour' upbringing but not many and not by much at all
A Labour party in perpetual opposition is what we have, a Corbynista programme the closest we have come to stopping it.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 436,925 3,733 12,733,865 East Of England 55,627 473 1,536,889 London 51,432 325 1,449,924 Midlands 86,711 442 2,415,791 North East And Yorkshire 70,991 896 2,003,006 North West 46,711 422 1,698,709 South East 70,956 906 2,074,342 South West 52,052 254 1,486,769
London: still pants, alas
Wont London have a lower age profile and hence naturally behind the others?
London’s R number yesterday was estimated at being 0.6. There’s a good chance that the gap has been filled by people there with prior infection immunity.
I'd be interested to see what data that is based on - the case data doesn't show a recent drop in R. Using MaxPB's formula, it come out to about 0.78 average over London over the past month, bouncing around, but not dropping from that.
Forgive me - it’s between 0.6 to 0.8 according to the ONS yesterday.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 436,925 3,733 12,733,865 East Of England 55,627 473 1,536,889 London 51,432 325 1,449,924 Midlands 86,711 442 2,415,791 North East And Yorkshire 70,991 896 2,003,006 North West 46,711 422 1,698,709 South East 70,956 906 2,074,342 South West 52,052 254 1,486,769
London: still pants, alas
Wont London have a lower age profile and hence naturally behind the others?
London’s R number yesterday was estimated at being 0.6. There’s a good chance that the gap has been filled by people there with prior infection immunity.
I'd be interested to see what data that is based on - the case data doesn't show a recent drop in R. Using MaxPB's formula, it come out to about 0.78 average over London over the past month, bouncing around, but not dropping from that.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
You stated earlier that you have abstained from voting as often as you have voted Labour, so it looks like some form of mutant DNA.
I have never ever been called Tory boy before. I used to have ten bells beaten out of me at Ledbury Grammar school for being a Brummie commie peasant.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
The problem with companies that indemnify you though is that you have to do exactly what they say to stay indemnified - whatever your internal risk profile. It’s employment law by numbers. There are a range of options and tactics you can take to change contracts (making a pay rise or promotion contingent on one for example) and a range of risk profiles, from near zero to suicidal, you can take also.
My take is that the more professional the average level of your employees, the less you want to do anything, let alone something as fundamental as their employment contract, by numbers.
With professionals tell them their promotion/pay rise/bonus is contingent on a new contract.
Hard to do with those working on minimum wage like care homes are dealing with.
Even those on minimum wage can be offered a bonus. It’s the stingy owners who are the problem.
I think that is the idea of some people, take the best bits from x modify y bring z etc. I get the feeling for a lot of people that was the whole idea for Starmer, he would say nice things about Blair and Corbyn and thus bridge divide in the party whilst maybe bringing policies as above.
I wasn't on the Starmer train originally but I saw it as an okay journey, I think it turned into something more of a revenge trip than somewhere meaningful.
TBH even a watered down 2017 would get a decent section of the left add in some good new policies like yours above to maybe replace ones that are gone and maybe a bit less kick the left PR campaign and you've probably got a more settled better performing party.. the press will probably be a bit meaner but you'll probably have more voters.
I'm talking about a core idea that embraces a wider grouping. Not positioning. An actual position.
Competition in public service, without privatisation. A government based on providing *service* to its customers. As opposed to brutal monstering the welfare system seems to specialise in, for example, since the days of the Poor Law.
A sort of core philosophy that you apply several areas of society?
I like that idea, it is one thing that probably went particularly well in 2017 with linking austerity not only to peoples work and money but also to their security in regards to policing and terrorism. If you can have a big approach which you can weave into a larger narrative which can apply to multiple areas of society you can really hit home with a coherent message which can attract lots of different voters, to go back to the 2017 example you could use the austerity argument to win over different types of people, from more right wing authoritarian voter concerned with security to a younger more left wing person concerned with low pay in work or mounting bills.
It's not all bad news. Chuka's infiltrated JP Morgan and will be continuing the fight from there. One good man on the inside of the machine is worth a thousand impotents yelling from the sidelines.
Nice to see you back anyway. Some strong points made too. Especially on the 17 election. That was close. Painting it as a rejection of the left is utter nonsense. Then in 19, awful but unwinnable. "Boris" and "Get Brexit Done" was a killer proposition for the country in the mood it was in. Just a matter of how big the Con win was going to be.
So let's not throw out the radical baby with the Corbyn bathwater. It's a balance for me. I want a Labour government to really change things. Otherwise what's the point? But I also do want a Labour government now and again. Otherwise what's the point?
I voted for Nandy but I'm ok with Starmer. Too early to be getting disillusioned. And eye ALWAYS vote Labour. I'm Labour soup to nuts, Foot to Blair.
Stay with us, Comrade, stay with us.
The significance of 2017 is overdone. I know that the arguments are well-rehearsed, but they're perhaps worth repeating at this juncture: voters were mainly looking at the Tory car crash (a suicide note manifesto and an exceptionally poor campaigning performance by May,) Corbyn was still a relatively new leader whose platform did not receive as much scrutiny as it deserved, and besides most people thought he had no hope of winning and that a Labour protest vote was safe, especially if motivated to do so by the European issue.
And yet, despite everything, the Conservatives still finished 55 seats ahead of Labour. By 2019, those effects had mostly dissipated, and we all know what happened then.
There is no hope, at this point and probably for many years hence, for Labour in running on anything that might be described as a radical left manifesto. It's exciting to a lot of voters, but a turn-off to the new Tory electoral coalition - older and more affluent voters combined with moderate social conservatives - which is too large for Labour to get around. Appeals to a return to some kind of Corbynism but with a better salesperson are effectively calls to avoid the necessary compromises with the Tory voting electorate that are needed, and to somehow win by squeezing the minor progressive parties and attracting loads of non-voters to get around the problem. That didn't work in 2017 and it's very hard indeed to see it working against a Government with a better managed campaign and a less problematic manifesto at the next election, either. The Tories aren't going to do a repeat run of wooden top May and the dementia tax. They're not that stupid.
What Labour is probably going to need next time around is to try to cultivate an air of managerial competence (free of loony Left personalities and outbursts) and to promise a careful recalibration leftwards on socio-economic policy rather than a revolution (with a particular emphasis on well-costed and realistic sounding policies that don't involve another half-a-trillion pounds' worth of borrowing.) Given both how very far behind they are and the Scottish problem it may well not be enough, but the alternative - retreat into the comfort zone and then celebrating X-million votes for socialism after being crushed again - is worse.
Very well put. This constant harking back to 2017 and the "what if" narrative is tiring and moreover the electorate don't care. Corbyn is, as he always was, yesterdays man. He. Didn't. Win. In. 2017. Nowhere near a majority even. Not even close. In lottery terms he probably only won a tenner - which gave him enough cash to have another play.
Corbyn supporters are now just being the bloke down the pub boring his mates with stories that he was "so close on the other numbers I could have won the whole lot". Interesting the first time maybe, but Christ after nearly 4 years....
He came pretty close to PM at GE17. This is a stone cold fact. In the early hours after many results were in he went odds on fav for a time.
Since when were dodgy early hours bookies odds determining anything?
In the early hours last November we saw Trump go odds on. Biden won comprehensively. Trump lost comprehensively. Not as comprehensively as Corbyn lost 2017 but not far off.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
I love these kinds of arguments from genealogy, so dear to the hearts of Homeric heroes, Tory aristocrats, and supporters of opposing Labour Party factions alike.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn veryy
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
The four Yorkshiremen wasn’t a Monty Python sketch.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
The problem with companies that indemnify you though is that you have to do exactly what they say to stay indemnified - whatever your internal risk profile. It’s employment law by numbers. There are a range of options and tactics you can take to change contracts (making a pay rise or promotion contingent on one for example) and a range of risk profiles, from near zero to suicidal, you can take also.
My take is that the more professional the average level of your employees, the less you want to do anything, let alone something as fundamental as their employment contract, by numbers.
With professionals tell them their promotion/pay rise/bonus is contingent on a new contract.
Hard to do with those working on minimum wage like care homes are dealing with.
Even those on minimum wage can be offered a bonus. It’s the stingy owners who are the problem.
"Stingy"
They're operating on a basis of agreements, largely pre-pandemic, with their customers of which the state is a primary one. Do you know their business model? Why should they take on responsibility for risk, or responsibility for bonuses, for a public health issue?
If the state wants to make it a legal requirement then they won't need to change the contracts. If the state wants to offer a bonus then let it do so. But why should the home do that?
If its a public health issue then the government can set public health requirements that the home operates by and that removes the contract as an issue, since contracts can't break the law. If that's not done why would you expect owners to offer a bonus to those who refuse vaccines?
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
You stated earlier that you have abstained from voting as often as you have voted Labour, so it looks like some form of mutant DNA.
I voted for Labour in the last 2 elections and Mexican Pete didn't, if he can claim Labour DNA despite preferring a Tory victory then surely I can claim a greater one than him when I voted for the party in the 2 most recent elections.
Also surely the whole Labour DNA argument is about family voting and conditions you grew up in (wealth wise)
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
The problem with companies that indemnify you though is that you have to do exactly what they say to stay indemnified - whatever your internal risk profile. It’s employment law by numbers. There are a range of options and tactics you can take to change contracts (making a pay rise or promotion contingent on one for example) and a range of risk profiles, from near zero to suicidal, you can take also.
My take is that the more professional the average level of your employees, the less you want to do anything, let alone something as fundamental as their employment contract, by numbers.
With professionals tell them their promotion/pay rise/bonus is contingent on a new contract.
That brute force approach might work in the short-term to get the contract you want very quickly, but is unlikely to get the highest levels of performance, innovation, loyalty or retention as you'd really like.
Personally, I'd rather take extra time to know what they want to do, and mutually agree how they can do that while helping the company thrive. If the contractual change is something necessary for corporate well-being, that should be an easy sell unless they are already looking for any pretext to leave.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
In the time honoured tradition of 5 years old everywhere... you did start the join a different party and I am fully fed up with being told by public school boys and girls (which might not necessarily be you) on the Labour right that I (or as part of the left) am posh and they are somehow the working class or they are more Labour than me, I am sure there are some people out there who can argue a more 'working class Labour' upbringing but not many and not by much at all
A Labour party in perpetual opposition is what we have, a Corbynista programme the closest we have come to stopping it.
What is the point in dying on the hill of ideology. Boris Johnson is laughing at you and Jeremy Corbyn. Between you, you are keeping him in office. He is laughing at me too, but at least I have realised that reality.
I have given you my pretty comprehensive socialist credentials. I did omit that my maternal great grandfather, an engineer, a copper-smelter, made his colonial fortune in South Africa and the Belgian Congo. Fortunately my grandfather squandered it on Felinfoel Double Dragon in the Clwb Bach. For that I am eternally grateful.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn veryy
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
The four Yorkshiremen wasn’t a Monty Python sketch.
Calling @Mexicanpete a Tory is the single most ridiculous thing I have ever seen on this website.
Beating the covid test by wee on the swabs rather than put them up nose?
Not defending anyone, but covid tests flawed because they don’t pick it up in early stages, where is best place to look for early stage evidence. You know, well obviously not is it, but it might have been a game changer so worth trying.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn veryy
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
The four Yorkshiremen wasn’t a Monty Python sketch.
You are indeed correct Professor Peach. Apologies.
On the matter of what Labour needs to do to make progress in the next election, and also bearing in mind some discussion of the Lib Dems last night - here's some information on where each party's priority targets are in 2024 (and yes, I know we've still got boundary change to come, but that shouldn't change the numbers radically.) For these purposes I count a marginal as being any seat available on a swing of 5% or less.
Labour - 56 targets
London: 4 Rest of South (SE, SW & East Anglia): 9 Midlands: 9 North: 21 Scotland: 4 Wales: 9
Incidentally, for the SNP every remaining uncaptured seat in Scotland is available on a swing of less than 5% save for Orkney & Shetland and Edinburgh South. Plaid Cymru has one such target, Ynys Mon.
Digging into the numbers tells you everything. The big battlefield for the main parties is the Red/Blue Wall - again. Labour needs to rebuild there to get back into the game; the Tories need to knock the rest over to get into landslide territory and properly brick Labour up inside the cities. The Lib Dems are now essentially a party for posh Southern Europhiles with a small Scottish Unionist branch.
Another vindication of our "vaccinate double the people" strategy. If one jab gives that level of onwards transmission drop then that's definitely a huge factor on why the R has stayed below 1 for so long.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn veryy
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
The four Yorkshiremen wasn’t a Monty Python sketch.
You are indeed correct Professor Peach. Apologies.
Your Italian Job knowledge is exemplary... this is, however, my actual name... Benny Hill comparisons at school were painful...
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
The problem with companies that indemnify you though is that you have to do exactly what they say to stay indemnified - whatever your internal risk profile. It’s employment law by numbers. There are a range of options and tactics you can take to change contracts (making a pay rise or promotion contingent on one for example) and a range of risk profiles, from near zero to suicidal, you can take also.
My take is that the more professional the average level of your employees, the less you want to do anything, let alone something as fundamental as their employment contract, by numbers.
With professionals tell them their promotion/pay rise/bonus is contingent on a new contract.
That brute force approach might work in the short-term to get the contract you want very quickly, but is unlikely to get the highest levels of performance, innovation, loyalty or retention as you'd really like.
Personally, I'd rather take extra time to know what they want to do, and mutually agree how they can do that while helping the company thrive. If the contractual change is something necessary for corporate well-being, that should be an easy sell unless they are already looking for any pretext to leave.
I am a blunt instrument kind of lawyer. In truth I tend to get called in when the kind of approach you outline has failed. Then I start making offers people can’t refuse.
He knows this is impeachable. The GOPs descent to Reek is complete.
Amongst everything brought up, what was the smoking gun that sealed the deal for impeachment?
Trump's own words.
Especially his Tweet at about 4pm from memory US time calling what has happened a "great day". Smoking gun.
The “I see what’s going on but you can hardly blame them considering they have had election stolen from them” piece to camera shortly after too.
Both look bad. But a smoking gun would have been how he clearly created what happened? He still had enough “but that was up to them” wriggle room defence, without that smoking gun of engineer and orchestrate. You have to admit that?
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
In the time honoured tradition of 5 years old everywhere... you did start the join a different party and I am fully fed up with being told by public school boys and girls (which might not necessarily be you) on the Labour right that I (or as part of the left) am posh and they are somehow the working class or they are more Labour than me, I am sure there are some people out there who can argue a more 'working class Labour' upbringing but not many and not by much at all
A Labour party in perpetual opposition is what we have, a Corbynista programme the closest we have come to stopping it.
What is the point in dying on the hill of ideology. Boris Johnson is laughing at you and Jeremy Corbyn. Between you, you are keeping him in office. He is laughing at me too, but at least I have realised that reality.
I have given you my pretty comprehensive socialist credentials. I did omit that my maternal great grandfather, an engineer, a copper-smelter, made his colonial fortune in South Africa and the Belgian Congo. Fortunately my grandfather squandered it on Felinfoel Double Dragon in the Clwb Bach. For that I am eternally grateful.
TBH all I could tell you is about mine they were poor or became poor my great grandmother was alive with me at some point when I lived at my grandparents.
Boris is laughing and me and Jezza with John Woodcock, Ian Austin, John Mann and all his other mates from your wing of the party because you all have similar goals and aims.
Edit: Ultimately I think a left wing agenda stands more chance of success and you think a Labour right one does.... and never the twine shall meet.
It is worth considering your biases though, I could be saying a left wing one has more chance because it suits my political biases, but so could y'all.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
These “my dad is more socialist than your dad” type arguments are exactly the type of purity test that alienates so many from the left.
For someone who doesn`t follow cricket (i.e. me) can someone explain what was so good about that particular delivery and why the batsman was so confused?
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn veryy
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
The four Yorkshiremen wasn’t a Monty Python sketch.
You are indeed correct Professor Peach. Apologies.
Your Italian Job knowledge is exemplary... this is, however, my actual name... Benny Hill comparisons at school were painful...
I love the Italian Job! I have too many Minis and a set of Tony Smith Italian Job Prints (increasing in value as we speak).
Fantastic! I would have loved to have been Charlie Croker or Simon Peach. Mexicanpete is such a ubiquitous, dull name.
For someone who doesn`t follow cricket (i.e. me) can someone explain what was so good about that particular delivery and why the batsman was so confused?
I can help. It wasn’t much of a Bunsen today, and it wasn’t that special a ball, it caught Kholi cold not played in yet, unlikely to have missed it once played in. What’s giving it legendary status is the Kings silly reaction, he should twig in quarter of second what’s happened, put bat under his arm and coolly walk off whilst taking off gloves.
Bottom line 300 for six is hosts on course for victory inside 4 days.
For someone who doesn`t follow cricket (i.e. me) can someone explain what was so good about that particular delivery and why the batsman was so confused?
The ball was bowled spinning a lot, clockwise as the bowler sees it, from his left to right. The bowler does this by flicking his wrist as he lets go of the ball, and it’s very difficult to do well.
The batsman saw the ball land well to his right, but instead of continuing straight, the spin on the ball made it turn hard to the left (from his viewpoint) when it bounced, and he was surprised it turned enough to hit the stumps behind him. He was perplexed at just how much the ball had turned, he’d not been in for long and simply didn’t expect it.
Yes, I've noticed this as well in the analysis I've been doing for work using a slightly tweaked formula that @Malmesbury uses to generate the R value graphs for PB.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
These “my dad is more socialist than your dad” type arguments are exactly the type of purity test that alienates so many from the left.
I'll be honest the part that makes it confusing for me is MexicanPete doesn't even really like the left, hell he doesn't even seem that enthused by the current right wing led Labour party which is spending its time prioritising kicking left wing people like me bringing back in members who wished left wing activists died in fires...
I mean if this right wing led thoroughly anti left wing Labour party is still too left wing for him why he is even arguing about his family being 'leftier than thou' (an argument he started) I didn't try and claim a more centrist existence or background than him!
Edit: I shouldn't be here recruiting but seriously the current leadership of the Labour party despise left wingers more than MexicanPete could possibly dream, if you genuinely aren't a Tory shouldn't that be right up his street?
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
Is it legal to offer a bonus to staff who do take it? Or reward them out of saved overheads?
From my own field, financial rewards in sectors with already reasonable levels of pay are not very effective motivators in the medium- to long-term. If you want engaged and motivated workers, you need to organize around making it self-motivating for them, rather than relying on external motivators like cash.
This, though, is clearly sector and job specific. People in inherently dull, low-pay positions are probably more motivated by cash, but professionals more by other things, and cash rewards* can actually be detrimental.
* edit - i.e. on top of the basic pay package and linked to specific performance metrics
I can see a £1000 one off tax fee bonus being a strong motivator for vaccination amongst care home staff. Equivalent to 3-4 weeks' pay at minimum wage.
He knows this is impeachable. The GOPs descent to Reek is complete.
Amongst everything brought up, what was the smoking gun that sealed the deal for impeachment?
Trump's own words.
Especially his Tweet at about 4pm from memory US time calling what has happened a "great day". Smoking gun.
The “I see what’s going on but you can hardly blame them considering they have had election stolen from them” piece to camera shortly after too.
Both look bad. But a smoking gun would have been how he clearly created what happened? He still had enough “but that was up to them” wriggle room defence, without that smoking gun of engineer and orchestrate. You have to admit that?
No I don't admit that. He told them to be violent, they were, he justified it and called it great.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
Is it legal to offer a bonus to staff who do take it? Or reward them out of saved overheads?
From my own field, financial rewards in sectors with already reasonable levels of pay are not very effective motivators in the medium- to long-term. If you want engaged and motivated workers, you need to organize around making it self-motivating for them, rather than relying on external motivators like cash.
This, though, is clearly sector and job specific. People in inherently dull, low-pay positions are probably more motivated by cash, but professionals more by other things, and cash rewards* can actually be detrimental.
* edit - i.e. on top of the basic pay package and linked to specific performance metrics
I can see a £1000 one off tax fee bonus being a strong motivator for vaccination amongst care home staff. Equivalent to 3-4 weeks' pay at minimum wage.
What about those care home workers who have already had it?
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
You stated earlier that you have abstained from voting as often as you have voted Labour, so it looks like some form of mutant DNA.
I voted for Labour in the last 2 elections and Mexican Pete didn't, if he can claim Labour DNA despite preferring a Tory victory then surely I can claim a greater one than him when I voted for the party in the 2 most recent elections.
Also surely the whole Labour DNA argument is about family voting and conditions you grew up in (wealth wise)
How I voted would be the nurture part...
As I said, it's mutant DNA. Your family voting and upbringing would point to it being genuine Labour DNA, but since you only felt able to vote Labour when the party was led by Corbyn, the gene has mutated somewhere along the way.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
That's very disappointing number.
Given the demographics of the poorly paid, low credentialed jobs - inevitable.
It should clearly be compulsory to have the vaccine if you want to work in a care home.
If I was UnDictator* of Britain - Yes
What will you do about the 1/3rd of the staff who, almost certainly, don't want to take it?
*Anyone else remember this trope from the days of alt.history.what-if?
You have 6 weeks to change your mind or you're out of a job. That will get almost all of them over the line.
It would require an Act of Parliament since they're not under any contractual obligations.
No. What @MaxPB suggests is possible. There is a mechanism whereby anyone’s employment contract can be changed. Simplistically what you do is offer a new contract and give a deadline for acceptance. If they refuse you bring the old contract to an end (which is technically a dismissal) and immediately offer reengagement on the new terms. It’s a bit more complex than that procedurally, requiring consultation, but it can be a fair dismissal under the “some other substantial reason” head and, further, even if an unfair dismissal is found the damages are close to zero as the employee would have failed to mitigate their loss by refusing a new contract at the same salary.
The difficulties are (1) industrial action if sufficiently large numbers are involved and (2) a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. (1) would have zero public sympathy and (2) requires not having the vaccine to infringe ones religious or similar philosophical belief but such indirect discrimination I think is wholly justified.
MaxPB then suggested putting it in the Healthcare Bill which matches what I said, it's an issue for Parliament to address.
What you are suggesting is theoretically possible but it is not swift or timely or easily done. Have you ever been through the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn't want it changing? It's not exactly quick and easy, especially when the Home is dealing with all the stresses of the pandemic.
An Act of Parliament to put this as a public health requirement for the job short circuits the contractual issues and is far more realistic. Without that realistically the pandemic will be over before contracts are 100% switched over.
“Have you ever been the process of changing contracts with a workforce that doesn’t want it changing?”
Yes. Literally dozens of times. I’m an employment lawyer - it’s what I do for a living. Takes 45 days tops if done properly.
Fair enough then from a lawyer's perspective but most businesses aren't ran by HR lawyers. I've done it before from a small business perspective following legal advice and possibly were advised to move slowly and with precautions every step of the way. Possibly their risk profile wanting to ensure every i dotted and every t crossed but still.
Having to deal with lawyers tends to make businesses, especially smaller ones that don't have in house lawyers, act much more risk averse. Which is a bit of the point of the law in the first place.
If this is a public health issue then the government or PHE etc should take the lead on this to remove liability for changing contracts from the employers.
Any contract I've ever seen has provisos in it for meeting legal requirements or changes of the law so if the law is changed to require a vaccine in that role then that should surely square off contractual issues without months of wrangling and dealing with lawyers.
You’ve not been talking to the right employment lawyer. There’s no f**king way a relatively straightforward contractual change should take months. If the client is prepared to shoulder a bit more risk it should take a fortnight.
Well that risk issue is key then isn't it?
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
You didn’t use Peninsular did you? Tell me you didn’t use Peninsula.
LOL!
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
The problem with companies that indemnify you though is that you have to do exactly what they say to stay indemnified - whatever your internal risk profile. It’s employment law by numbers. There are a range of options and tactics you can take to change contracts (making a pay rise or promotion contingent on one for example) and a range of risk profiles, from near zero to suicidal, you can take also.
My take is that the more professional the average level of your employees, the less you want to do anything, let alone something as fundamental as their employment contract, by numbers.
With professionals tell them their promotion/pay rise/bonus is contingent on a new contract.
That brute force approach might work in the short-term to get the contract you want very quickly, but is unlikely to get the highest levels of performance, innovation, loyalty or retention as you'd really like.
Personally, I'd rather take extra time to know what they want to do, and mutually agree how they can do that while helping the company thrive. If the contractual change is something necessary for corporate well-being, that should be an easy sell unless they are already looking for any pretext to leave.
I am a blunt instrument kind of lawyer. In truth I tend to get called in when the kind of approach you outline has failed. Then I start making offers people can’t refuse.
The problem is that not every refusal to get the vaccine is the same so blanket approaches like offer a bonus don't work.
Eg I know of someone, care worker, refusing the vaccine because she's trying for a child and is scared that the vaccine could effect an unborn child, thalidomide style. She has been at the home for many years but point blank refuses the vaccine due to fears related to pregnancy. She's made sure everyone knows potential pregnancy is her reason for refusing.
If she was to be disciplined or fired for refusing the vaccine, having given potential pregnancy and her fears related to that as her reason, how much risk would you advise the employer would take over firing her?
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
These “my dad is more socialist than your dad” type arguments are exactly the type of purity test that alienates so many from the left.
I'll be honest the part that makes it confusing for me is MexicanPete doesn't even really like the left, hell he doesn't even seem that enthused by the current right wing led Labour party which is spending its time prioritising kicking left wing people like me bringing back in members who wished left wing activists died in fires...
I mean if this right wing led thoroughly anti left wing Labour party is still too left wing for him why he is even arguing about his family being 'leftier than thou' (an argument he started) I didn't try and claim a more centrist existence or background than him!
Edit: I shouldn't be here recruiting but seriously the current leadership of the Labour party despise left wingers more than you could possibly dream, if you genuinely aren't a Tory shouldn't that be right up your street?
In the meantime this pointless bickering has lost the votes of many who had voted Labour their whole lives - including me. Take your arguments into a room, hammer out a position, and present it as a united front to the public. You two having this argument here and, to pick a random example, Oxford Uni Labour Society’s public pillorying of John McDonnell yesterday just make people think “I’m never going to be good enough for these people”. The right have their arguments too, but they are welcoming to converts. The left make it clear you cannot have any ideological skeletons whatsoever.
I (obviously) liked Corbyn personally but it was the policies for me, I think the vast majority of Corbyn supporters would have easily transferred over to someone actually offering 'Corbynism without Corbyn' as it was termed, I think everyone knew the game that was being played with people stating that without meaning it at all.
Almost regardless of what happens from this point on I can't see myself voting Labour next election..
I agree with you, at least in part.
Corbyn very definitely excited a whole bunch of people to vote for him. I remember many friends (including some unexpected ones) being very, very exhilarated by the Labour 2017 manifesto.
The buzz & excitement that Corbyn generated could & should have been followed up by the Labour party to build him up as a winner in 2019. Instead, his enemies destroyed him and it was obvious he was going down to a big defeat. Some people in Labour preferred that, because they could then recapture the party.
A reasonable analogy is George McGovern. It is absolutely clear in 'Fear & Loathing' that many Democrats preferred to see McGovern completely destroyed in 1972, so they could regain control of the Democratic Party, So, they were happy to collude in the smearing of McGovern as the 'Amnesty, Abortion, Acid' candidate. It remains the biggest ever US Presidential loss.
I can't see anyone being very excited by SKS -- except elderly Liberal Democrats with no hair. This constituency is well represented on pb.com, though
I shall never forget or forgive what they did.
Interesting bit about George McGovern there, I wonder if that whole amnesty and abortion angle they played on their own side came back to bite them at some point... nah probably not.
Why don't you and your happy band of Corbynistas just set up your own party? You could call it Momentum, the Corbyn Party or you could simply join the SWP. Let us see how that flies. I can't wait to watch the red wall Tory vote tumble.
Or here is an idea a party for Labour, rather than the rich, you could call it the Labour party, people who want a party for the rich could join the Conservative party...
Win, win.
Why should I support the Conservative Party, when my family heritage is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jim Griffith's and the miners of East Carmarthenshire.
Jeremy Corbyn is not representative of the party of Keir Hardie, Bevan or Bevin. He is a man who conflates and confuses hostile military intervention against individual Palestinians on behalf of Netanyahu with a hatred of the both the State of Israel and Judaism. He is an idiot who took the Labour Party down a Soviet style blind alley. He no more represents working people than does Jacob Rees Mogg.
The Labour Party can only survive as a left of centre Social Democratic Coalition, and it is not there yet. Socialist Workers need not apply.
You told me to join the SWP, I am just sending you to your natural home of voting Tory.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
My paternal grandfather was a miner at Carway Colliery as were all his brothers and my paternal grandmother's brothers. My maternal grandmother's brothers were miners in the colliery between Burry Port and Pwll. My grandfather's working life was always as a coal miner except for working at the ROF in Pembrey during the war, which was equally dangerous. He retired from Cyneidre Colliery in 1966.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
These “my dad is more socialist than your dad” type arguments are exactly the type of purity test that alienates so many from the left.
I'll be honest the part that makes it confusing for me is MexicanPete doesn't even really like the left, hell he doesn't even seem that enthused by the current right wing led Labour party which is spending its time prioritising kicking left wing people like me bringing back in members who wished left wing activists died in fires...
I mean if this right wing led thoroughly anti left wing Labour party is still too left wing for him why he is even arguing about his family being 'leftier than thou' (an argument he started) I didn't try and claim a more centrist existence or background than him!
Edit: I shouldn't be here recruiting but seriously the current leadership of the Labour party despise left wingers more than MexicanPete could possibly dream, if you genuinely aren't a Tory shouldn't that be right up his street?
The single purpose of Jeremy Corbyn is to undermiine the Labour leadership, be that Starmer, Milliband, Brown, Blair or Kinnock, to perpetuate Conservative Governments. It has worked almost perfectly since 1979, except Blair blotted his copybook with Corbyn, not once but three times.
Another vindication of our "vaccinate double the people" strategy. If one jab gives that level of onwards transmission drop then that's definitely a huge factor on why the R has stayed below 1 for so long.
To be fair, last spring we got case numbers down, deaths down and cleared the hospitals without vaccinating a single person.
Lockdown and the current restrictions have played a huge part in stopping the second phase of this virus - vaccination means the lifting of restrictions carries less risk of a renewed surge of cases as those vaccinated are not only less likely to contract the virus and require hospitalisation but also less likely to transmit the virus to others.
Ensuring we go through the full vaccination programme (which means providing the second doses) should mean we don't have to go through the cycle of lifting restrictions, seeing case numbers rise and having to re-impose restrictions.
Slight concerns - we don't know how long immunity lasts from one vaccination let alone two and it's something that needs to be monitored. Will those who have had both vaccinations by May still have immunity in September or will we have to plan a new round of vaccinations (only one per person I would imagine) for the autumn? I hope and believe the concern over variants is misplaced but it's something for which we will have to watch worldwide.
From a personal view, my brother, who has a weakened immune system following pre-existing health conditions and wrestled with mild Covid for five months last year, had his vaccination last week and suffered a moderately severe response of flu like symptoms and I've heard similar from others. One thing we ought to be doing is looking for ways to provide relief to those with weakened immune systems - antibody treatments perhaps?
As for Labour, they appear to me to be lost. What is the point of Labour?
Narrow minded thinking is your problem there (I don't mean that offensively) you have to look at things from a different angle.
For the Labour right they have a 1980s Labour re-enactment thing going on, time of their lives. There might be a few quarrels about who is Blair (the clever play is claiming to be John Smith and not dying IMO) but mostly they have never had so much fun.
Compare the grumpy angry faces when Labour were leading in polls under Corbyn to the spring in their step now, enough to put a smile on even the most hardened leftists face (can confirm here)
The Labour left, well just some of it maybe can only talk for myself, politically I've never had so much fun in my life. Watching the amount of excuses and nuance come out for various polling results from people who previously had no time for even polls which showed small Labour leads is incredibly satisfying. I've never cared about best PM polling before but watching don't know catch up with Starmer as Johnson speeds on past it is almost as good as watching the football.
The SNP, my god the SNP. We still have some SNP posters on here I assume?
Own up, you guys either picked Keir Starmer or somehow advise him?
Whilst staying within the bounds of realism I'm not sure an SNP supporter could hope for much more from the current Labour party.
The Greens seem likely to gain from any rightward shift in Labour the same way they suffered from a leftward one.
The Tories can do whatever they like, what is not to like as a Tory? (don't give me the strong opposition line, I was here when Labour were leading in the polls, they don't want strong opposition)
The Lib Dems are the only party not really getting anything out of Labour but I'm not sure they could in any possible situation, even more pointless than Labour.
So the Labour party are providing a bit of enjoyment for everyone they can be, can you really ask for much more than that?
Fantastic to see The Jezziah back on the site. And great to see that you haven't copied Bastani and fucked off back to the Tories!
I'm not SNP. I don't want to see an endless SNP government. But my two votes - and those of my wife and my brother and my sister in law, all of us migrants to Scotland since their last election - will be for the SNP. As Sean Connery once said, "its time for a change in Scotland"...
Sigh.
As new arrivals can I ask that you give some consideration to the collapse in quality in Scottish education which has deteriorated consistently in the last 10 years; the dangerous position of our Universities who have lived off English students paying fees whilst restricting the access for Scottish students, the appalling state of Police Scotland; the disgraceful waste of public money at Bifab in Fife, at Ferguson Shipyards, at Prestwick Airport, on compensating those wrong prosecuted, I could go on all day.
Please think about the level of dishonesty and cronyism disclosed around Nicola by the Salmond fiasco, the corruption of our Civil Service and the apparent inability of our democratic systems to work in a one party state.
Educate yourself about the legislative intentions of a new SNP government such as the ridiculous Hate Speech bill, the treatment of witches in the middle ages and the never ending obsession with trans rights.
Scotland has a government that is obsessed with making points about independence, who spend their time and energy fabricating grievances and who do so little to address the underlying weakness of the Scottish economy. Viable independence, ironically, drifts ever further out of sight as we increase our dependency upon UK subsidy to an unhealthy degree. Scotland needs a change alright but the SNP is not it.
Quite. Nice of RP to spend approximately four minutes getting the lie of the land before he decides to throw his vote (and touchingly those of his whole family it would appear) to the nationalists.
The Alice Roberts Stonehenge documentary last night on BBC2 is well worth a watch
Indeed. Watching In was reminded of the book on the genetics of the British and how they showed the patterns of migration, the title of which I cannot remember, but which opined that the evidence demonstrated that post Ice-Age Britain was repopulated from two main and one minor directions; up the west coast of what is now France, from Iberia and into the Western part of the British Isles and from the East, across the Channel and North Sea. The Westerners uniting with the Easterners might well have accounted for the movement of the Henge.
That was Oppenheimer's book. I enjoyed that too, and found it convincing - especially the earlier chapters before it descended deeply into the minutiae of the DNA.
But Tyndall told me it has mostly since been discredited.
New evidence sadly. It is now apparent that the original post glacial inhabitants of the British isles were almost entirely wiped out at the end of the Neolithic. It appears there is a 90% plus annihilation of the pre-existing population of the British isles within perhaps as little as one generation and their replacement by a new peoples originating (we think) in Spain. I was educated in the 80s in exactly the sort of migration hypothesis you talk about but it is now well out of date.
It is not clear what actually led to the almost complete removal of the native population - disease is the most obvious cause with the new arrivals inadvertently bringing something with them that they themselves were immune to. But no one knows for sure.
This is how the Independent reported the new hypothesis back in 2018
Interesting. I might read his book again to see where, other than looking for evidence for a preferred conclusion, his analysis might be flawed
I don't think it is necessarily fair to say his analysis was flawed. It was based on the evidence available in the early 2000s. Obviously if he was still persisting in claiming everything he said was true one might question whether he is rather stuck in the mud. But the new evidence only emerged in 2018 so I don't think he can be accused of preferring a particular conclusion at the time of writing
As I recall, a big part of his conclusion was that the population of much of England was already speaking some form of Germanic language before the anglo saxons arrived, and therefore before the Romans arrived, rather than being celtic as often assumed. The prior population replacement by the beaker people post-2000 BC isn’t in itself total disproof
Not sure that is a popular theory with linguists. Much of the naming of rivers and other natural features are definitely not Germanic and I have never seen any evidence that there as widespread usage of any form of Germanic language in Britain before the Romans. What is possible is that during the RB period there was a massive influx of Germanic speakers as Foederati and settlers but that doesn't support the idea of an extant Germanic population prior to the 1st century AD.
The whole period 400 to 600 is such a blank canvass in our country's history. What do you think happened during that period?
Historically it is blank. Archaeologically not so much. For example at West Heslerton in Yorkshire they have been able to use isotope analysis of teeth to understand where the inhabitants in the supposedly Anglo-Saxon cemetery grew up. Somewhat surprisingly in spite of dating to the start of the invasion period and being dressed in an Anglian fashion, the majority were born and grew up in Lancashire and Cumbria.
Personally I think the picture developed by Francis Pryor which is now pretty mainstream is probably the most accurate.
Starting with the Roman occupation, you have the land stripped of most of its Iron-age inhabitants who are concentrated into towns and onto large Roman industrial farming villas. Across much of Southern and Eastern Britain native occupation outside of the villa economy almost ceases to exist.
Later there are large influxes of Germanic peoples well prior to the end of the RB period as a result of the use of Foederati from the German tribes and the associated settlement.
This is followed by a series of great plagues across the Empire during the 4th century and the withdrawal of the main Roman authority from Britain at the start of the 5th century. This results in the collapse of the villa landscape and the whole economy. Due to the previous dominance of the villa landscape this leaves much of lowland Britain effectively unoccupied or at least sparsely occupied.
You then get the continuation of the mass migrations of Germanic peoples into Britain but rather than coming as aggressive conquerors they are coming to settle in a much underpopulated landscape. This is, to a large extent, a peaceful settlement with most of the conflict being in the West on the fringes of what was Roman Britain where the native population survived.
At West Haslerton there is continuous occupation of the site from the Bronze Age to the late AS period with the first indications of violence not occurring until the 9th century when the Danes arrived. There are many cemeteries across the country where RB and AS funerary practices are seen side by side in the same cemetery from the same period.
Is this a true reflection of what happened - probably not exactly but it certainly matches the evidence far better than the traditional narrative which is why it is .
Thanks. So, the sharp fall in levels of population really took place prior to 400?
Do you think the fact that three early kings of Wessex had British, not Germanic, names suggests this was originally a native dynasty?
It is certainly possible that they were part of the earlier RB period of Germanic settlement and had then integrated into RB society.
Comments
I know of a few people in tiers 5-6 who have booked vaccination slots for next week.
Giving more evidence of the success of the vaccine.
I don't understand why we didn't sign a defender in the January window. We don't have a defence currently.
He was later told by an immigration lawyer he consulted on this, that there was a known problem with some passport issuing offices - not so much corruption as waving through applications on essentially no evidence.
Thank goodness Boris was in that lab in Oxford last year inventing vaccines.
My grandad was a South Wales Coal Miner, my other Grandad was a factory (and in the navy or merchant navy at some point, I rarely saw this guy TBH) worker in the midlands, my grandmothers did secretarial and other that sorta of low paid women's (at the time) work, I was raised by a single mother who worked in the NHS almost her entire life I grew up in my grandparents house (with my mum) a little terraced house in a poor part of south wales before moving to a slightly smaller terraced house in an even poorer rougher part of Wales.
I have more fucking Labour in the DNA of my little finger than you do in your entire pitiful existence, don't you dare question me Tory boy, Labour wasn't built to screw over the poor, however much you may have forgotten your heritage I have NOT!
Labour was not founded to support Apartheid, my grandparents (the mining one) Labour to their core were telling their kids decades and decades ago about Apartheid they wouldn't have not supported it against the Muslims anymore than they did the Black South Africans. Because they are proper Labour, it didn't matter if people claiming South Africa was our ally, Nelson Mandela is a communist, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, they knew right from wrong.
If Corbyn didn't represent working people he would have had rich donors like Starmer telling him what to do, he wouldn't have turned the Labour party membership into a much poorer, younger one and he wouldn't have won with working voters in 2017.
It is retired people Corbyn doesn't represent, which TBH was the problem, if Corbyn didn't represent working people but instead represented retired (basically a 2017 reversal)people he would have won.
I think that is the idea of some people, take the best bits from x modify y bring z etc. I get the feeling for a lot of people that was the whole idea for Starmer, he would say nice things about Blair and Corbyn and thus bridge divide in the party whilst maybe bringing policies as above.
I wasn't on the Starmer train originally but I saw it as an okay journey, I think it turned into something more of a revenge trip than somewhere meaningful.
TBH even a watered down 2017 would get a decent section of the left add in some good new policies like yours above to maybe replace ones that are gone and maybe a bit less kick the left PR campaign and you've probably got a more settled better performing party.. the press will probably be a bit meaner but you'll probably have more voters.
Our lawyers indemnified us so that if we followed their advice then they shouldered the risk, but then we had to do everything to their timescale. No letters could go to a staff member without them checking it first, if it did and wasn't their advice then it could void the indemnification.
Why should the clients be the ones shouldering the risk in this situation if it's a public health issue? Put it in the health bill and that lifts the risk from the clients.
I can't see anything there that confirms Brexit was the cause of the increase in votes.
So no full time defenders and no full time midfield either.
Competition in public service, without privatisation. A government based on providing *service* to its customers. As opposed to brutal monstering the welfare system seems to specialise in, for example, since the days of the Poor Law.
I don't want to appear like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen, trying to outdo your Labour Party credentials, but please don't tell me I am a liberal middle class Tory sell-out fraud.
A Labour Party in perpetual opposition, which would be the electoral outcome under a Corbynista programme for Government, is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1360591680198635523?s=20
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1360591953872773122?s=20
Personally I think the picture developed by Francis Pryor which is now pretty mainstream is probably the most accurate.
Starting with the Roman occupation, you have the land stripped of most of its Iron-age inhabitants who are concentrated into towns and onto large Roman industrial farming villas. Across much of Southern and Eastern Britain native occupation outside of the villa economy almost ceases to exist.
Later there are large influxes of Germanic peoples well prior to the end of the RB period as a result of the use of Foederati from the German tribes and the associated settlement.
This is followed by a series of great plagues across the Empire during the 4th century and the withdrawal of the main Roman authority from Britain at the start of the 5th century. This results in the collapse of the villa landscape and the whole economy. Due to the previous dominance of the villa landscape this leaves much of lowland Britain effectively unoccupied or at least sparsely occupied.
You then get the continuation of the mass migrations of Germanic peoples into Britain but rather than coming as aggressive conquerors they are coming to settle in a much underpopulated landscape. This is, to a large extent, a peaceful settlement with most of the conflict being in the West on the fringes of what was Roman Britain where the native population survived.
At West Haslerton there is continuous occupation of the site from the Bronze Age to the late AS period with the first indications of violence not occurring until the 9th century when the Danes arrived. There are many cemeteries across the country where RB and AS funerary practices are seen side by side in the same cemetery from the same period.
Is this a true reflection of what happened - probably not exactly but it certainly matches the evidence far better than the traditional narrative which is why it is .
Anti Tory is 15 and Anti Theresa May 4 which is 19% of the vote. Quite frankly I am surprised Anti Tory isn't higher, there are a lot of anti Tories out there and for a hell of a lot more reasons than Brexit. Some small part of it maybe.
Anti Theresa May at 4 is tiny, quite frankly unless every Labour voter (that didn't have a better reason) loved here Anti Theresa May has plenty of reasons outside of Brexit. I think you'd be generous to attribute one point of that as Brexit.
I think you would be generous calling in 3-4% in total
Although I wonder if anyone could answer me this...
YouGov have Brexit as a standalone reason for Conservative voters, surely the only reason Labour don't have similar is because not enough Labour voters made it the reason for their vote for it to escape out of the other category.
No but probably a very similar company.
It's bad enough working with people who don't want to change terms and conditions - setting the law aside you still need to work with and rely upon these people every day. Doing so while taking on "risk" that you don't need to take - it's easy to become risk averse.
This, though, is clearly sector and job specific. People in inherently dull, low-pay positions are probably more motivated by cash, but professionals more by other things, and cash rewards* can actually be detrimental.
* edit - i.e. on top of the basic pay package and linked to specific performance metrics
Do you think the fact that three early kings of Wessex had British, not Germanic, names suggests this was originally a native dynasty?
If we're talking about this pandemic and not wanting to expect homes to take on unnecessary legal risk then a law change is far more realistic in a timely fashion than expecting contactual switchovers. If you rely upon grandgathering then by the time old contracts are all gone the pandemic would be long since over.
A Labour party in perpetual opposition is what we have, a Corbynista programme the closest we have come to stopping it.
Not that it was wrong mind you.
He knows this is impeachable. The GOPs descent to Reek is complete.
We have
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1192/region/index.html
which seems to show a quite steady, linear descent in cases in London. Which wouldn't associated with falling R, surely?
I like that idea, it is one thing that probably went particularly well in 2017 with linking austerity not only to peoples work and money but also to their security in regards to policing and terrorism. If you can have a big approach which you can weave into a larger narrative which can apply to multiple areas of society you can really hit home with a coherent message which can attract lots of different voters, to go back to the 2017 example you could use the austerity argument to win over different types of people, from more right wing authoritarian voter concerned with security to a younger more left wing person concerned with low pay in work or mounting bills.
They're operating on a basis of agreements, largely pre-pandemic, with their customers of which the state is a primary one. Do you know their business model? Why should they take on responsibility for risk, or responsibility for bonuses, for a public health issue?
If the state wants to make it a legal requirement then they won't need to change the contracts. If the state wants to offer a bonus then let it do so. But why should the home do that?
If its a public health issue then the government can set public health requirements that the home operates by and that removes the contract as an issue, since contracts can't break the law. If that's not done why would you expect owners to offer a bonus to those who refuse vaccines?
Also surely the whole Labour DNA argument is about family voting and conditions you grew up in (wealth wise)
How I voted would be the nurture part...
Personally, I'd rather take extra time to know what they want to do, and mutually agree how they can do that while helping the company thrive. If the contractual change is something necessary for corporate well-being, that should be an easy sell unless they are already looking for any pretext to leave.
I have given you my pretty comprehensive socialist credentials. I did omit that my maternal great grandfather, an engineer, a copper-smelter, made his colonial fortune in South Africa and the Belgian Congo. Fortunately my grandfather squandered it on Felinfoel Double Dragon in the Clwb Bach. For that I am eternally grateful.
But Talleyrand was right.
https://twitter.com/SamPalmen/status/1360511390428069889
Not defending anyone, but covid tests flawed because they don’t pick it up in early stages, where is best place to look for early stage evidence. You know, well obviously not is it, but it might have been a game changer so worth trying.
Labour - 56 targets
London: 4
Rest of South (SE, SW & East Anglia): 9
Midlands: 9
North: 21
Scotland: 4
Wales: 9
Conservatives - 55 targets
London: 6
Rest of South: 3
Midlands: 6
North: 26
Scotland: 9
Wales: 5
Lib Dems - 15 targets
London: 3
Rest of South: 8
Midlands: 0
North: 3
Scotland: 1
Wales: 0
Incidentally, for the SNP every remaining uncaptured seat in Scotland is available on a swing of less than 5% save for Orkney & Shetland and Edinburgh South. Plaid Cymru has one such target, Ynys Mon.
Digging into the numbers tells you everything. The big battlefield for the main parties is the Red/Blue Wall - again. Labour needs to rebuild there to get back into the game; the Tories need to knock the rest over to get into landslide territory and properly brick Labour up inside the cities. The Lib Dems are now essentially a party for posh Southern Europhiles with a small Scottish Unionist branch.
Especially his Tweet at about 4pm from memory US time calling what has happened a "great day". Smoking gun.
Both look bad. But a smoking gun would have been how he clearly created what happened? He still had enough “but that was up to them” wriggle room defence, without that smoking gun of engineer and orchestrate. You have to admit that?
Boris is laughing and me and Jezza with John Woodcock, Ian Austin, John Mann and all his other mates from your wing of the party because you all have similar goals and aims.
Edit: Ultimately I think a left wing agenda stands more chance of success and you think a Labour right one does.... and never the twine shall meet.
It is worth considering your biases though, I could be saying a left wing one has more chance because it suits my political biases, but so could y'all.
Fantastic! I would have loved to have been Charlie Croker or Simon Peach. Mexicanpete is such a ubiquitous, dull name.
Bottom line 300 for six is hosts on course for victory inside 4 days.
The batsman saw the ball land well to his right, but instead of continuing straight, the spin on the ball made it turn hard to the left (from his viewpoint) when it bounced, and he was surprised it turned enough to hit the stumps behind him. He was perplexed at just how much the ball had turned, he’d not been in for long and simply didn’t expect it.
I mean if this right wing led thoroughly anti left wing Labour party is still too left wing for him why he is even arguing about his family being 'leftier than thou' (an argument he started) I didn't try and claim a more centrist existence or background than him!
Edit: I shouldn't be here recruiting but seriously the current leadership of the Labour party despise left wingers more than MexicanPete could possibly dream, if you genuinely aren't a Tory shouldn't that be right up his street?
There's no ambiguity here.
Eg I know of someone, care worker, refusing the vaccine because she's trying for a child and is scared that the vaccine could effect an unborn child, thalidomide style. She has been at the home for many years but point blank refuses the vaccine due to fears related to pregnancy. She's made sure everyone knows potential pregnancy is her reason for refusing.
If she was to be disciplined or fired for refusing the vaccine, having given potential pregnancy and her fears related to that as her reason, how much risk would you advise the employer would take over firing her?
Lockdown and the current restrictions have played a huge part in stopping the second phase of this virus - vaccination means the lifting of restrictions carries less risk of a renewed surge of cases as those vaccinated are not only less likely to contract the virus and require hospitalisation but also less likely to transmit the virus to others.
Ensuring we go through the full vaccination programme (which means providing the second doses) should mean we don't have to go through the cycle of lifting restrictions, seeing case numbers rise and having to re-impose restrictions.
Slight concerns - we don't know how long immunity lasts from one vaccination let alone two and it's something that needs to be monitored. Will those who have had both vaccinations by May still have immunity in September or will we have to plan a new round of vaccinations (only one per person I would imagine) for the autumn? I hope and believe the concern over variants is misplaced but it's something for which we will have to watch worldwide.
From a personal view, my brother, who has a weakened immune system following pre-existing health conditions and wrestled with mild Covid for five months last year, had his vaccination last week and suffered a moderately severe response of flu like symptoms and I've heard similar from others. One thing we ought to be doing is looking for ways to provide relief to those with weakened immune systems - antibody treatments perhaps?