UK Politics Thread XIII: The Brexit Ship Departs

[Philjia]

Honourable suicide, self destruction on the altar of a broad coalition and electoral reform, wasn't a necessity back then as it is now. The time for Labour has passed. It has lost it's monopoly over progressivism and has lost the surety of it's own internal unity. The complex internal bureaucracy that once served to hold Labour together now tears it apart as it completely obfuscates who within the party has legitimacy.

Yeah that's probably why Labour won those elections, and suddenly started losing once mean ol jeremy took over.

No it lost those elections because of the recession and Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband.

[Ifreann]

Pay is just an example, but striking and other kinds of industrial action are the reason unions exist, that is why they were created. One worker threatening to withhold their labour if conditions are not improved can simply be fired and replaced, many workers withholding their labour can shut the workplace down and prevent scabs from being brought in. We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn that the union makes us strong. But a union that only supports workers in taking legal cases against their employer in court or a tribunal can never secure better conditions that the bare minimum required by law. Can they?

All of that is the case when Labour laws don't really exist. But they do now, the amount of Labour related law in this country is huge. So the vast majority of the worker employer relationship over time has been transfered from that direct negotiating between employee and employer to the law courts. And consequently the legal support and finance a union could provide to use the court system is regardless of origin a feature of Unionism that should be attractive to everybody. So now you have to ask yourself why it is that something that is so obviously a benifit doesn't have almost universal uptake? I've made a few suggestions on that front and there are going to be others as well. The world has moved on whilst Len and his groupies haven't and that's really why Unionism needs to be modernised and options to fit all tastes need to be offered.

I don't think it's even that nessasery for obvious abuses these days either. Take zero hour ontracts, what were the two obvious abuses of that? It was exclusivity clauses and the worker not having the right to turn down a shift on short notice. Now you can't have exclusivity and the worker has to have I think it's a week notice or they can turn down a shift. In particular the right to turn down a shift at short notice allows you to bargin with your manager to get something else you want in return.

I actually had a zero hours contract at uni, it's really nice when trying to fit work around study especially if you have a decent manager. And I did often agree to do some shifts at short notice and trade that against a weekend I wanted off when I might usually work. Some of that was even before the law was changed. So would I have wanted a fixed contract forced on me? Absolutely not. There is a balance to strike and I think we have roughly found it on that topic for example. So when a union says ban zero hours contracts, I'm like no fuck off they work for me. And if there isn't an alternative union that recognises the flexibility I also get as a benifit for that contract as long as certain legal protections exist I’m just not going to join that union.

I guess if some people feel like they could never want any better working conditions than what they can get by suing their boss and winning then that's their prerogative, however little I may understand them.

[The Nihilistic view]

All of that is the case when Labour laws don't really exist. But they do now, the amount of Labour related law in this country is huge. So the vast majority of the worker employer relationship over time has been transfered from that direct negotiating between employee and employer to the law courts. And consequently the legal support and finance a union could provide to use the court system is regardless of origin a feature of Unionism that should be attractive to everybody. So now you have to ask yourself why it is that something that is so obviously a benifit doesn't have almost universal uptake? I've made a few suggestions on that front and there are going to be others as well. The world has moved on whilst Len and his groupies haven't and that's really why Unionism needs to be modernised and options to fit all tastes need to be offered.

I don't think it's even that nessasery for obvious abuses these days either. Take zero hour ontracts, what were the two obvious abuses of that? It was exclusivity clauses and the worker not having the right to turn down a shift on short notice. Now you can't have exclusivity and the worker has to have I think it's a week notice or they can turn down a shift. In particular the right to turn down a shift at short notice allows you to bargin with your manager to get something else you want in return.

I actually had a zero hours contract at uni, it's really nice when trying to fit work around study especially if you have a decent manager. And I did often agree to do some shifts at short notice and trade that against a weekend I wanted off when I might usually work. Some of that was even before the law was changed. So would I have wanted a fixed contract forced on me? Absolutely not. There is a balance to strike and I think we have roughly found it on that topic for example. So when a union says ban zero hours contracts, I'm like no fuck off they work for me. And if there isn't an alternative union that recognises the flexibility I also get as a benifit for that contract as long as certain legal protections exist I’m just not going to join that union.

I guess if some people feel like they could never want any better working conditions than what they can get by suing their boss and winning then that's their prerogative, however little I may understand them.

You have to stop at some point. You can't just infinitely give workers more rights, eventually you'd get to the point where a full time job is 1 hour of work a fortnight for a minimum wage of £100,000 a year. Or the right to take a 10 year Sabbaticle or the right for a shop cashier to request to be able to work at home 3 days a week. Obviously they are absurd examples just to illustrate that there is obvious point at which 99.99999999% of people would say fundamentally you have no further to go.

So then it becomes a question of where would you stop? Because everybody has an opinion on that and when more people think the current rights are fine than think that they aren't the country has got to the point where collectively we have decided to largely stop. And when you get to this point unions can become a bit redundant on that front.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

I'm realising I either need to leave twitter or keep my follows to anything but politics. Fucking hell the left seem to live in a dreamworld on that site.

Also Google and Apple blocked the NHS Covid-19 app update due to breaking rules on data collection, because government apps can't get anything right tbh.

[Souseiseki]

I guess if some people feel like they could never want any better working conditions than what they can get by suing their boss and winning then that's their prerogative, however little I may understand them.

You have to stop at some point. You can't just infinitely give workers more rights, eventually you'd get to the point where a full time job is 1 hour of work a fortnight for a minimum wage of £100,000 a year. Or the right to take a 10 year Sabbaticle or the right for a shop cashier to request to be able to work at home 3 days a week. Obviously they are absurd examples just to illustrate that there is obvious point at which 99.99999999% of people would say fundamentally you have no further to go.

So then it becomes a question of where would you stop? Because everybody has an opinion on that and when more people think the current rights are fine than think that they aren't the country has got to the point where collectively we have decided to largely stop. And when you get to this point unions can become a bit redundant on that front.

you're in a thread full of people that are mad the nazis ruined the term "national socialism" because they think nationalism + socialism is mucho coolio. if the workers and unions just ran their own workplaces they would self-regulate within reason or die. free market!

[The Blaatschapen]

You have to stop at some point. You can't just infinitely give workers more rights, eventually you'd get to the point where a full time job is 1 hour of work a fortnight for a minimum wage of £100,000 a year. Or the right to take a 10 year Sabbaticle or the right for a shop cashier to request to be able to work at home 3 days a week. Obviously they are absurd examples just to illustrate that there is obvious point at which 99.99999999% of people would say fundamentally you have no further to go.

So then it becomes a question of where would you stop? Because everybody has an opinion on that and when more people think the current rights are fine than think that they aren't the country has got to the point where collectively we have decided to largely stop. And when you get to this point unions can become a bit redundant on that front.

you're in a thread full of people that are mad the nazis ruined the term "national socialism" because they think nationalism + socialism is mucho coolio. if the workers and unions just ran their own workplaces they would self-regulate within reason or die. free market!

That is nazis for you. They ruin everything.

Swastikas, ruined (take a look at Carlsberg brewery pictures in Copenhagen, all kinds of interesting)
Animal rights, ruined.
Cool looking uniforms, ruined.
Invading Poland, ruined.

Wait...

[The New California Republic]

Swastikas, ruined (take a look at Carlsberg brewery pictures in Copenhagen, all kinds of interesting)

Lots of them on buildings in the UK too, including government buildings such as The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Essex County Council's headquarters.

[The Nihilistic view]

You have to stop at some point. You can't just infinitely give workers more rights, eventually you'd get to the point where a full time job is 1 hour of work a fortnight for a minimum wage of £100,000 a year. Or the right to take a 10 year Sabbaticle or the right for a shop cashier to request to be able to work at home 3 days a week. Obviously they are absurd examples just to illustrate that there is obvious point at which 99.99999999% of people would say fundamentally you have no further to go.

So then it becomes a question of where would you stop? Because everybody has an opinion on that and when more people think the current rights are fine than think that they aren't the country has got to the point where collectively we have decided to largely stop. And when you get to this point unions can become a bit redundant on that front.

you're in a thread full of people that are mad the nazis ruined the term "national socialism" because they think nationalism + socialism is mucho coolio. if the workers and unions just ran their own workplaces they would self-regulate within reason or die. free market!

I don't think so, this is a thread for self hating leftists to shit all over UK nationhood.....

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Neither of those things have been happening.

[Vassenor]

you're in a thread full of people that are mad the nazis ruined the term "national socialism" because they think nationalism + socialism is mucho coolio. if the workers and unions just ran their own workplaces they would self-regulate within reason or die. free market!

I don't think so, this is a thread for self hating leftists to shit all over UK nationhood.....

Meanwhile, in reality...

[The Huskar Social Union]

Pretty sure he is referencing the quote in the OP

[Chan Island]

Pretty sure he is referencing the quote in the OP

Thanks, Captain.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Pretty sure he is referencing the quote in the OP

Thanks, Captain.

omg im captain how cool

: P

[The New California Republic]

Thanks, Captain.

omg im captain how cool

: P

You aren't captain, I am. It's the cat-o'-nine-tails for you.

[The Huskar Social Union]

omg im captain how cool

: P

You aren't captain, I am. It's the cat-o'-nine-tails for you.

[The New California Republic]

You aren't captain, I am. It's the cat-o'-nine-tails for you.

[The Huskar Social Union]

lmao

[The Huskar Social Union]

The UK Government has confirmed it is taking Holyrood to the Supreme Court over a Bill that aimed to enshrine UN children's rights in Scotland.

The UK Government has confirmed it is taking Holyrood to the Supreme Court over a Bill that aimed to enshrine UN children’s rights in Scotland.

The constitutional row follows the unanimous passing of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) at the Scottish Parliament on March 16.

The convention makes it unlawful for public authorities to act against its requirements.

The UK Government has argued that parts of it would contravene the devolved settlement by constraining Westminster from passing some laws in Scotland.

However, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon branded the move “jaw dropping”, claiming it was “politically catastrophic, but also morally repugnant”.

=CONTINUES=

Now thats interesting. Im not that familiar with this source so if someone has another they want to share feel free to do so.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The UK Government has confirmed it is taking Holyrood to the Supreme Court over a Bill that aimed to enshrine UN children's rights in Scotland.

The UK Government has confirmed it is taking Holyrood to the Supreme Court over a Bill that aimed to enshrine UN children’s rights in Scotland.

The constitutional row follows the unanimous passing of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) at the Scottish Parliament on March 16.

The convention makes it unlawful for public authorities to act against its requirements.

The UK Government has argued that parts of it would contravene the devolved settlement by constraining Westminster from passing some laws in Scotland.

However, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon branded the move “jaw dropping”, claiming it was “politically catastrophic, but also morally repugnant”.

=CONTINUES=

Now thats interesting. Im not that familiar with this source so if someone has another they want to share feel free to do so.

So if London thinks the content in the UNCRC prevents them from passing "some laws" what laws are they thinking of here? Bringing back child-beatings?

[Atheris]

omg im captain how cool

: P

You aren't captain, I am. It's the cat-o'-nine-tails for you.

Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

[Definitely Not Trumptonium]

The UK Government has confirmed it is taking Holyrood to the Supreme Court over a Bill that aimed to enshrine UN children's rights in Scotland.



Now thats interesting. Im not that familiar with this source so if someone has another they want to share feel free to do so.

So if London thinks the content in the UNCRC prevents them from passing "some laws" what laws are they thinking of here? Bringing back child-beatings?

The content is irrelevant. The provisions of devolvement are clear, and it does not include supremacy of Scots law over the national parliament.

[Fartsniffage]

The UK Government has confirmed it is taking Holyrood to the Supreme Court over a Bill that aimed to enshrine UN children's rights in Scotland.



Now thats interesting. Im not that familiar with this source so if someone has another they want to share feel free to do so.

So if London thinks the content in the UNCRC prevents them from passing "some laws" what laws are they thinking of here? Bringing back child-beatings?

It's been too long since it was legal to beat children in schools. Bring back the slipper I say!

[The Nihilistic view]

So if London thinks the content in the UNCRC prevents them from passing "some laws" what laws are they thinking of here? Bringing back child-beatings?

The content is irrelevant. The provisions of devolvement are clear, and it does not include supremacy of Scots law over the national parliament.

Yeah doesn't matter what it is you can't on principle let it slide. We all know the next one will probably be a Scottish Bill for independence so it's a good opportunity for the UK government to try and get a ruling that will basically act as a test case of the Government's position.

I don't recall there actually being a test case for constraints on the Scottish Parliment before. Arch might know but nothing springs to mind for me.

[The Nihilistic view]

Pretty sure he is referencing the quote in the OP

Bingo. Bit harsh you got lashed for it though!

[The New California Republic]

I don't recall there actually being a test case for constraints on the Scottish Parliment before. Arch might know but nothing springs to mind for me.

Axa General Insurance Ltd & Ors v Lord Advocate & Ors (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 46, the first challenge to the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence to reach the Court since it succeeded the JCPC as devolution’s final arbiter. As a study in Scots public law, Axa has everything: constitutional vires, sovereignty, convention rights, common law review, third party interventions, public interest access rights and an array of characters including fifteen counsel, the UK’s largest insurers, multiple governments and eminently sympathetic ‘ordinary people’. Consequently this is not only from a Scottish perspective the Court’s most significant judgement to date.

http://ukscblog.com/what-has-been-the-m ... e-and-why/

of which this is most significant:

For its impact on long-standing uncertainties, Axa is significant enough. A century-old test of standing has been put to bed, to the delight of pressure groups. It is finally clear that the Scottish Parliament enjoys similar deference to Westminster regarding social policy. Diceyan concepts of parliamentary sovereignty have again been challenged. Yet its greatest significance, elevating it above other judgements, lies in its potential. Imagine that the Scottish and UK governments cannot reach agreement on an independence referendum, and the former legislates anyway. Whilst realpolitik might have dictated that the UK government would not seek to litigate the issue, Axa is a game-changer: without (and possibly with) additional legislative power from Westminster, any referendum is now open to challenge by potentially any interested party. This, with myriad other public policy issues, may now end up being decided by the Courts.