Labour are going to have the kind of honeymoon period where one spouse walks in on the other one cheating on them with the person sat next to them on the plane.
Labour are going to have the kind of honeymoon period where one spouse walks in on the other one cheating on them with the person sat next to them on the plane.
Finally, a party that's looking out for corporate interests. Sir Kier
Labour are going to have the kind of honeymoon period where one spouse walks in on the other one cheating on them with the person sat next to them on the plane.
Labour are going to have the kind of honeymoon period where one spouse walks in on the other one cheating on them with the person sat next to them on the plane.
That tweet makes it sound like Labour will weaken existing rights, rather than the story actually being that Labour might possibly water down their previous plans.
The full text:
Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour party is set to unveil a weakened package of workers’ rights in the coming weeks in its latest softening of radical policies ahead of the upcoming general election, according to people familiar with the matter.
Labour has vowed to include in its manifesto a long list of employment policies ranging from higher sick pay to ending employers’ use of “fire and rehire”, and reversing anti-strike legislation as part of its “New Deal for Working People”.
The package, first outlined in 2021, has been billed by Starmer as the biggest increase in workers’ rights for decades, with the Labour leader warning business chiefs in February it would “not please everyone in the room”.
But behind the scenes, shadow ministers have been discussing how to tone down some of the pledges to ease employer misgivings as the party tries to boost its pro-business credentials, the people familiar with the matter said.
Those talks, along with a period of focused outreach to business on the policies, have concluded and the finessed package of measures is set to be published in the coming weeks, the people added.
The move is likely to anger some trade union leaders but please business groups, which have become more vocal in raising concerns since Starmer’s February speech.
“The whole tone of everything they’ve been saying on workers’ rights has been attempting to be constructive compared to a couple of months ago,” said one lobbyist.
One business leader said that after several meetings with the party, they were now “pretty relaxed” about its plans.
Shadow ministers will hold a meeting with union general secretaries in the coming weeks to seek their approval for the new version of the workers’ rights package, or at least minimise their resistance to it, according to Labour figures.
The renewed New Deal will emphasise that many of the policies will be subject to formal consultation with business, allowing for dilution of the promises when turned into practice and the potential for significant delay.
Labour originally said it would bring forward legislation within its first 100 days in office to enact the reforms. Some of this could come in the form of “draft legislation” that will be subject to consultation before it begins the formal process of becoming law, according to Labour officials. Other policies could come in later through secondary legislation.
One Labour official said: “While we want to hit the ground running, some policies will take time to implement and deliver.”
"Behind the scenes" "people familiar have said".
Meh, I'll hold off any outrage on this until there's actually an announcement/manifesto.
It's the same straightforward political reporting that preceded the watering down of the £28 billion green investment policies. Multiple sources detailing what has happened and what is currently happening, with an expectation of what this would likely end up resulting in.
It's coupled with this story in The Guardian that Labour will not fully ban zero hour contracts as promised, but make it an opt out for employees.
Labour will say their workers rights package is not being watered down, some unions will say it absolutely is and can't support it, others will say it absolutely is but can support it as long as it doesn't get watered down further.
Moggy wrote:I get that. But I can't judge it until there are actual details/policies in place.
Fair enough! I do think it's fine though to judge Labour based on what they say they will or will not do even before a manifesto is published.
For instance Starmer reiterated yesterday on camera that the Rwanda scheme will not be used / be repealed under a Labour government, after reports saying they would keep it in place. Hopefully he actually keeps his word this time.
Moggy wrote:I get that. But I can't judge it until there are actual details/policies in place.
Fair enough! I do think it's fine though to judge Labour based on what they say they will or will not do even before a manifesto is published.
For instance Starmer reiterated yesterday on camera that the Rwanda scheme will not be used / be repealed under a Labour government, after reports saying they would keep it in place. Hopefully he actually keeps his word this time.
Of course. But that FT article was basically just a "sources say". It might be true, it might not. Until they actually say something, it's hard to judge.
Starmer in 2025: "As promised, we have repealed the Rwanda legislation. Instead we will send people to Uganda...."
Moggy wrote:I get that. But I can't judge it until there are actual details/policies in place.
Fair enough! I do think it's fine though to judge Labour based on what they say they will or will not do even before a manifesto is published.
For instance Starmer reiterated yesterday on camera that the Rwanda scheme will not be used / be repealed under a Labour government, after reports saying they would keep it in place. Hopefully he actually keeps his word this time.
The tragic background to the small girl dying in the dingy crush because her Belgian family were going to be sent back to Iraq (the girl was born in Belgium) highlights that the answer lies with a closer working relationship with the EU and not more walls.
Whilst I am sure there are plenty of chancers in those boats, a majority of them are people who are so desperate not to return to their homeland that they will risk the sea crossing. They deserve sympathy and compassion, not the Tory version of Kristallnacht.
Moggy wrote:I get that. But I can't judge it until there are actual details/policies in place.
Fair enough! I do think it's fine though to judge Labour based on what they say they will or will not do even before a manifesto is published.
For instance Starmer reiterated yesterday on camera that the Rwanda scheme will not be used / be repealed under a Labour government, after reports saying they would keep it in place. Hopefully he actually keeps his word this time.
Lab are struggling though because with laws now passed if you come to the UK illehally (eg via small boats), you can’t claim asylum.
They’re getting boxed in by what will happen to the 1000s of people here on that basis. They can’t say what they’ll do, they don’t want to say they’ll repeal the law. Torques can just go ‘Send em to Rwanda obviously/‘ and not be questioned by media
Knoyleo wrote:Imagine thinking you're going to accidentally make the human race extinct just because you teach kids that gay relationships aren't abnormal.
It's a slippery slope, first you legalise gay marriage and before you know it there are 97 genders and the only way to reproduce is via Elon Musk's Martian cloning facilities.
Would love to see the Tories lose at least 500 councillors.
My council is up for grabs, and the Labour team is feeling confident of taking it from the Tories despite the volume of twats who live here (Reform poll disproportionately high ). I've done a tiny bit of volunteering to help out with campaigning, so will absolutely be claiming partial responsibility for a glorious success .
). I've done a tiny bit of volunteering to help out with campaigning, so will absolutely be claiming partial responsibility for a glorious success 
.
