Page 98 of 98
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2025 12:05 am
by davidjay
That's all we bloody need.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2025 12:21 am
by Oboogie
I think we can safely say that Russell Brand will not be the alleged rapist making the headlines this week.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2025 10:15 am
by Boiler
Front page news on the Mail and the Mirror today.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2025 10:27 am
by Samanfur
I'm currently reading the memoirs of Simon Hart, the former Tory Chief Whip. The amount of sexual indiscretions that seemed to be unearthed under the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but didn't get any attention beggars belief.
Some weren't publicised for legal reasons, but the rest just seems to be an unwillingness to report.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2025 11:11 am
by Youngian
I'm currently reading the memoirs of Simon Hart, the former Tory Chief Whip. The amount of sexual indiscretions that seemed to be unearthed under the Johnson, Truss and Sunak administrations but didn't get any attention beggars belief.
Nevermind Adolescence, perhaps it's time for a conversation about the sickness lying in adult generations.
Cut off their goolies.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 12:03 am
by The Weeping Angel
If this is true then Unite and Sharon Graham can fuck off.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cedyy520v32o
A deal between striking bin workers and Birmingham City Council could have been reached were it not for the interventions of the Unite union's national leadership team, the BBC has been told.
A message seen by the BBC also appears to suggest some local union members are dissatisfied with how the dispute has been handled.
Unite said claims national union figures had scuppered a potential deal were "entirely without merit".
Speaking on a visit to Birmingham on Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner urged the union to accept what she said was a "significantly improved" offer from the council.
Thousands of tonnes of rubbish have built up on the city's streets over more than four weeks and Ms Rayner said the situation was "causing misery and disruption to residents".
A number of senior Labour figures outside the council, including some MPs, said they understood the purported deal with local reps would have been reached during the rolling strike in January and February.
However, individuals with knowledge of the situation said while the alleged deal was backed by refuse workers at two of Birmingham City Council's three bin lorry depots, National Unite figures were involved at the third site where it was rejected.
Sources, including some with extensive union experience, say the handling of the dispute is being influenced by power struggles within Unite.
A longstanding Unite member from the West Midlands told the BBC that while commissioners at the council bore some of the responsibility for the dispute, the regional office of Unite was unhappy it had been bypassed.
They said: "Unions traditionally have been about the art of the deal on behalf of their members. Instead, Unite and some others seem to be in the grip of people for whom disruption, disputes and revolution are their priority."
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 12:36 am
by davidjay
I've had a feeling that there's some outside influence in the future - it's been going on for too long with no end in sight not for there to be someone wanting it to continue. An unholy alliance of those who hate Starmer the most would be about right.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 7:37 am
by Boiler
Because 1979 worked out so well...
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2025 2:29 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
I'd be a bit sceptical of that article, because internal union opponents, the Government and the council all have a big incentive to dump on Graham. Though I have little regard for the sort of people who tried to elect Howard Beckett, I wasn't impressed with the Gerald Coyne types either. Anyway, Graham is entitled to make the point that they could get a better deal if they hold out a bit longer.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2025 7:44 pm
by Abernathy
One of the most downright dishonest pieces I have ever read, here.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/morgan- ... CIjaHkuS8A
I’ve read Pogrund & Maguire’s book, and virtually none of what this piece claims is in it. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a pack of lies. A fantasy. A self-justifying conspiracy theory. An absolute disgrace, but also somewhat irrelevant. If I were Pogrund & Maguire, I’d be considering legal action.
Having said that, it is also a reminder that these bastards won’t lie down, and will come back if and when the opportunity is presented to them again. It’s up to genuine Labour members and supporters to make sure that that doesn’t happen.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2025 7:57 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
The same two authors wrote Left Out about Labour under Corbyn. Doubtless these authors think that's a completely fair and trustworthy document though.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2025 8:01 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Funny, I can't see any of the reviews on Good Reads there drawing the same conclusion that these authors do...
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2025 10:24 pm
by The Weeping Angel
I see the author throws in a bit of Jew bashing for good measure.