Jump to content

The Burnham Years - Can the new(ish) broom sweep clean?

iansums

By iansums
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

iansums

iansums

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Has this thread been officially sanctioned by @sadoldgit?

 

He certainly wouldn't be happy I started it, if you're not allowed a vote then you shouldn't be allowed to start forum threads either! I think he's retired from The Lounge anyway.

Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
Just now, iansums said:

He certainly wouldn't be happy I started it, if you're not allowed a vote then you shouldn't be allowed to start forum threads either! I think he's retired from The Lounge anyway.

If you had the backing of the thread creation union, then that's all that really counts if it's a Labour thread. As we're about to find out, union demands are much more important than what voters want. 🙂

 

  • Like 2
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

If you had the backing of the thread creation union, then that's all that really counts if it's a Labour thread. As we're about to find out, union demands are much more important than what voters want. 🙂

 

Union members are voters too. ( Assume that Iansums is not a union member ).

Edited by badgerx16
iansums

iansums

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Union members are voters too. ( Assume that Iansums is not a union member ).

Certainly not, and never have been, although not sure I've ever had the option working in my industry and relatively small companies.

Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Union members are voters too. ( Assume that Iansums is not a union member ).

Oh, like I'm going to let that get in the way of claiming the first grumpy stereotype of the thread prize. 🙂

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted

Hopefully we can get back to grey, boring politics again after the crazy, psycho dramas of the last few years.

Burnham's Labour will certainly hit the ground running but it doesn’t look like they will be given much of a honeymoon period.

  • Haha 3
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, iansums said:

Well somebody had to do it! Hope he makes a better job of it than Starmer.

Delete the thread. The person who started it isnt allowed an opinion on politics. 

  • Haha 2
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, whelk said:

He likes The Smiths and The Stone Roses. A good sign

Champagne Manc. He's probably got some fake story about when he went to the Hacienda as well. It'll be his "my dad was a tool maker" mantra. 

whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Champagne Manc. He's probably got some fake story about when he went to the Hacienda as well. It'll be his "my dad was a tool maker" mantra. 

He did used to go to the  Hacienda on Thursday night 

  • Haha 1
Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, iansums said:

Certainly not, and never have been, although not sure I've ever had the option working in my industry and relatively small companies.

In most businesses I think people would not want to be a member of a union because of the negative connotations, hence why they don’t thrive in those environments. I don’t hold out much hope for improvement but at least he doesn’t look like he is going to appoint Red Ed as chancellor 

Edited by Sir Ralph
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, whelk said:

He is clearly a proper Everton fan. 

Born in Liverpool, grew up in Culcheth.

Edited by badgerx16
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

In most businesses I think people would not want to be a member of a union because of the negative connotations, hence why they don’t thrive in those environments. I don’t hold out much hope for improvement but at least he doesn’t look like he is going to appoint Red Ed as chancellor 

What are those negative connotations?

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, whelk said:

He did used to go to the  Hacienda on Thursday night 

“I know what it’s like to be young in Britain, I used do Thursdays nights at the Hacienda”

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Believing that workers have rights.

Disgracegul. Bring back the 8 day working week. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, egg said:

Disgracegul. Bring back the 8 day working week. 

Tbf some unions are very disruptive- see Unite. 

  • Like 1
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

“I know what it’s like to be young in Britain, I used do Thursdays nights at the Hacienda”

Think he has got a genuine story but as is so common these days people just want to mock and criticise. Oooh to see Batman’s feed

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, whelk said:

Tbf some unions are very disruptive- see Unite. 

Some can be a downright nuisance - those leading the junior doctors for one. I'm not sure that necessarily leads to negative connotations about union members though. 

Anyways, I'm interested in Burnham's cabinet. I think we'll see a few curveballs. 

  • Like 1
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

“I know what it’s like to be young in Britain, I used do Thursdays nights at the Hacienda”

This is going to hurt you so bad

IMG_0579.jpeg

whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
Just now, Challenger said:

He wants to try something different, on that he has my tentative support.

I haven’t seen what he said today but the missus was very impressed and that isn’t easy for any politician 

  • Like 1
Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, egg said:

What are those negative connotations?

Unions in principle can be good if they are being reasonable with employers and I can see a place for them when you have significant numbers of employees with standardised pay. Over recent years in respect of some industries (for example rail and train) unions have a bad reputation of overplaying their hand and trying to secure unreasonable terms for their members. When I was younger I worked in a place that had union employees and my experience was that the reps were the work shy ones who used their membership to protect themselves.
 

It could have negative connotations because unions can reduce flexibility in managing staff for business and create the potential for industrial action and, in some circumstances, more adversarial relationships between employees and employers. This can be a problem for some businesses as it can slow decision making particularly when margins are tight. 

Edited by Sir Ralph
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, egg said:

Some can be a downright nuisance - those leading the junior doctors for one. I'm not sure that necessarily leads to negative connotations about union members though. 

Anyways, I'm interested in Burnham's cabinet. I think we'll see a few curveballs. 

Decent business owners recognise the benefit of unions although some are clearly out for their own. German unions very much work with the business 

  • Like 2
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, whelk said:

This is going to hurt you so bad

IMG_0579.jpeg

😂 hurt so bad,  seriously? 
 

FYI I quite like the bloke. You seem a bit rattled again though 

 

Edited by Turkish
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, whelk said:

Decent business owners recognise the benefit of unions although some are clearly out for their own. German unions very much work with the business 

Yep 

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Unions in principle can be good if they are being reasonable with employers and I can see a place for them when you have significant numbers of employees with standardised pay. Over recent years in respect of some industries (for example rail and train) unions have a bad reputation of overplaying their hand and trying to secure unreasonable terms for their members. When I was younger I worked in a place that had union employees and my experience was that the reps were the work shy ones who used their membership to protect themselves.

It could have negative connotations because unions can reduce flexibility in managing staff for business and create the potential for industrial action and, in some circumstances, more adversarial relationships between employees and employers. This can be a problem for some businesses as it can slow decision making particularly when margins are tight. 

That's your issue with unions, not sensible employers attitude towards union members. 

Most employers wouldn't know which employees are union members. 

  • Like 1
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Has he said what that will be yet?

Different broom. Different sweeper uppers. 

Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep 

That's your issue with unions, not sensible employers attitude towards union members. 

Most employers wouldn't know which employees are union members. 

Thats your opinion regarding “sensible employers attitudes” as it’s mine about unions. Have you been part of a union before?

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Thats your opinion regarding “sensible employers attitudes” as it’s mine about unions. Have you been part of a union before?

I am also a sensible employer. I suspect several of my staff are union members. I don't know who - who would I have to? It's odd to believe that I would think differently of them if I knew who they were. 

Is your position that sensible employers have a negative view of employees who are union members? If so, based on what. 

And yes, I've been a Union member.

  • Like 1
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Turkish said:

😂 hurt so bad,  seriously? 
 

FYI I quite like the bloke. You seem a bit rattled again though 

 

Au contraire  - I fear someone maybe not understanding humour

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Phew! At least we got that cleared up.

Maybe this time the devil won't be in the detail?

Detail? Pah. 

iansums

iansums

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

He’s quite dashing. Is he our best looking PM ever? 

Someone’s been watching too much Downton Abbey 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Turkish said:

He’s quite dashing. Is he our best looking PM ever? 

Oh come now. You’re forgetting shagger Johnson so quickly? The lad was an expert swordsman, the ladies loved him, he’s got kids everywhere bearing his testament to procreation.  What woman wouldn’t want this carcass sweatily heaving his way back and forth on top of them?

IMG-0685.jpg

 

  • Haha 4

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...