The previous verson of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill contained clauses which entrenched employment rights carried over as retained EU law. That Bill had not completed its passage through Parliament when Parliament was dissolved for the election last month, and it lapsed on the dissolution. The Withdrawal Agreemen Bill introduced into the new Parliament after the election omitted these entrenching clauses.
So it’s not just that the Bill doesn’t protect employment rights and leaves open the possibility that they might later change; it’s that the government has decided to strip out clauses previously included that protected employment rights. This gives rise to the unworthy suspicion that the reason the government intends to legislation to diminish employment rights.
My Mr. Corbyn, you’ve certainly turned vulgar since you lost that last election! In case you’ve missed it, the current UK government is courting working class voters. Long-term, Johnson’s premiership will almost certainly be pro-business and anti-union. However, the current trend is towards encouraging businesses to consider stakeholders, including communities, workers and the environment, when making plans and decisions. Javid made a speech in Davos about it just yesterday.
The workers’ rights that the government removed from the Withdrawal Agreement Bill mainly had to do with continued alignment with EU workers’ rights legislation. There was also a requirement for consultation with unions. These parts of the bill were a result of a bankbench amendment accepted by Theresa May back when she was grasping at straws trying to get her Brexit bill through Parliament. It’s no wonder that Johnson got rid of them. They’re a compromise he doesn’t need and they restrict his options in the future UK-EU trade agreement that’s being negotiated, and the future Employment Bill that was announced in the Queen’s Speech.
From your cite:
See page 43 of the Queen’s Speech Executive summary (pdf) for the Government’s stated intentions for worker’s rights. The first line is a goal to:
Oh, well, the government have “intentions” and “goals” and are “considering stakeholders”. That completely mitigates any risk arising from their deliberate removal of workers’ rights protections.
Thank heavens we have a Prime Minister, Government and Conservative Party who don’t have a long history of blatantly lying and of screwing the poor and middle classes for the enrichment of the wealthy.
Nyetimber, the wine that was delivered to 10 Downing Street, is actually quite good. Personally, I prefer the Brut to the Rose’. English sparkling wine has been winning international awards, including blind taste testings, for over a decade. It’s one of many industries expected to receive a Brexit bump.
Jacob Rees-Mogg’s position in government is under scrutiny. His “common sense” remarks towards the people who died at Grenfell Tower received lots of disapproval and diminished the popularity he received for being an unconventional aristocratic throwback. Being a caricature of pomposity works when you’re amusing, not when you’re mean. On top of that, now that Johnson has a substantial majority, Rees-Mogg is no longer needed to bring the hard-right onside. He’s expected to be moved back to the back-benches in the next cabinet reshuffle.
As for Rees-Mogg and the ERG’s influence on the future UK-EU trade agreement, he/they no longer have any. Most MP’s and most business leaders have always favoured a soft Brexit over a No-Deal Brexit. Johnson’s primary interest always has been, and always will be, himself. Rees-Mogg is a fairly significant individual, but he’s small potatoes in comparison to other MP’s in the cabinet, non-MP leadership within the Conservative Party, and business leaders. Rees-Mogg currently has very little to offer Johnson, and much less than other people in power who will seek to motivate the government towards a soft Brexit. Rees-Mogg won’t be paying Johnson to deliver speeches in the future. Johnson’s going to be listening to the people who will.
Most of us don’t believe that we need to be protected from the UK government by the EU, which is what those workers’ rights bill clauses were about.
Look, you can be a pessimist, or you can wait and see what the Government actually intends to accomplish, and then see if you agree with their goals and if they’re actually achieving them. There’s a cabinet reshuffle expected in February. Some of that will be based on internal Tory politics, but it will also be an exercise in setting the direction the government intends to go over the next few years. Following that will be the Budget in March. That will be the best near-term indicator of which goals listed in the Queen’s Speech the Government is actually trying to accomplish. Between the intended legislation and the negotiations with the EU, it looks like the government is in for a busy year. Personally, I’m looking forward to it.
So your argument is that we should wait and see if Boris Johnson and the Conservatives will actually deliver what they promised, even though Boris Johnson has a long personal history of promising many things he has shown no intention of ever delivering and in many cases has delivered the exact opposite to his own benefit and the greater detriment of the taxpayers, and even though the Conservatives have implemented a large number of policies and practices since 2010 that have been actively harmful to the working class and resulted in a quintupling of homelessness and hundreds of thousands becoming reliant on food banks while the wealthiest segment of society have had their taxes cut and been on the receiving end of an increasing amount of government largesse? This time the government - who won’t face the voters for another five years - will somehow find it in their hearts to act in the best interest of the workers? *That’s *the argument you find most credible?
Well, keep trying to kick that football, Charlie Brown. I’m sure that one of these days Lucy won’t pull it away.
52% in the 2016 referendum and 365 out of 650 constituencies in the general election.
Yes, that’s exactly my argument. It’s in the Government’s interest to govern well. Some of that involves making trade-offs. You probably don’t like some of the trade-offs the Conservative government has made in the past and would have preferred more government largesse. I’m glad we’re not bankrupt from the outrageous spending plans Gordon Brown was putting in place at the end of his term as Prime Minister. Remember the £154 billion government deficit in 2009? Brown wanted to increase that to £175 billion - and that’s before he started making further promises during the 2010 general election. Instead, we’ve generally had a government of fiscal restraint which has led to moderate economic growth and high employment. Now we’re getting to the end of Brexit and the massive distraction it’s been for government and business over the past four years. Fiscal restraint is still required as the UK has over £1.8 trillion in government debt which is over 85% of GDP. But the Government can, and probably will, update its spending plans. They’re promising more infrastructure spending, which I think is a good thing. They’re promising more spending on the NHS, education, and the police. I’m in favour of those too, although I think the increases should be targeted rather than wholesale. I think the government is in a decent place, both in terms of the economy, social issues and leaving the EU, and that gives it room to advance its agenda. So far, the agenda they’ve been discussing sounds promising. I’m going to expect them to keep their promises, and so should the rest of the UK electorate. And here’s the thing - if the government fails at their agenda, then they’ll be removed from office and it will be somebody else’s turn. If they fail badly, then their end will come even sooner. The government’s interest is in staying in government. Therefore, they’re going to try and achieve the goals they’re telling everybody about. That’s the point of representative democracy. I’d much rather give the guys who won the election a chance to succeed and look forward to their success than sit in a corner sulking because I don’t like them and pouting that the other guys lost.
I would prefer a government whose policies haven’t directly led to the deaths of thousands of the poor and disabled and increased hardship for millions more. But that’s just the kind of guy I am.
I’m no fan of Brown but it’s funny how you didn’t mention the global recession that was happening at the end of his tenure, nor the fact that despite the “fiscal restraint” of the Conservatives, that “government debt” you mentioned has increased significantly. Labour spending wasn’t deficit-heavy either until the economy tanked in 2008. But if you need to pretend that the 2009-2010 budget was typical for Labour in order to support your argument, pretend away. “Most of us” will see this ploy for what it is.
As already noted, they promise a lot of things they never deliver, and Boris in particular does this. But this time…
I’m sulking because people like you keep making arguments that aren’t remotely grounded in reality and then blame everyone else but yourself when things don’t happen “as promised”. I’m sulking because these policies have already been shown over the last decade to cause significant detriment to the country. I’m sulking because an active propaganda campaign by the Conservatives and wealthy media owners has propagated a culture of lies and people like you are happy to accept that as long as it suits your own agenda, no matter what the damage to the country and its democratic institutions.
Yes it is. And since this is a thread about Brexit, and the topic related to your reply is EU legislation and regulation, I’ll go even further. How do you think the 2016 Leave referendum would have gone if it had been purely about sovereignty? Take away the issues of free trade, the right to work and live in Europe, mutual recognition of regulations, and agencies supported by pooled resources such as the EU Aviation Safety Agency. To be fair, you can also take away the huge amounts the UK was paying to the EU for those benefits. What do you think the result would have been if the question was “Would you prefer to be governed from Westminster or Brussels?” I think 75% in favour of a Westminster government is the low point. 90% is probably the likely number. Hell, it might just be everybody but you and Nick Clegg.
Nice sob story. Your virtuous outlook deserves a pat on the back, even if your facts don’t. But let’s look at the facts.
NHS spending has risen continuously since 2010.
Disability spending as a percentage of GDP has risen since 2010. https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/an-obr-guide-to-welfare-spending/ See chart 11.
Nominal welfare spending has continuously risen since 2010, except for a £3 billion drop in 2013-2014 which followed £15 billion in increases from 2010-2013. Real terms spending on welfare has been basically flat since 2013 and is higher than it was in 2010. The only metric that’s declined is spending per capita, which has been reduced because the “capita” has increased due to immigration and the demands for welfare assistance were reduced as employment increased following the after-effects of the 2008 financial crisis. https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/an-obr-guide-to-welfare-spending/ See chart 7.
Short-term government boosts to spending and monetary policy intervention were needed in 2008-2009 and should have been maintained in 2009-2010. Note that if the spending was merely maintained, the deficit would have been reduced in 2009-2010 as the economy improved during that period. UK GDP growth 2023 | Statista Brown sought to increase the deficit during that period. Post 2010, when the Conservatives took over, “fiscal restraint” and not additional economic stimulus through government spending was the correct economic policy, despite the welfare state advocates calling for increased benefits. However, you’re right that the government debt has increased since 2010. Were you in favour of increased “austerity” after 2010 in order to eliminate government deficits?
The UK government (small-g, the administrative apparatus) overall is pretty effective. It’s not perfect, and its successes are due far more to the civil service than to politicians, but far more goes right than goes wrong. There’s certainly room for improvement. That’s the job of the new Government (big-G, the political decision makers). So far, they seem to be doing alright. As for Boris Johnson, I have no faith in his honesty nor his character. However, he’s not a dictator and his ambition is to stay in office and be viewed favourably by both the public and the British elite. To have that happen, he’s going to have to have the backing of his government, and to deliver on his promises. So while I don’t trust his character, I do trust his ambitions and the government structures that exist below the office of Prime Minister.
Take a look around. The UK’s doing pretty well. People are clamouring to get in here. That’s reality. I could throw another boatload of statistics at you, but somehow I doubt that’s going to improve your, or anyone else’s, outlook. There’s room for improvement, and I hope the country does improve under Johnson’s leadership. My main hope is that the bickering and stagnation of Parliament over the past four years is over now that the Brexit bill is passed, and time, energy and resources can be devoted to that improvement. I’ll definitely raise a glass of English sparkling if that happens.
I’m doing brilliantly. It helps when you have a positive outlook on life. Cheers!
This is such an Anglo-centric way of framing the question. Did you know that neither Westminster nor Brussels is in Scotland? Nor is either in Northern Ireland, nor in Wales. If you’re not English, frankly there’s not a lot of difference between being governed from Brussels or from London. I think you’re right that most of those people would still pick London over Brussels, but it’s hardly the logical slam-dunk you seem to be suggesting.
Furthermore, if the Democrats don’t win this year in America the question will be “would you prefer to be governed from Brussels or Washington?*” Which isn’t to say that a Democratic president would be above using the leverage of an isolated UK to turn trade terms in its favor a little, but they’d be less likely to get concessions from the Trump-loving Johnson administration and would be less likely to promote terms that hurt the NHS.
*Which would of course be hyperbole, but would probably be uttered anyway in the course of political rhetoric.
Garbage. What is it with people in North America and their ever-lasting obsession of viewing our country through the lens of either Braveheart or Michael Collins with the English as the eternal oppressor. Grow up.
This isn’t the thread for it, but if you look at language, history, culture, infrastructure, education, and economics, you will find some pretty clear lines of oppression. Not cartoonish bad-guy evil oppression, but neglect and disdain. It’s not about the English as English. Sure, there are some aspects of that, particularly with regard to language, but the neglect and disdain are just as real in the north and west of England, too. It’s just that here the narrative of MEGA (Make England Great Again) sells better among the neglected and disdained, so they vote Brexit.
It’s predominantly less to do with English oppression with other nations of the UK than it is with wealth and power being disproportionally concerntrated in the south east of England on an ever increasing trend since the 80’s. I really hate this England vs Scotland & Wales narrative because the lens of their disdain isn’t through an ethnic one but one of socioeconomics.
Just to note broad agreement. I don’t think it’s as simple as either-or, but I absolutely agree that the socio-economic issues predominate, with a pervasive tendency to ignore things that are too far from the Home Counties.
My personal opinion is that both Wales and Northern Ireland would choose to be unionist if it was straightforward vote between Cardiff or Belfast versus Westminster. Scotland, freed from any economic repercussions, might very well choose Edinburgh over Westminster. However, I do not believe that they would choose Brussels over Edinburgh. Take Scottish sovereignty out of the equation and ask the Scottish people if they have more loyalty to the UK or the EU, and I suspect the UK would win. But it’s a bit of a far-fetched question, and certainly some emotional Scottish “pollees” would favour the EU.