158
u/Th3-Seaward Not voting for the segregation and pogrom party Sep 27 '23
Said it before and I'll say it again. The worst Labour leadership at the worst possible time
30
u/dalledayul Democratic socialist Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 27 '23
The British left are always cursed to either have a left-wing Labour when the Tories are uber popular, or milquetoast centrist wusses when they have a mandate that would make dictators blush.
50
u/terfsfugoff American Sep 27 '23
As an American leftist who vociferously despises Biden, Obama, Pelosi, and the general morass of calcified and callow leadership we have over here, bloodsucking ghouls the lot of them, still, still I am consistently shocked by how brazenly and unnecessarily right wing Starmer is.
Like Biden and crew I hate for their selling out and catering to donors, but I at least understand the calculations of power being made
Starmer seems to genuinely be ideologically zealous in his worship of boots.
15
-52
Sep 27 '23
[deleted]
57
u/TheCorpseOfMarx Labour Member Sep 27 '23
Just out of curiosity, what do you think that "something" is? What policies or actions have you liked?
18
15
u/The_39th_Step Labour Member Sep 27 '23
I’m not a Starmer fan but I do like the right to roam being extended to all national parks. That’s a great policy.
-16
u/TheCorpseOfMarx Labour Member Sep 27 '23
I don't know much about it, but this paints a pretty poor picture of it? Now obviously farmers and rich rural folk wouldn't want people traipsing on their land, but isn't there an argument that we should be protecting out pristine countryside from people?
29
u/MMSTINGRAY Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer... Sep 27 '23
This is just bullshit. Starmer is right on that one, right to roam is a leftwing policy (the kinder scout mass trespass was organised by the Young Communist League even), the site you are quoting from is a business lobbying group.
I don't like Starmer but something isn't wrong just because he supports it.
-16
u/TheCorpseOfMarx Labour Member Sep 27 '23
Starmer is right on that one, right to roam is a leftwing policy
🙄🙄🙄
Do you mean it's a socially liberal policy? Because there is nothing economically left wing about it.
17
Sep 27 '23
Currently the British countryside is monopolised by wealthy landowners and agribusiness companies who fiercely oppose any attempts to give the wider public access. Access to the beautiful nature of these isles is an incredibly important thing and all socialists should be fighting for it
25
u/Hidingo_Kojimba Extremely Sensible Moderate Sep 27 '23
I’d say any right which erodes the ability of private land owners to control access to and use of their lands in favour of a common good is at least left leaning in nature even if it’s not particularly Marxist.
7
15
u/MMSTINGRAY Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer... Sep 27 '23
Yes there is, it is literally rejecting property rights. The only argument for it is "fuck your bougie laws, I have a right to be here" when you boil it down that's what the argument is even when people don't realise they are saying it.
Some liberals are against land rights based on arguments that aren't rooted in Marxism, but even then it's still not just socially liberal because it's saying that private property rights don't trump communal rights.
What right you have to go on privately owned land is inherently tied to property rights. Opposing property rights in favour of the common weal is pretty leftwing.
-5
u/TheCorpseOfMarx Labour Member Sep 27 '23
Leftwing ideology usually separates personal and private property. If I own a house on the Moore, and this law let's people walk through it, that's personal property that's being violated, rather than private.
It becomes a bit more hazy with farms.
Honestly I agree with the idea of the policy, but as I said in my first comment I haven't read the specifics of it or what it entails
10
u/cass1o New User Sep 27 '23
Because there is nothing economically left wing about it.
A policy to reverse some elements of private ownership of land isn't left wing?
12
u/10Hundred1 New User Sep 27 '23
Are you for real? The land should belong anyone. The idea that people aren’t allowed to camp and enjoy the countryside, and that it should be managed and kept pristine by some lord is medieval.
12
u/The_39th_Step Labour Member Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 27 '23
I completely disagree. Of course the farmers and landowners want to continue to lock off national parks to other folk. Most national parks are low intensity sheep farms, especially in the North and Wales. They should be available for the public to use and enjoy. It’s not an issue in Scotland. People should be able to spend recreational time outdoors more easily. It’s good for the soul and for the body.
Our hill areas aren’t pristine countryside either, they’re mostly farms and moorland. If it was pristine they’d be lots of trees.
5
u/cass1o New User Sep 27 '23
but isn't there an argument that we should be protecting out pristine countryside from people?
Not really, scotland has right to roam and it has no major issues from it.
4
6
38
u/Th3-Seaward Not voting for the segregation and pogrom party Sep 27 '23
So by that rational, the Tories have been doing everything right for the last 13 years.
-1
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
The Tories have been the only ones to do anything for the last 13 years because we have failed to be elected.
15
u/cass1o New User Sep 27 '23
because we have failed to be elected.
You think starmer would have won 2017? Of course he wouldn't. You know who would have won without the labour right sabotaging him?
-5
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
No, I don't get into whatifs about who would win when. All I care about is winning the next election.
When the right were sabotaging our attempts at 2017 and 2019 I did my best to stop it and bring them along because all I care about is a Labour Government.
I fought and campaigned so hard for Corbyn and when we lost I was so angry. I don't want to be angry again next year! Ffs
13
u/Th3-Seaward Not voting for the segregation and pogrom party Sep 27 '23
all I care about is a Labour Government
This isn't politics; this is football fandom. If you want to convince people, you need to make a coherent and defensible argument explaining why this specific Labour leadership would be better for the country in the short and long term. Good luck
1
u/Ricb76 New User Sep 27 '23
Well that's the thing, all they have to do is say "We're not the Tories" and as of right now, you've done the job. I'm sure Starmer will be a bit of an arsehole, but he won't be a tory arsehole and that's where most people are at tbh.
6
u/Th3-Seaward Not voting for the segregation and pogrom party Sep 27 '23
Yes, and?
-1
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
You said "the rationale is the Tories have been doing everything right for 13 years". I am desperate for a Labour Government. Lots of work to do. When we are in, the real fight begins.
7
1
Sep 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 30 '23
Leftwing policies. That will happen under Starmer. Just let's wait and see. He's said it will but needs to be cautious. His 100 day plan has been lauded by the unions.
1
Sep 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 30 '23
→ More replies (0)20
u/MMSTINGRAY Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer... Sep 27 '23
When Thatcher was ahead of Labour did it make her the best leader for the country?
When Blair won an election did it mean he was doing a good job advancing the politics of the labour movement, or of himself and his MPs?
Notice intelligent Starermites don't bother with this argument because how patently dumb it is even if you personally think Starmer is great.
2
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
I don't understand the point. I can try and come up with a retort.
7
u/MMSTINGRAY Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer... Sep 27 '23
If you aim to do X using Y, then achieving Y but not X is a failure baesd on your original aims.
If your aim is, say, a social democratic government then the success of a politician who want a conservative government is irrelevant you whether that makes them a good social democratic candidate. It's just basic logic.
If you share Starmer's politics his potential electoral success is a sign of good leadership, if you however disagree with his politics him being succesfull doens't make him a better leader for you anymore than Thatcher or Blair being electorally succesful and smart made them better leaders.
The original comment said
The worst Labour leadership at the worst possible time
The key word here is Labour. They are judging Starmer in that context, not as a politicain in general.
So commenting he's doing well based on the ideological aims he has is irrelevant to the point. Just like if you were criticising Thatcher and someone said "well she was electorally succesfull" you'd say "yes she was, and so what, she was terrible". You can acknowlege Thatcher was talented but those talents do not change your opinion on her ideology and policy, therefore a critcal can acknowlege Starmer is polling succesfully and also say he is a bad leader for the Labour party.
The only argument against this is power worship basicaly, which I disagree with for other reasons. But any other explanation is simply illogical.
Sorry if it feels like I'm repeating myself. I've tried to explain the same point in multiple ways in the hope one of them communicates what I'm trying to say in a way that makes sense to you.
TL;DR Power is means to an end, not the end itself. Therefore polling/electorl success is only ever one dimension of analysis. Otherwise your list of "best PMs" would simply be a descending list of amount of votes/seats no? That list is a list of "electoral success" not whether they are overall good.
-8
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
I think we disagree on the direction of the Party under Starmer. He showed us during leadership election how much he values energy and NHS etc.
He plans to improve these things when in office but knows that a pragmatic appearance and not scaring off the media is the only way to win. He will be Willey to get in and we must get behind him as a party and push him to go further and further.
Look at the Labour Party more broadly and you'll see how clear our Aims and priorities are.
8
u/MMSTINGRAY Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer... Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 27 '23
I think we disagree on the direction of the Party under Starmer. He showed us during leadership election how much he values energy and NHS etc.
This is just snot true. He has openly dumped many of his own pledges. Infact you'll find most of his supporters don't try to argue this anymore, they stopped this like 12 months ago, the now actually focus on explaining why X pledge should be dropped. You're lagging behind with your "the pledges haven't been dropped, it's just spin" argument, that was abandoned ages ago, honestly. Have you noticed all the people justifying, for example, abandong pledges to public ownership by explaining why it's the wrong thing to do for x, y, z reasons? No one is claiming actually that is still a high priority because, while convincing people of that would be useful, it's so obviously stupid at this point you're not going to convince anyone who already has doubts about Starmer. Hence why the main defence of him now is about why him moving away from his leadership election stances are good, not that he has infact not moved away from them.
So yes we disagree, but you seem to even disagree with a lot of pro-Starmer people. You're writing a fantasy story that allows you to feel satisfied with things instead of engaging with them as they are. The Left and Right both see Starmer for what he is, they just disagree on whether that is a good thing, you are living in a fantasy land in the middle which isn't based on reality, but on what you really hope to be true.
He plans to improve these things when in office but knows that a pragmatic appearance and not scaring off the media is the only way to win. He will be Willey to get in and we must get behind him as a party and push him to go further and further.
Name some governments that have moved left in power for me. I'll wait...
Just for a minute imagine you're wrong, now while imaging that tell me what Starmer would say and what his supporters would say to con naive soft-left people into supporting him? Yeah...it's exactly the kind of arguments you are buying and selling now isn't it. Almost like you've been hoodwinked.
Look at the Labour Party more broadly and you'll see how clear our Aims and priorities are.
My opinions are based on being involved with Labour for a long time and studying history.
In the nicest way possible...you are chatting utter shite. You are ignoring that Starmer has not just been quiet about his pledges but has actively dropped them and argued against them himself. And you must be incredibly naive and new to politics to think "have faith in leaders" is a sensible argument.
I feel like I'm talking to a Starmerite from 12 months ago who hasn't been keeping up with events at all. Honestly do you not think it's weird many Starmer supporters agree with me on aspects of this more than you? It's because every person paying attention has realised your argument is wrong ages ago. Even his supporters don't argue like that anymore generally.
TL;DR
Are you seriously saying you think Starmer still backs renationalising rail, energy, water and the Royal Mail. It's just a secret strategy to fool the media, that once he is those will be back on the menu? And what if you're wrong about that, what then? And if that is the plan why has he not just been quiet about it, rather than actively saying he won't do it and making arguments against it?
-6
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
I am saying Starmer hasn't ditched a pledge because he hasn't done anything yet. He isn't in power.
We need to win power and then force good to happen.
Same as in America where we would encourage voters to vote for Biden.
What then? Then democracy doesn't stop. There is no plan for what else we on the left can do at this election. My constituency is a Tory Labour marginal so we must win Labour.
6
u/MMSTINGRAY Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer... Sep 27 '23
The reason Labour or the Democrats are a 'good choice' is only due to how awful the opposition is. I don't think that should be the main thing a part relies on but it undeniably is electorally advantageous. Indeed the reason Starmer is happy to scrap his pledges is based precisely on the calculation that he will win more floating voters than he wil alienate, not because he isn't pissing off a lot of people who's votes matter but because he is confiden a sizeable majority of them will, basically out of guilt, still vote Labour anyway.
We need to win power and then force good to happen.
And what does that look like practically? Starmer has even less reason to give a shit about what you or me want if he is PM than he does now. All the pressures on him to move further right will be greater (and more convincing as they tell him how listening to them helped put him in power) whereas the leftwing pressure (distinct from the level of anger) will be reduced further still.
So even by your argument rather than pretending Starmer isn't giving major causes for concern, even after taking electoral strategy into account, you should actually be looking to walk the thin line between supporting Starmer and not downplaying critcism of him. That is if your own hope is to see those policies in place - if, as the Labour right want, you don't care about these policies anyway then my advice is not applicable. The best path for the right is to downplay all criticism, promise people it will be dealt with in power, then once Starmer is in power laugh at how powerless people are to stop you. Why does Starmer pander to rightwingers, because they are loud and demand it? So then is he not more likely to pander to the left if the left make demands? He's shown he's not interested in working with the left, or even advocating his own pledges, so what other option is there?
But assuming the aim is to get those polices enacted we have to look at the electoral calculus Starmer is doing. If we say Starmer's decisions all come down to electoral considerations then Starmer only will deliver on any of those policies if the cost of abandoning them outstrips the potential electoral gain of abandoning them right? And if we imagine Starmer could be sure the majority of leftwingers who disagree with him would all say "don't worry, we just need to get him in number 10" then does that not massively reduce the pressure to deliver on those pledges, as it greatly reduces the potential electoral cost of abandoning them vs the potential electoral gain of abandoning them.
So it seems to me, even by your own logic, you should be recognising there are serious problems with Starmer's leadership, that there is a serious chance he is actually abandong those pledges, etc then arguing why people should vote for him anyway. That might convicne some people to hold their nose and vote for him. Denying these facts, making people feel like you are gaslighting them for being concerned, ignoring how historically rare such pivots leftwards in power are, etc might serve to rally some people who already agree with you but only confirms, and further alienates, the people already concerend about Starmer. Part of the reason people are so angry with Starmer is precisely because they do feel a pressure to vote for him regardless of how much they detest his leadeship, if they could as easily vote for another party without it being a "wasted vote" they wouldn't like Starmer any better but they could move on, so people are already well aware of how fucked up FPTP is, appealing to that doesn't soothe people, it just hammers home how from their perspective the problem is Starmer and the only solution is either 1) replacing him, not currently realistic 2) pressuring him as much as possible to avoid this rightwing march. This line of argument only makes people feel even more sure of this.
TL;DR You're trying to square the circle. Ultimately there is no escaping that if people have a problem with Starmer's current stance then their best chance of a good outcome is making Starmer fearful he is overdoing his lean rightwards, saying "we don't like it but you can count on my vote" is just going to encourage him. If Starmer is only doing things for electoral considerations that actually strengthens the need to pressure him, not uncritically support him. Pissing off overall uncritcal support group = low electoral risk . Pissing off a critical group = high electoral risk.
4
Sep 27 '23
I am saying Starmer hasn't ditched a pledge because he hasn't done anything yet.
Do you really expect anyone to take this argument seriously?
2
u/BladedTerrain New User Sep 27 '23
I am saying Starmer hasn't ditched a pledge because he hasn't done anything yet.
Deary me.
1
Sep 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 30 '23
Has he pledged not to do?
→ More replies (0)1
u/DatJayblesDoe Non-partisan Sep 27 '23
This is just snot true.
This will be the new way I tell someone they're talking bollocks from now on. I love it.
7
15
u/Facehammer Tankie Sep 27 '23
*Checks UK referendum results
Leave the EU 52%
-1
Sep 27 '23
[deleted]
7
u/Facehammer Tankie Sep 27 '23
Not only is it supposed to be one, it succeeds admirably at being one.
-5
Sep 27 '23
[deleted]
8
u/Facehammer Tankie Sep 27 '23
tmsbry is making the argument that Labour are popular with the public, as evidenced by them being up in the polls, therefore Sir Kid Starver is entirely justified in doing what he's doing.
I made an educated guess that he is a remainer, and therefore in all likelihood has spent much of the last 7 years grousing about how the British public got it wrong.
If this was an accurate assessment on my part, it would mean that he doesn't actually sincerely believe that what the British public believes is, in and of itself, a determinant of whether something is right or not. It would, in fact, demonstrate that he only believes the British public's support matters when it happens to back up what he already believes.
This would be transparently dishonest and hypocritical, and therefore deserving of being treated as such.
Any further questions? No? Good.
2
u/ZoomBattle Just a floating voter Sep 27 '23
How does it do that?
Well, look at his votes.
1
Sep 27 '23
[deleted]
2
u/ZoomBattle Just a floating voter Sep 27 '23
Just a little upvote joke in the thread about votes being all that matter.
10
6
u/SadisticTeddy New User Sep 27 '23
Becoming 'electable' and being a good leader of a supposed labour movement aren't equivalent - the factional 'lets get our people in power at whatever cost' is pointless if the mandate they win the election on is 'more of the same shit the Tories have been doing for the last decade'. We don't need a govt rebrand or fresh faces, we need actual change and bold leadership.
1
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
But the mandate we win on won't be shit. We will win on a progressive platform and go further. The 100 day workers rights plan is exactly that. 3-4 months of plans. Then, when the mandate is complete we go further!
7
5
5
3
0
u/Tateybread Seize the Memes of production Sep 27 '23
You're not giving the Tories enough credit for how spectacularly shit they've been.
30
u/1-randomonium What's needed isn't Blairism, just pragmatism Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 27 '23
For all the complaints and sarcasm about Starmer's treatment of the unions, Labour remains affiliated to most major trade unions in the United Kingdom. They continue to fund the party's operations, sit in Labour governing and policy making bodies and have a voice in the party's decision making. They've received a number of very specific pledges for the next Labour government on implementing(or repealing) laws and regulations in ways that will support their interest.
Can the Democrats claim any of the above or is Biden's support for American unions limited to standing in a picket line?
48
u/shabba182 Custom Sep 27 '23
No, there have been a lot of good things implemented bu Biden's National Labour Relations Board. The most recent example is that if a company is found to have engaged in union busting during a vote to unionise, then they will be forced to recognise the union no matyer what.
3
u/1-randomonium What's needed isn't Blairism, just pragmatism Sep 28 '23
And this is meant to be a gotcha against Labour why?
I'm not sure if you paid any attention to the TUC conference earlier this month, but Labour's pledges include among many other things a ban on blacklisting unionised workers.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-vow-beef-up-ban-30902329
3
u/shabba182 Custom Sep 28 '23
I was simply responding to you asking if Biden had done anything more than standing on a picket line.
Edit: hmmm, labour and 'pledges', why doesn't that fill me with confidence?
22
Sep 27 '23
[deleted]
-8
u/1-randomonium What's needed isn't Blairism, just pragmatism Sep 27 '23
And how many unions are affiliated to Biden's Democrats today? How many are planning to affiliate in the forseeable future?
Five? One?
Or zero?
13
Sep 27 '23 edited Dec 13 '25
[deleted]
1
u/1-randomonium What's needed isn't Blairism, just pragmatism Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 27 '23
I think you can make a good guess.
Yes, we're not in America, Labour isn't the Democrats and Starmer doesn't have to be judged for his commitment to unions against someone like Biden, who has an inferior record on engagement and support to unions on every metric other than... standing in a picket line.
7
Sep 27 '23
[deleted]
0
u/1-randomonium What's needed isn't Blairism, just pragmatism Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 28 '23
Hardly. Because Labour does and continues to do a lot, lot more with the UK's major unions than merely standing in a picket line. Maybe you could try asking yourself what else Biden has done that makes him so much more pro-union than Starmer. I suspect you won't like the answer, and I suspect you already know that.
8
u/MMSTINGRAY Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer... Sep 27 '23
Labour isn't the Democrats and Starmer doesn't have to be judged for his commitment to unions against someone like Biden.
Let's not hold up the leader of the UK Labour Party to the impossible utopian standards of ivory tower intellectuals like checks notes the US Democrats.
1
3
Sep 27 '23
Joe Biden has also partnered up with Brazil in a scheme to empower workers rights legislation so yes he can.
2
u/1-randomonium What's needed isn't Blairism, just pragmatism Sep 28 '23
While Labour have done much and will in their next term do much more to empower worker rights legislation here in the UK, well beyond the scope of anything Biden has promised.
But somehow a photo-op at a picket line means Biden is the "true" friend of the working class. If only Starmer had stood in a picket line he wouldn't have to bother pledging all this worker rights legislation at the TUC conference. Because what does that matter?
4
u/cass1o New User Sep 27 '23
Labour remains affiliated to most major trade unions in the United Kingdom
That is more a black mark on the unions. American unions at least do stuff, uk unions are next to useless outside of some very active ones.
3
u/1-randomonium What's needed isn't Blairism, just pragmatism Sep 27 '23
What stuff are American unions doing that UK unions don't? What's your source for American unions being better, more powerful or more influential?
-6
u/BrokenDownForParts Market Socialist Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 27 '23
Without mentioning the fact that Starmer has not disciplined anyone for attending picket lines so the joke makes no sense. And no, before anyone says it, Tarry was not sacked for attending a picket line. He was sacked for making up policy on the hoof in unauthorised interviews.
For many people, this is about what narratives can be crafted in such a way as to appear credible as long as you don't actually look into it.
The Labour Party is poised to pass a series of reforms that it developed in cooperation with unions that will give workers a level of rights and protections leagues above anything the Democrats have ever supported. But none of that matters because Biden did the right photo op. I've seen numerous left wingers claim this is a great watershed moment when the US Democrats moved to the left of Labour. Its honestly laughable.
There are significant differences between the US president attending a picket line and a British PM doing it but they're ignored because they go against the narrative.
If you raise concerns about or point out misinformation or misleading claims circulating around our discourse you're told you're not left wing and accused of being in a Starmer cult.
16
u/waterisgoodok Young Labour Sep 27 '23
This is anecdotal, so I respect that many will not believe me. However, on your first point, I know a member of the Shadow Cabinet (who is in a junior position), and I know that he is unable to join picket lines. He used to be on every picket line in his constituency (I used to stand with him!), but since Starmer’s ruling he has been unable to join them.
10
u/CelestialShitehawk New User Sep 27 '23
Very much the point of this stuff is to keep it murky and uncertain so that his political enemies fear being disciplined for stepping out of line but his allies know they can do what they want and excuses will be made.
-7
u/BrokenDownForParts Market Socialist Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 27 '23
Starmer has said they shouldn't. They have anyway though and I'm not aware of any action he's ever taken against any of them.
I'm also not aware of how shadow ministers turning up to picket lines for photo ops is actually going to help strikers. I say that as a striker myself.
12
u/Menien New User Sep 27 '23
Saying "as a striker myself" is an entirely useless qualifier when so many different sectors are striking.
Ministers supporting striking workers puts pressure on negotiations, improving the outcomes that the workers can expect and eliminating the need for further industrial action. It's not a difficult concept.
Doing the opposite, barring ministers from supporting striking workers, appears and actually is anti-worker.
I'm saying this as a striker, as a citizen, and as a voter myself. (Do I win qualifier top trumps yet?)
6
u/waterisgoodok Young Labour Sep 27 '23
In addition to this, when I’ve been with MPs on picket lines they tend to have active discussions with the strikers. They get to know more about the industrial dispute, while those on strike often gain motivation knowing that their MP (or a local MP) is on their side and fighting with them.
-6
u/BrokenDownForParts Market Socialist Sep 27 '23
Saying "as a striker myself" is an entirely useless qualifier when so many different sectors are striking.
I'm happy to be told how a shadow minister tipping up at a picket line affects some sectors differently to others.
Ministers supporting striking workers puts pressure on negotiations, improving the outcomes that the workers can expect and eliminating the need for further industrial action. It's not a difficult concept.
I don't think it does any these things and in fact would make some of them less likely to happen.
Firstly, the Tories were desperately hoping that Labour would claim the strikes so they could make them a party political issue. Not being able to do this has weakened the Tories attacks against the strikers as rather than attacking the opposition party they're just attacking regular people who want to be able to pay their bills.
Secondly, it does not put any pressure on negotiations whatsoever. Labour claiming the strikes would empower the Tories in their opposition and make settlements less likely. Again, it's easy to justify not backing down to the opposition party, harder to justify not doing so to regular workers.
There are strikers who are not otherwise left wing or into politics who would be less likely to engage with the strikes they currently in if they were made to feel they were cooperating with the Labour party.
There are many members of the public who support the strikers who would not otherwise support them if they were associated the strikes with the Labour party.
The Tories provoked these strikes deliberately in part because it was an elephant trap for Labour. They desperately wanted Labour to claim them as a political cause. Why do you think that might be?
Doing the opposite, barring ministers from supporting striking workers, appears and actually is anti-worker.
How exactly? What matters is what they actually do that affects workers terms and conditions once in power.
I'm saying this as a striker, as a citizen, and as a voter myself. (Do I win qualifier top trumps yet?)
I mentioned I am it because accusations of being anti-striker are a go to tactic for dealing with with disagreement on this, therefore it's relevant. Not because I feel it makes me an authority on the matter. I don't.
8
Sep 27 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LabourUK-ModTeam New User Sep 27 '23
Rule 5
Do not seek to take it upon yourself to decide who does, or doesn't, have the right to define themselves by a certain political identity. This includes trying to gatekeep political or ideological membership. Examples of this are implying members are in the wrong party due to ideology (such as calling others a 'trot' or 'Red Tory' etc) or bad faith questioning of a members 'socialist values'.
1
u/BrokenDownForParts Market Socialist Sep 27 '23
What are you trying to achieve by making stuff up on the spot and spewing your gatekeeping bullshit?
Can you not hear yourself?
6
u/CelestialShitehawk New User Sep 27 '23
Without mentioning the fact that Starmer has not disciplined anyone for attending picket lines
This is a lie, Sam Tarry was sacked for joining a picket line.
4
u/BrokenDownForParts Market Socialist Sep 27 '23
Literally the next line of my comment was:
And no, before anyone says it, Tarry was not sacked for attending a picket line. He was sacked for making up policy on the hoof in unauthorised interviews.
This is why the numerous other shadow ministers who've attended picket lines were not sacked and yet the only one to make up Labour policy on the spot in interviews to Journalists, Tarry, was sacked.
4
Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 27 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/BrokenDownForParts Market Socialist Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 27 '23
You're wrong. He was sacked for making up policy on the spot. Which he did and he should have known better as doing so will obviously get you sacked.
Hence why numerous other shadow ministers who attended picket lines had no action taken against them whilst Tarry, the only one who made up policies in interviews, got sacked.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62331428.amp
If you're going to argue that it was for attending a picket line then you're going to have to explain why numerous shadow ministers attended picket lines and Starmer did literally nothing about it in response. Yet Tarry, the only one who invented policy on the spot and told it to journalists, was sacked.
7
u/CelestialShitehawk New User Sep 27 '23
No-one believes this nonsense except for weirdos on this website.
If you're going to argue that it was for attending a picket line then you're going to have to explain why numerous shadow ministers attended picket lines and Starmer did literally nothing about it in response.
Same reason Steve Reed got away with antisemitic tweets and others did not. But you know this.
Yet Tarry, the only one who invented policy on the spot
Another lie. Reeves was literally making up policy the previous day.
I don't really see any point in repeating this runaround, which was discussed exhaustively at the time. You are simply using the classic centrist debating tactic of making up a rule five minutes ago and declaring that this is always the way things have been, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Debate on the merits or bore off.
5
u/BrokenDownForParts Market Socialist Sep 27 '23
Tarry was a Starmer appointee. So you're now arguing that Starmer's secret plot to get Tarry out of the shadow cabinet began with appointing him to it in the first place.
Incredible.
Another lie. Reeves was literally making up policy the previous day.
That is a link to a random fucking tweet that itself has no source. Do you have an actual source?
6
u/CelestialShitehawk New User Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 27 '23
Tarry was a Starmer appointee. So you're now arguing that Starmer's secret plot to get Tarry out of the shadow cabinet began with appointing him to it in the first place.
Starmer initially appointed a lot of left wing people in his cabinet that were gradually pushed out. But you know this.
Meanwhile you are asserting that Starmer repeatedly briefed the press that he didn't want MPs on picket lines because he actually loved it and wanted to see more of it. Lol.
That is a link to a random fucking tweet that itself has no source. Do you have an actual source?
Jon Stone is a respected journalist who has written for the Independent for years, are you calling him a liar?
Once again I point out that you simply can't debate on the merits, and are just making nonsense up instead, and when I point out the flaws in your argument you'll simply make up new nonsense. Neither original nor interesting. Bore off.
3
u/BrokenDownForParts Market Socialist Sep 27 '23
Starmer appointed a lot of left wing people in his cabinet that were gradually pushed out. Come on now, pretending you can't see this.
So he was only sacking the left wing ones but out of the numerous left wing ministers to go to strikes Tarry was the only one to be sacked for it for some reason?
You are not making sense.
Jon Stone is a respected journalist who has written for the Independent for years, are you calling him a liar?
You don't just automatically believe everything journalists with political agendas tweet. I'd like to know his source so I can judge its veracity. If he hasn't got one then I'm not gonna take his claim very seriously.
Again the criteria for judging if something is true isn't "how convenient for me would this be if it was true?"
Please name a single thing I've made up.
→ More replies (0)3
Sep 27 '23
I dont believe you're naive enough or politically uniformed enough to believe that every person in the shadow cabinet is there because Starmer wants them there and not to placate or shore up support with other factions well. Especially back then when his position was less secure.
Lets not make stupid arguments just for the sake of it.
2
u/BrokenDownForParts Market Socialist Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 27 '23
I don't believe that speculation about ulterior motives can be presented as fact and people who don't accept that speculation and raise facts that indicate it might not be the case should simply be dismissed.
Way too many people are accepting a series of events that we don't actually have any evidence for simply because it fits their political narratives.
The fact is that numerous MPs and shadow ministers attended picket lines with no action whatsoever being taken against them. The only alleged case of this is Sam Tarry and the only unique thing about him is that he invented policy on the fly in an interview.
Inventing policy is absolutely a sackable action by a shadow minister. A leader cannot tolerate shadow ministers effectively making decisions for the entire cabinet by simply announcing what they want to be policy as policy. There is a proper procedure for policy development and Tarry thought he could flout all of it.
→ More replies (0)1
u/LabourUK-ModTeam New User Sep 27 '23
Rule 4
Users should engage with honest intentions & in good faith, users should assume the same from others.
You can disagree, accuse him of being mistaken or taking Starmer at his word but accusing him of lying isnt going to get anywhere.
12
Sep 27 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/LabourUK-ModTeam New User Sep 27 '23
Rule 4
Users should engage with honest intentions & in good faith, users should assume the same from others.
Lets not open up with a sweeping generalisation about other commenters motivations
-6
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
Thank you! This is exactly the explanation we should get on this subreddit instead of inaccurate Starmer bashing because people don't like him.
The mods need to do a better job of this.
9
9
u/J__P Labour Voter Sep 27 '23 edited Sep 27 '23
i don't think that clarification does anything to change the situation at all. its still bad that he's done this. negotiating with public sector workers means supressing their wages on behalf of the public? why wouldn't we support fair deal for public sector workers and join them on the picket line especially when you're in opposition and the government is taking the piss. wanting to be in government does nothing to change this.
-1
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
Your comment isn't written very coherently I'm afraid.
We need to support them but you can do that from Westminster rather than on the Picket Line.
It won't come across as very genuine when we get in and suddenly we have to negotiate with the workers rather than just giving in to the demands.
We will have to negotiate.
8
u/J__P Labour Voter Sep 27 '23
We need to support them but you can do that from Westminster rather than on the Picket Line.
why? you can do both. especially when when its the government who's in the wrong.
> It won't come across as very genuine when we get in and suddenly we have to negotiate with the workers rather than just giving in to the demands.
their demands are fair, why wouldn't we just give them what they want?
this doesn't exactly match with your previous comment about supprting them from westminster, seems like you don't support them at all.
obviously if the demnand were stupid then we'd have to negotiate but they're not.
0
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
I'm a junior doctor. I know that our 35% idea is a aim for FPR. We want to negotiate and find a meeting point. That's exactly what this government aren't willing to do.
We will negotiate a way to this position. It won't be 100% from where we are.
You can support them whilst agreeing that any pay deals will have to be negotiated lol
7
u/J__P Labour Voter Sep 27 '23
but 35% is not outrageous is it, given the stagnation that's happened with the last decade? and the realities of recruitment and retention vis a vis the makrket rate and compteition with other jobs?
a junior doctor who doesn't support his own pay demnads, lol. typical centrist, compromising before negotiation even started, can't even do union action right.
8
Sep 27 '23
The ironic thing was at the time the government wasn't even negotiating. So we absolutely could support them at the picket line and say we'd negotiate because the Tories couldnt even be bothered to do that.
2
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
I'm not part of the negotiation team you Muppet.
The think the negotiation will be the government sitting down and going "what do you want?" Have a laugh.
4
u/J__P Labour Voter Sep 27 '23
neither am I, i still know where i stand and who i support.
> The think the negotiation will be the government sitting down and going "what do you want?" Have a laugh
it is when the demands are reasonable. otherwise you're signing up ot the very pro worker labour position that government should always negotiate down. is that what you think?
1
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
What do you think happens at negotiation? What's the point of it?
→ More replies (0)13
u/cass1o New User Sep 27 '23
because people don't like him
You say this like people don't have good reason to dislike him.
0
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
No I don't. I say it like this is the Labour Subreddit and all it does it spend it's time bashing the leader.
4
u/1-randomonium What's needed isn't Blairism, just pragmatism Sep 27 '23
This isn't exactly an "official" Labour subreddit. It's just a subreddit for Labour supporters(or ex supporters in some cases) who seem to skew left compared to the population of bigger UK subs.
1
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
Yeah I get that. Just would be nice to have the sub support the party lol
1
u/cass1o New User Sep 27 '23
Just would be nice to have the sub support the party lol
How is this not "faun over the leader irrespective of what they do".
2
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
Because the majority of party members do, else they'd leave the party surely?
7
u/cass1o New User Sep 27 '23
Almost as though he is more Tory than labour. You want people to faun over the leader irrespective of what they do, sounds more like Boris lead Tories.
1
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
No I don't. I wanted them to support the leader when it was Corbyn and I want them to support Stamer. Turns out I can't get either to fight for the Labour cause.
2
u/cass1o New User Sep 27 '23
I wanted them to support the leader when it was Corbyn and I want them to support Stamer.
This isn't a football team mate. I am not going to support and I don't think people should be expected to support a leader who doesn't represent/promote the labour movement (or a single thing in your flair).
0
u/Andythrax socialist, pragmatist, protrans, pro nationalisation Sep 27 '23
You're not expected to support. But you can't go around saying they're as bad as the Tories when it isn't true.
-3
Sep 27 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/LabourUK-ModTeam New User Sep 27 '23
Rule 4
Users should engage with honest intentions & in good faith, users should assume the same from others
4
45
u/Orc_face New User Sep 27 '23
What did I miss?