Le Baron
Unbiased advice at reasonable rates
I think it's entirely wrong and largely the result of a Saatchi advertising campaign and newspapers of the time pushing a vested interest line.
Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII
- Thread starter Seeker_UK
- Start date
Seanm
pfm Member
I don’t mean that the Conservatives did actually represent the national interest, I mean that they were successful in representing themselves as such, and successful in representing Labour as representing narrow sectoral interests. Yes, partly thanks to Saatchi and the press.
It’s an old narrative and Labour are currently doing more to push it than anyone else. E.g.
https://twitter.com/grahamjones_mp/status/1552207234968461312?s=21&t=9d0fLU0HbWcFY5IZ1YXM3w
paulfromcamden
Baffled
Also union membership in the UK is now less than 25% of employees. My current job in education is my first workplace on 30+ years of work that has union recognition. And even there membership is so low that the union is powerless.
Anecdotally I think a lot of the population are easily swayed against industrial action - partly because they've never had the opportunity to be a union member themselves.
Le Baron
Unbiased advice at reasonable rates
Yes, this is a strange one. The public can often have dualistic opinions. Such as: 'I see the right to strike and why it happens, but I also think it inconveniences everyone...'
It is, as you said, only when they are on the real sharp end of employer power that they realise what industrial action means.
Le Baron
Unbiased advice at reasonable rates
Do they know what they are even voting for to make that change? 'Change' is perhaps the most used political slogan of modern times. Before Obama's recent campaign it was the key slogan for Reagan's 1981 campaign.
'Change for Britain.' What did this mean? It was posited on the same fundamental base at the thing it proposed to change from. As though one desires 'change' and so moves with all one's existing belongings and ideas to a new place and installs them exactly as they were in the old place and so it fundamentally changes nothing.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Yes, if Labour is proposing change, what is it that it proposes to change, what does it propose to change to, and what are the means it it proposes to effect change.
If the proposal is to change public services from the shambles it is under the Tories to something better, Labour has already denied itself the means to achieve those ends, so any change can only be superficial.
What we need is substantial change
gavreid
Pretty Words...
Look like Tory Boy Starmer will be support the restrictions on the right to strike. He's backed himself into a corner now
Keir Starmer sacks shadow transport minister who backed rail strikes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62325842
Keir Starmer sacks shadow transport minister who backed rail strikes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62325842
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Some of the angrier Starmer supporter self identify as centrists
agreed
Economically there is no difference
There is none.
Me neither
Labour need to dump this clown if they want to win a GE which is going to be soon as there’s no way those two Tory clowns will not be able to call a GE and it will probably before Christmas.
Labour need to have an agenda to renationalise the energy companies and public transport or else there will be major civil strife coming down the pike once people realise it’s either heat their homes or eat.
The government, whichever flavour is in power next year, will need to do something re the energy market cause it’s quite clear that these price rises are not sustainable in the short to medium term the result will be energy companies going bust cause people won’t pay their energy bills or won’t be able to pay them.
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
Well, we experienced a lot of change between 1997-2010. Something similar would do for a start. I’m not at all interested in Obama or Reagan.
What change(s) do you want that is/are realistic?
Same question to your friend, though of course, he only replies to me through other members even though my point is made in good faith. There is a word for it. Perhaps you can help him by replying so he can reply to that?
Seanm
pfm Member
Interesting that Tarry’s been sacked not for supporting unions but for sending wrong media message. Electoral strategy as cover. Truth is they don’t want to back the unions.
It does pose a question to supporters though in that it’s demonstrating that the leadership won’t be pulled to the left by membership, unions or MPs. Since this exhausts the list of people who *could* pull them to the left, and since none of them will be strengthened by a Labour victory, I think we need to accept that Labour will rule on exactly the right wing ticket they go in on.
Not a reason not to vote for them but we shouldn’t kid ourselves. They’ll do what they want.
It does pose a question to supporters though in that it’s demonstrating that the leadership won’t be pulled to the left by membership, unions or MPs. Since this exhausts the list of people who *could* pull them to the left, and since none of them will be strengthened by a Labour victory, I think we need to accept that Labour will rule on exactly the right wing ticket they go in on.
Not a reason not to vote for them but we shouldn’t kid ourselves. They’ll do what they want.
Le Baron
Unbiased advice at reasonable rates
We didn't see a great deal of change between those dates; well we did, but so much of it wasn't positive. There were often artificially inflated lists that did the rounds of twitter. In the form of a jpeg as an answer to people who questioned the achievements of their dear leader. It never included things like 'running a government surplus' (i.e. a public deficit) in the first term. which they did, on the strange notion of 'getting the finances in order'. (It takes an economic knowledge to know why this is a bizarre claim).
Or causing a massive spike in personal indebtedness through the 'fiscal responsibility rule' holding down public spending so that Blair/Brown could originally demonstrate to the EU that they had what it took to meet the neoliberal criteria to take Britain into the Euro. Quite a lot have forgotten about that. It never spoke much about Pfi and privatisations. Or the deranged policy of 'targets' with punitive results for not meeting them. Causing the spectacle of hospital trolleys redesignated as 'beds' by removing the wheels, to escape those punishments. Or schools being given 'targets' to meet, and instead of being given help and funding when they couldn't reach them, being penalised and funding withheld until they 'improved'. None of these made the list of the great leader's achievements.
There is stuff to point at though which was essentially good: the funding into the NHS. Though it was a knee-capping waiting to happen because their methodology was (in Tory-lite style) to say, our financial means are limited, therefore we must cut elsewhere to achieve it and also pretend that we 'borrow' our currency. And hopefully that we can join a currency we really do have to borrow, if Mr Brown's 'golden rule' dazzles them enough.
Then after entering a war and deciding to shift public spending (their limited public spending they said) to that, they left the domestic economy to ride on a personal debt bubble. And when it crashed for other - though similar -reasons, no-one was in a position to withstand it. Except the people Blair-Brown had further deregulated in 1997 in order to 'make the market work for everyone': stock market gamblers, city of London money launderers, private bank personnel who make 'financial instruments'...
You may recall that the Tory opposition of the time never really attacked the economic base of New Labour. How could they? It was frighteningly similar to their own. Usurped them. Destabilised their sense of conservative identity. So they just talked about 'spending', because of course the public seems to not want any spending, it just wants the effects of it: the NHS, good schools, good public services. Yet also wants 'rectitude' and strict control. (Side note never take advice on anything from 'the public').
I don't want any of that sort of 'change'. So I'll get to thinking what could be good and do another post.
gavreid
Pretty Words...
Don't forget that Blair took a considerable hiding in the local elections only two years after his GE victory. Over a 1000 council seats and control of some 30 authorities to the Tories - was he ever the Mr Popular !!! His failure, given the majority he had to play with, will go down in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_United_Kingdom_local_elections
Tony L
Administrator
This is why the unions should pull the plug. It is clear Sir Keir Of The Conservative Establishment will not tolerate public demonstrations of support for workers rights. There is clearly nothing at all connecting Labour to its trade union heritage and reason for existence.
droodzilla
pfm Member
Starmer finally gets his Kinnock moment.
gavreid
Pretty Words...
He's a long way to the right of Kinnock unfortunately.
Seanm
pfm Member
I don’t think they will or really can, it’s all a bit Mutually Assured Destruction. But it looks like they might do something. Will be interesting to see. I don’t know if Labour have just blundered into this or if it’s an attempted power move.
Hopefully the unions get him to eff ASAP there’s a window of opportunity here and it’s wide open.