advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

Le Baron said:
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.
Click to expand...
I disagree. There was plenty of positive change.

You got two regulars so far.
 
Seanm said:
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.
Click to expand...

What a joke. Sacking a Labour shadow transport minister because he dared to suggest that pay should keep pace with inflation.

Starmer appears to be terrified of how it will look if Labour give any support to striking workers. Frankly he can do one.

The Guardian understands Tarry was told he was sacked as shadow minister for buses and local transport for saying that it was “not acceptable to offer below inflation pay rises” because it would be a real-terms pay cut for workers.
...
“Sam Tarry did a full media round without his boss Lou Haigh [the shadow transport secretary] or the leader’s office knowing in advance,” a Labour source said. “This represents a total breakdown of discipline and put the leadership in a position where it was impossible to do anything else.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ontbench-rail-strike-picket-line-keir-starmer
 
He has form for this though. Like his rejection of a living wage which caused the shadow for Employment Rights and Protections Andy McDonald to resign in protest.
 
Good piece on R4 earlier today on the public transport crisis in Leeds, highlighted a number of key points. One thing for sure, re-nationalisation is not an answer in itself, needs to be linked to changing traffic priorities & increased bus lanes. Of course, some of the above will not be popular.

As an aside I chatted to some people from Manchester the other day, eldest sons graduation so you meet all sorts. Interestingly, they were very critical of some of the changes in Manchester & felt that Mansor was being given a free pass to develop at will in the city. I wonder what Burnham’s position is on this?
 
Woodface said:
Interestingly, they were very critical of some of the changes in Manchester & felt that Mansor was being given a free pass to develop at will in the city. I wonder what Burnham’s position is on this?
Click to expand...
I was an undergraduate in Manchester and at the time the city went into major reconstruction mode with The Peel Group (still the biggest development conglomerate there) getting massive IV lines from government spending grants and contracts. I barely recognise it now. When I first used to go there (pre-bomb) it was a bit grubby on the Boddies brewery side, but had a lot of character and culture.
 
slavedata said:
Starmer is going to become increasingly irrelevant unless he defends workers rights.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...cuses-starmer-of-complete-car-crash-sam-tarry
Click to expand...

As I posted upthread, CWU are a Labour affiliated union. I'm wondering if Starmer would quite like the unions to disaffiliate.

From last year:

CWU, the left-wing Communication Workers Union for postal, telecoms and tech workers, has voted at its special conference to suspend any donations to the national Labour Party outside of affiliation fees.
...
The move comes after the Bakers’ Union, BFAWU, voted to disaffiliate from Labour in September during the party’s conference, accusing Keir Starmer of waging a “factional internal war” instead of focusing on “real change”.

Unite the Union, Labour’s biggest funder, decided in October 2020 to cut funding to Labour by 10%, with then general secretary Len McCluskey saying the money would be used to “support and nurture the newer voices in our movement”.

While emphasising a shift in focus “back to the workplace”, new general secretary Sharon Graham has told Unite that it is “totally wrong” to say the union is “standing down from the political arena” but has also said there will be “no blank cheque” for Labour.

https://labourlist.org/2021/11/cwu-...ations-to-labour-outside-of-affiliation-fees/
 
Seanm said:
Some details here on liaison between unions and Labour suggest there really is no relation left.

https://labourlist.org/2022/07/if-y...s-wins-you-plaudits-in-the-media-youre-wrong/

Labour might be making the break.
Click to expand...

I find it really worrying. I'm not totally in love with unions and especially not some of their leaders. My own union did sweet FA in the face of job cuts in my workplace that targeted the lowest paid members of staff. They're not always what they cracked up to be.

But it feels like the unions are being hung out to dry by Labour. How long before we see Labour MPs whipped to vote through Tory anti-union legislation?
 
paulfromcamden said:
I find it really worrying. I'm not totally in love with unions and especially not some of their leaders. My own union did sweet FA in the face of job cuts in my workplace that targeted the lowest paid members of staff. They're not always what they cracked up to be.

But it feels like the unions are being hung out to dry by Labour. How long before we see Labour MPs whipped to vote through Tory anti-union legislation?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you think they’re cracked up to be. In my experience some members expect to sit back and while the union makes their problems go away. The union is only as strong as it’s members.
 
ks.234 said:
Depends on what you think they’re cracked up to be. In my experience some members expect to sit back and while the union makes their problems go away. The union is only as strong as it’s members.
Click to expand...

Fair comment. In this case I think they're hampered by low membership (no surprise - you may remember I mentioned our union rep and his inappropriate emails to members a few months back).
 
IME the unions where I work are very good at helping individuals but not so good at securing the best deal for the workforce, especially pay.
 
paulfromcamden said:
I find it really worrying. I'm not totally in love with unions and especially not some of their leaders. My own union did sweet FA in the face of job cuts in my workplace that targeted the lowest paid members of staff. They're not always what they cracked up to be.

But it feels like the unions are being hung out to dry by Labour. How long before we see Labour MPs whipped to vote through Tory anti-union legislation?
Click to expand...

ks.234 said:
Depends on what you think they’re cracked up to be. In my experience some members expect to sit back and while the union makes their problems go away. The union is only as strong as it’s members.
Click to expand...

Unions can have corrupt leadership. This isn't a relevant example for the UK, but an example which comes to mind in the US in recent times happened in the state of Nevada a couple of years ago. Since we don't have something like the NHS here, health insurance generally comes from employers or, in some cases, through a union. The culinary workers union office in Nevada was against national healthcare in the US, which was supported by Bernie Sanders who was doing very well in the Democratic Party presidential primary polling at the time, because presumably the union believed removing healthcare from the union undercut the union. :confused: This is a rather corrupt view. Obviously, as those in the UK can attest to, there are still very legitimate reasons for unions even when healthcare is separated from employment.

Here are a couple of news article from the time about matters. It's hilarious, and sad, to see the neoliberal Pete Buttigieg, then a candidate in the primary and now in Biden's cabinet, try to claim that Sanders was against the working-class for supporting national healthcare. :rolleyes:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/politics/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-nevada-unions/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...s-unions-hope-medicare-all-fears-are-n1140031

FWIW, Bernie Sanders did win the primary in Nevada in 2020 (well, he won the caucus actually since that's the system Nevada uses).
 
paulfromcamden said:
Fair comment. In this case I think they're hampered by low membership (no surprise - you may remember I mentioned our union rep and his inappropriate emails to members a few months back).
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember that, and I said that you should contact your union over that issue. However, it thought you were complaining a different issue about job cuts. If there is a collective issue like job cuts the unions capacity is limited by legal requirements for members to act in concert (legal ballot, minimum turnout, minimum vote in favour etc etc) If members will not act in concert, then the union can only act in individual cases.

I have been in situations where I have arranged a meeting of staff that was very well attended with a lot of anger among members, but not sufficient numbers who were prepared to stand up to be counted. However, I have been able to use that weight of numbers to get results on an individual case by case basis, the problem is that once those members have got what they want, they no longer turn up to meeting to support those still waiting who are then isolated.
 
@ks.234 without wanting to get too specific it seems I wasn't the only member who felt his emails were inappropriate and he is no longer branch rep. But other members of staff have told me that he was the reason they left the union - so it seems the damage is done.

My other half worked in a local government job for a while where there were numerous complaints made to HR about a male manager's conduct towards junior female members of staff. He was also a member of the union and in every case the union chose to defend him over the female members complaining. Several of the women felt that had no choice but to transfer to another location, or in some cases leave the job.

My point is simply that union membership isn't a magic bullet and in practice there are good and not so great, that's all.
 
paulfromcamden said:
@ks.234 without wanting to get too specific it seems I wasn't the only member who felt his emails were inappropriate and he is no longer branch rep. But other members of staff have told me that he was the reason they left the union - so it seems the damage is done.

My other half worked in a local government job for a while where there were numerous complaints made to HR about a male manager's conduct towards junior female members of staff. He was also a member of the union and in every case the union chose to defend him over the female members complaining. Several of the women felt that had no choice but to transfer to another location, or in some cases leave the job.

My point is simply that union membership isn't a magic bullet and in practice there are good and not so great, that's all.
Click to expand...
I’m a bit confused. I agreed with you that your reps emails were inappropriate and suggested you take action against him. I was not supporting the inappropriate emails.

I can’t comment of the other case you have just brought up, but I can say that I have been involved in similar sounding situations and the case was judged on it’s merits. That’s not to deny your case but not sure what point you are making by raising it.

We seem to have moved some way away from your original post commenting on the issue of job cuts that you raised originally and your apparent complaint that your union did not deal with that issue. It should be noted in the recent strikes by rail workers that such collective action can only take place after various ballots and a clear indication of a collective willingness to act.
 
^^
“So Labour need to be ready to address Brexit damage if they win….”

Why can’t they address it now? By not addressing it now, they undermine their ability to address if the win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top