Boris at it again and the contest to replace the lying c***

[Tony Towner]

The clue about what the Labour Party should be about is in its name. It came into being to be the party fighting for working people, funded by the Trade Union movement. If they aren't going to fight the corner of ordinary working people they might as well just be the Liberal Party.

What you want the Labour Party to be hasn't been elected into Government though in 48 years. I'm not going to ask would you rather be in Government under Starmer or opposition with a socialist agenda as I've asked that question before (not specifically you) and know the answer. I respect it, but it's not where I'm at

 

[Johnny75]

Interesting discussion.
I agree with the criticism that Starmer has been too cautious throughout his leadership. Brexit and Covid were difficult things to provide opposition to though given a lot of core Labour supporters were in favour of the former and the latter could look opportunistic. I still think he could have been stronger on the PPE bungs and Cummings though.

When Kinnock took on the left wing of the Party it was in the name of making the Party electable which Blair built and capitalised on, I think Starmer needed to appear hard on the left in his first few months, without wishing to open the anti semitism debate again, politically it was a case of perception being reality and a statement needed to be made. Taking on the unions now could well be self destructive though, the cost of living crisis at the moment makes the public broadly sympathetic and banning ministers from joining picket lines is an unnecessary distraction and self defeating - after doing so he had no choice but to sack Tarry though. I do agree with DW that it won't have scratched the surface of public consciousness.

I'm not really sure what Starmer stands for other than trying to be inoffensive to middle England - perhaps that's enough? I do see why posters on here are frustrated by him, equally it was naive to believe his leadership promises - transparent to me that he wasn't the person he portrayed himself to be. I don't and never will understand how that translates to not voting Labour though, constituency dependant that's effectively a pro Tory vote and whatever you may feel about Starmer that can only be worse

To be fair to the Labour party they have called for a windfall tax and freeze on VAT.

Both of which have and will happen.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Yeah but they'll win the argument.

I don't agree with striking in general (unsurprising I know) but given this government is systematically dismantling everything in this country something has to change.

The PR needs to change though. Nobody is having a cost of living wage hike other than fat cat bosses and bankers.

The only way we change that is through better governance.

This is not a loaded question - unsurprisingly I don’t agree with you but I am genuinely interested in why you don’t agree with striking in general.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Dan said

Interesting discussion.
I agree with the criticism that Starmer has been too cautious throughout his leadership. Brexit and Covid were difficult things to provide opposition to though given a lot of core Labour supporters were in favour of the former and the latter could look opportunistic. I still think he could have been stronger on the PPE bungs and Cummings though.

When Kinnock took on the left wing of the Party it was in the name of making the Party electable which Blair built and capitalised on, I think Starmer needed to appear hard on the left in his first few months, without wishing to open the anti semitism debate again, politically it was a case of perception being reality and a statement needed to be made. Taking on the unions now could well be self destructive though, the cost of living crisis at the moment makes the public broadly sympathetic and banning ministers from joining picket lines is an unnecessary distraction and self defeating - after doing so he had no choice but to sack Tarry though. I do agree with DW that it won't have scratched the surface of public consciousness.

I'm not really sure what Starmer stands for other than trying to be inoffensive to middle England - perhaps that's enough? I do see why posters on here are frustrated by him, equally it was naive to believe his leadership promises - transparent to me that he wasn't the person he portrayed himself to be. I don't and never will understand how that translates to not voting Labour though, constituency dependant that's effectively a pro Tory vote and whatever you may feel about Starmer that can only be worse

I'm still not seeing a definitive reason as to why Starmer as PM will be better than Truss or Sunak, trust certainly isn't something that can be relied upon with Starmer...

 

[Johnny75]

This is not a loaded question - unsurprisingly I don’t agree with you but I am genuinely interested in why you don’t agree with striking in general.

I think it just gives power to another set of people, in this case union barons. But it's the division I think is so damaging.

I do get that there's always a better way until there isn't and what seemed to be a last resort in a strike just angers everybody and creates division.

It's hard to put things back together after strikes as they seem so divisive and long term achieve so little.

It'll take a change of government and change in the law so arbitration is never avoided until there is a deal for that to happen. Sadly I don't think Starmer is the man to do this. It needs a strong uncompromising character prepared to lose something in power even if they gain it initially.

It may be simplistic but I don't think that happens in my lifetime.

 

[Sniffer]

So it’s Bamford who is picking up the tab for his delayed wedding party.
Amazing what promoting his business on government time can do.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

I think it just gives power to another set of people, in this case union barons. But it's the division I think is so damaging.

I do get that there's always a better way until there isn't and what seemed to be a last resort in a strike just angers everybody and creates division.

It's hard to put things back together after strikes as they seem so divisive and long term achieve so little.

It'll take a change of government and change in the law so arbitration is never avoided until there is a deal for that to happen. Sadly I don't think Starmer is the man to do this. It needs a strong uncompromising character prepared to lose something in power even if they gain it initially.

It may be simplistic but I don't think that happens in my lifetime.

No union leader can unilaterally call workers out, any “power” they derive from a strike is delegated to them by means of a democratic mandate from their members. A strike ballot must be postal, which generally leads to a lower turnout, and thresholds have to be reached for industrial action to be lawful. A properly conducted and successful strike ballot shifts power from the employer to the worker for a relatively short period of time. Most industrial action has very minimal impact on the wider population…it is only in a very few industries (like transport) where there is a noticeable impact on the public.

Actual (and the threat) of industrial action has achieved much - laws have been changed to improve workers rights as a direct result of industrial action, although less so in recent years, but disputes have often been the catalysts for change. Seeng industrial action only through the prism of the 70s and 80s is as outdated as the union practices of the 70s and 80s. We have less, not more, days lost to strike action and it being used as a last resort is more true than it has probably ever been as taking lawful industrial action is harder than it has ever been.

The employment relationship is based on an imbalance of power in favour of the employer, the withdrawal of labour is a short term reversal of that. After any strike, the status quo is reinstated.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Just so I can check: if frontbench Labour MPs go on national TV, make up promotions for themselves and invent policy on the hoof, they should be allowed to stay in post? And if not, Starmer is the bad man and we may as well stick with the Tories?

Before you answer, consider that Owen Jones agrees with all of the above.

 

[darlowolf64]

Ah the Tory msm strike again… I see the phrase “Union Barons” being mentioned. The news outlets refuse to give much air time to Mick Lynch because he fucking owned them last time. They try with his number two, Eddie Dempsey so he owns C5 News and Anne Widdicombe. These “barons” are a new, educated and eloquent set of union members, supported by the people they represent but it doesn’t pay to call it like it is. The tories are cunts who care little about the working man/woman and the fucking press are happy to spread their lies.

I hope the unions work together and bring the tories to their knees. Yes it will effect the “normal person“ in the short term but in 5 years, when trains aren’t derailing due to lack of maintenances work or workers, I hope people will remember the stance the rail union made for the safety of every rail user. It is not just about the money no matter what the BBC and the rest say

 

[Johnny75]

Ah the Tory msm strike again… I see the phrase “Union Barons” being mentioned. The news outlets refuse to give much air time to Mick Lynch because he fucking owned them last time. They try with his number two, Eddie Dempsey so he owns C5 News and Anne Widdicombe. These “barons” are a new, educated and eloquent set of union members, supported by the people they represent but it doesn’t pay to call it like it is. The tories are cunts who care little about the working man/woman and the fucking press are happy to spread their lies.

I hope the unions work together and bring the tories to their knees. Yes it will effect the “normal person“ in the short term but in 5 years, when trains aren’t derailing due to lack of maintenances work or workers, I hope people will remember the stance the rail union made for the safety of every rail user. It is not just about the money no matter what the BBC and the rest say

Yeah, all the fault of the media.

 

[Tony Towner]

Dan said

I'm still not seeing a definitive reason as to why Starmer as PM will be better than Truss or Sunak, trust certainly isn't something that can be relied upon with Starmer...

I'm not going to answer that because I think you are asking in bad faith. I could reel half a dozen reasons why Starmer (or any Labour leader) will be better than Truss straight from the top of my head, but then so could you if you were being honest

 

[Tyrannosaurus Dan]

The only thing that should matter at the next GE is getting the Conservatives out of power. Any combination of Labour/Lib Dem/Green should be infinitely better than the past 12 years.

I don’t really care who stands for/against what at this point. I will vote for whoever stands the best chance of beating Shaun Bailey which will be Labour. Anything else and I’m just helping to enable a Tory victory.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

The only thing that should matter at the next GE is getting the Conservatives out of power. Any combination of Labour/Lib Dem/Green should be infinitely better than the past 12 years.

I don’t really care who stands for/against what at this point. I will vote for whoever stands the best chance of beating Shaun Bailey which will be Labour. Anything else and I’m just helping to enable a Tory victory.

As will I and many like me but in the leave referendum and the 2019 election people were "inspired" to vote who hadn't before and Starmer is not in any way inspiring. The next election could be determined by apathy and that favours the Tories.

 

[Tyrannosaurus Dan]

In an ideal world, Labour would have Corbyn era policies but with a leader that was electable. Sadly, that is not currently an option.

Starmer isn’t perfect but he is currently the best hope of beating the Tories so I don’t really see the point in some people attacking him at every opportunity because they miss Corbyn.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

In an ideal world, Labour would have Corbyn era policies but with a leader that was electable. Sadly, that is not currently an option.

Starmer isn’t perfect but he is currently the best hope of beating the Tories so I don’t really see the point in some people attacking him at every opportunity because they miss Corbyn.

Is it OK to attack him if I don't miss Corbyn?

 

[Tyrannosaurus Dan]

Is it OK to attack him if I don't miss Corbyn?

My comment wasn’t aimed at you but people can have whatever opinion they like.

 

[darlowolf64]

Yeah, all the fault of the media.

What the general public are told IS the fault of the mainstream media because most of the GP are thick as mince and believe everything they are fed.
The strike is down to the tories and the companies trying to cut the number of maintenance jobs by not hundreds but thousands therefore putting the safety of the travelling public at risk. It is down to them wanting to have the ability to enforce wholesale compulsory redundancies on the workforce. It is down to them wanting to have the ability to change our work and conditions without consultation or agreement of the Union. The pay increase part of things is an extra that we were promised when we deferred our last three pay rises and our bonuses because of "the company suffering through covid". The TOC's then proceeded to take out massive profits, the top people in the companies gave themselves massive pay rises.
All of this can be easily found by actually looking and a simple search online but that takes work

 

[Keef]

Lot of people still falling for the train drivers earn £60k a year so why are they striking nonsense

 

[darlowolf64]

The Liz Truss (tory) election promise...

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

And it absolutely won't get through parliament.

Its a sop to the gammons she needs to vote for her in the next month.