Forum menu
He has been making the point that however worthy a claim might be unions should not resort to the only genuine weapon they have available and take industrial action.
He has?!? I'd think far less of him if those turn out to be his words, not yours.
Engaging with you is probably a mistake but anyway:
Pressed on whether he supports the proposed strike by check-in staff, he said: “No, I don’t. No I don’t – it is a no, it’s a categorical no.”
Asked why, he said: “Because I’m serious about the business of being in government and the business of being in government is that you support negotiation.”
He couldn't have made it clearer that he didn't support the proposed strike but did support negotiations.
Despite his so-called apology he still hasn't come out in support of the proposed strike.
Now argue that he didn't mean what he actually said and that he in fact meant something completely different. Like when you claimed that Starmer didn't actually mean "the best Labour have had in Wakefield" when he himself wrote : “the best we have had in the constituency”.
You are very good at pretending that people don't mean what they actually say, when it suits your agenda. Obviously it's a whole different ball game when it comes to the Tories.
I'll leave others to decide if Lammy's words there mean what you said.
As to your other point, I didn't argue the point you're making at all about the Wakefield result. But others can page back and see what I said for themselves. You just carry on making things up.
I too am losing faith in SKS. It doesn't feel like he's yet managed to unite enough of the Labour party to win an election. Too many of his own party are prepared to undermine him to push their version of Labour through to the top, fair enough, but voters can see when there isn't unity within the party and that feels unstable and fractious, something the electorate must be very much ready to move on from.
Too many of his own party are prepared to undermine him to push their version of Labour
I don't see that. Starmer appears to enjoy the overwhelming support of the PLP. I see very little criticism from within the party - he seems to have kept criticism in check by either expelling or withdrawing the Labour whip, or threatening to do so.
The only criticism I am aware of recently was when Starmer himself claimed that shadow cabinet members were accusing him of being boring.
Do you have any examples of him being seriously undermined by members of his own party?
It doesn’t feel like he’s yet managed to unite enough of the Labour party to win an election.
What made you come to that conclusion? Was it the unrelenting war of attrition against anyone in the party who didn't do, say or think what they were told? Or was it the explulsion of members based on flimsy evidence from years ago such as a stray tweet or attendance at the wrong meeting which Starmer decided was unacceptable? A leader who constantly goes on about 'my party' is not a unifier. He's the very opposite.
Johnson is off on the G7 international stuff because it's an easy win that.
We need more weapons, future security getting worse etc. The old fashioned war on terror recycled.
This will leave Starmer with nothing. I mean he could be ripping into him over all sorts of stuff but Starmer island is a lonely place.
Johnson is the perfect deflector and matters at home look insignificant when you're on the NATO trail.
As for above comments on Starmer - seems to me people happy to blame other stuff for coming to terms with Starmer not performing as expected.
In other news I see Starmer and Khan disagreeing over the single market today. Interesting punch up.
seems to me people happy to blame other stuff for coming to terms with Starmer not performing as expected.
They just blame the lefties don't they? Which is highly ironic seeing as the lefties put him in the job and have on the whole been extremely quiet and unwilling to stick their heads above the parapet.
Yeah I really don't get the defence of him he's offering nothing to get remotely excited about.
There was talk about being boring is exactly what you need. Ugh. That's the why to inspire people for sure.
Old Rodney is invisible.
They just blame the lefties don’t they?
Not really. There is very little criticism of Starmer for "under preforming" by those on the right. They appear fairly satisfied with his performance.
But if push comes to shove and they have to accept that Labour isn't preforming quite as well as it should be then they usually manage to somehow blame Corbyn. Or Johnson. Or the right-wing press. Or when everything else fails, voters - stupid racist voters.
My local MP is Jacob Rees Mogg's niece.
The fact that she is Jacob Rees Mogg's niece probably had no bearing whatsoever on her selection to what is well on its way to becoming a safe seat in the Shires.
So what some of you seem to be saying is that i may as well vote to keep her as my MP, because the alternative is more of the same?
Centrist my arse, i was happy to vote for a Corbyn headed Labour Party - as a realist my first focus is on ousting Tories. Everything else is secondary, no?
as a realist my first focus is on ousting Tories. Everything else is secondary, no?
Agree in general but that doesn't mean we can want a better alternative than Starmer/Lib Dems (don't know what the difference would actually be other than Ed Davey is probably more memorable than Starmer)
Centrist my arse, i was happy to vote for a Corbyn headed Labour Party – as a realist my first focus is on ousting Tories. Everything else is secondary, no?
If that was the priority for Starmer - why is he doing such a poor job?
The two go together - change the country and get elected. Maybe convincing the electorate goes hand in hand with inspiring them?
Why are Labour supporters so willing to accept a shoddy version of Labour that they think is super electable?
If that was the priority for Starmer – why is he doing such a poor job?
It's not like Starmer is intentionally boring, he just is!
Even tho hes polling much better than Corbyn or milliband, he still looks awkward in interviews, just as they did, (tho milliband these days seems far more comfortable in his own skin)
tho milliband these days seems far more comfortable in his own skin
He does but then he is not trying to be the Prime Minister anymore. The role clearly needs a lot of self confidence and BS.
I'm assuming even the Beeb is giving up on Starmer going by the length of the R4 interview they gave to Blair just now.
Centrist my arse, i was happy to vote for a Corbyn headed Labour Party – as a realist my first focus is on ousting Tories. Everything else is secondary, no?
I think the worry for some of us is, if I can explain with an analogy. Boris has built a garish shoddy palace for oligarchs. If Starmer then just fixes the foundations and plumbing and makes the oligarchs palace less shody it becomes more permanent, and that appears to be the direction he is taking.
So I am starting to think that a Starmer lead labour government will only give some small steps of improvement while cementing into permanence the damaging swing of neoliberal economic policies that will be felt for generations.
So I am starting to think that a Starmer lead labour government will only give some small steps of improvement while cementing into permanence the damaging swing of neoliberal economic policies that will be felt for generations.
So much this.
The idea that if they got in power they would suddenly unleash dramatic changes is for the fairies too.
They'd want to not rock the boat.
The argument would be - they need to stay in power to enact change so we can't upset anyone.
Lammy's apology for his comments about BA must reflect that there is a realisation in the PLP that Mick Lynch is very very popular and that strikes will get considerable support and that Starmer's direction of travel will create much hostility.
@billMC definitely - for the time being Starmer has read this situation incorrectly.
The more people are squeezed the more the straight talking Lynch will get public support.
It's only when 'everyone' thought we were doing okay that unions were just a pain.
If Lynch and Starmer were on a panel together you would assume that Lynch was leader of the Labour party and Starmer was a moderate tory MP
The idea that if they got in power they would suddenly unleash dramatic changes is for the fairies too.
It's more than that. A Labour government can often introduce or massively expand right-wing policies, without any effective opposition, precisely because it is a Labour government - a Tory government doing the same would likely face constant opposition which would either stop or slow down their ability to push through right-wing policies.
A good example of this is PFI, introduced by the Tories, massively expanded by Labour.
Privatisation is generally much easier for a Labour government as they can invariably count on support from the Tories. This extends to other areas of policy such as welfare, foreign policy, etc.
A Labour government going to war is always going to face less parliamentary opposition than a Tory government going to war.
If Lynch and Starmer were on a panel together you would assume that Lynch was leader of the Labour party and Starmer was a moderate tory MP
Now that panel I would pay to see.
A Labour government can often introduce or massively expand right-wing policies, without any effective opposition, precisely because it is a Labour government – a Tory government doing the same would likely face constant opposition
...by which analysis it would seem things are working out brilliantly for you. That or you're just very wrong.
All these votes over industrial action will reveal the fault lines very quickly as shown marvellously by Munira Wilson and Baaaa Lammy. Shadow FB and other TU leaders will be taking note particularly when the proletarianised middle class starts thinking and behaving like a proletariat. Not sure if they'll get away with a clap this time.
Do we think that Labour would be performing better if they got behind the strike?
I don't think so. What has happened is that Mick Lynch has managed ro bring a more left wing discourse into the public domain. Before the strike began the public were mostly against it. Polling today suggests a significant majority support strike action.
The govt thought taking on the unions would be an easy win and the press (all of them, not just the RW press) thought they could simply take Lynch apart by portraying him as Arthur Scargill 2.0
Whilst I'll concede that Starmer has his shortcomings, for the moment Mick Lynch is doing a fantastic job for Ladour by getting a hitherto smothered left wing perspective discussed in public, without tethering the party to the unions.
I'd be happy for Labour to move leftward but am aware that the public has to be moved in that direction first. Lynch is doing that job.
He's also had me in stitches on more than one occasion. He made that Kay Burley interview look like a sketch from Father Ted...
IMO brother Mick's appeal is threefold. First of all he is talking from a position of genuine belief and commitment and is therefore direct and straight talking, something which doesn't come easy to career politicians, including Starmer.
Secondly he is seen as an ordinary guy taking on the "establishment" on behalf of his members - ordinary men and women. Most politicians are seen as part of the establishment, the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service is no exception.
And thirdly Lynch has made it absolutely clear that he doesn't see RMT members as an exception but simply another group of working people who have the right to stand up for themselves.
All of these points imo appear to have endeared him to the general public, whether this will benefit the Labour Party remains to be seen. I am unconvinced, more likely it exposes the current Labour regime as inapt and incapable of standing up for ordinary working men and women.
The latest YouGov poll out today for the Times gives Labour a 3% lead over the Tories, which suggests no sudden boost for Labour.
You were doing so well there ernie with your first 3 points, then you went on to do exactly what the Daily Mail wants you to do, use Mick Lynch as a stick to beat Labour with, thus helping the Tories.
I don't believe it was left wing policies that failed Labour at the last two elections, it was down to Corbyn the individual. The nation thought him a wrongun, and events in Ukraine have proved them right.
Can you imagine how things would be right now if the anti NATO, "Let's wait until Putin has concluded his investigations until we apportion any blame for the Salisbury poisonings" Corbyn was at the helm? Most people shudder at that thought, regardless of their political affiliation.
It wasn't left wing ideas that failed for Labour, it was Corbyn that failed left wing ideas. The man was a moron and since his departure it has been difficult for others to voice progressive ideas without being linked to him.
Mick Lynch has managed to change the script a little.
You were doing so well there ernie with your first 3 points, then you went on to do exactly what the Daily Mail wants you to do, use Mick Lynch as a stick to beat Labour with, thus helping the Tories.
I didn't use it as a stick to beat Labour with at all, I made an observational comment :
"All of these points imo appear to have endeared him to the general public, whether this will benefit the Labour Party remains to be seen."
How is that me using Mick Lynch as the Daily Mail does (I wasn't aware that they have been praising his common man touch in the way I just have) to beat Labour with?
I pointed out that today's YouGov poll for the Times gives Labour just a 3% lead, which doesn't provide much evidence that Mick Lynch is boosting support for Labour, as you apparently have suggested that he might.
Btw as I was halfway through writing my previous post sitting at a large table in the local Italian deli I became aware that about half a dozen Labour canvassers had sat down at the same table - there is a council by-election on today and the Italian deli is popular with people who use the Trade Union centre nearby.
I didn't look at the woman who sat next to me as she ordered her oat milk latte despite the fact that she was about two inches away from me. When I eventually momentarily stopped writing my post and I looked I couldn't believe my luck - it was one of Croydon's Labour MPs Sarah Jones.
We had a lively and good humoured exchange after I informed her that I wasn't voting Labour due not only to the Labour Party's scandalous record on Croydon council but also the appalling lack of credible opposition from Starmer.
Ironically I canvassed for Sarah Jones in 2017 when she successfully won the seat from the Tories. I like her (which I told her) she isn't on the left of the party but she certainly isn't a rabid right-wing Blairite like Croydon's other Labour MP Steve Reed.
Before the 2017 general election Sarah Jones had been quite critical of Corbyn, but after she won the seat from the Tories she openly admitted that Corbyn's 2017 manifesto had played a very major contribution to which she credited Corbyn.
she openly admitted that Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto had played a very major contribution to which she credited Corbyn
I would agree with that 100%. That manifesto got me voting Labour, and I don't believe it would have been what it was without Corbyn (or someone else on the left of the parliamentary party) being leader. That was 5 years ago though, and in the time that followed the party was damaged by both Corbyn not realising that he should move on to help the party get a new leader who could build on the positive reception that 2017 manifesto received from many quarters, and by the contents and the manner of the unveiling of 2019 manifesto. Over correction has been nailed on as a response ever since that 2019 election drubbing... blaming Starmer for it is loads of fun, I'm sure... but any potential leader would have taken a similar course to try and erase the public's 2019 view of Labour... that explains the FoM/SingleMarket changes of policy just as much as shifting away from large scale nationalisation. Both those, and other policy shifts, would have been Labour's path since the last election, come what may. That's not down to Starmer. It's down to the deep distrust and dislike of the last leader amongst voters in 2019, and down to the "who's side are you on" element of the Brexit process, and down to that 2019 manifesto, the way it was received, and the votes that followed.
Can you imagine how things would be right now if the anti NATO, “Let’s wait until Putin has concluded his investigations until we apportion any blame for the Salisbury poisonings” Corbyn was at the helm? Most people shudder at that thought, regardless of their political affiliation.
Look all you need to know is the current administration is 100 times more dangerous and more likely to take us into trouble than Corbyn ever would've been.
"Look all you need to know is the current administration is 100 times more dangerous and more likely to take us into trouble than Corbyn ever would’ve been."
With regards to how we deal with Russia I think we would be in a potentially worse position under Corbyn than under the current administration. That's how bad it is.... I'll refer you again to how he responded to the Salisbury poisonings and a view of NATO that was as negative as Trump's. I would even expect that the security services would see him as a potential security risk, him being such a maverick.
Similarly to Kelvin, I was impressed with the argument he put forward in 2017 and I voted Labour, had he stepped down then Labour could have moved forward with a more progressive agenda. He didn't and the rest is history, he more than destroyed his own legacy, he destroyed the left for a period. Starmer is Corbyns fault.
With regards to how we deal with Russia I think we would be in a potentially worse position under Corbyn than under the current administration. That’s how bad it is…. I’ll refer you again to how he responded to the Salisbury poisonings ....
Well you have certainly accepted the right-wing narrative that's for sure!
Corbyn has consistently opposed Putin right from the very start, in sharp contrast to the UK's political establishment.
In the year 2000, at the height of the second Chechen war, the British establishment widely backed Putin to replace Boris Yeltsin as Russia’s leader.
The then prime minister, Tony Blair, even invited him to visit Britain and meet the Queen, a visit Corbyn described as “premature and inappropriate”.
The following year when Blair went to Moscow, Corbyn warned: “We must be very careful to condemn abuses of human rights, whoever commits them, whoever they are committed against and however uncomfortable or inconvenient it is for us to do so.
In the aftermath of the poisoning on 15 March 2018, Corbyn said: “Either this was a crime authored by the Russian state; or that state has allowed these deadly toxins to slip out of the control it has an obligation to exercise.
“If the latter, a connection to Russian mafia-like groups that have been allowed to gain a toehold in Britain cannot be excluded.”
The Tory Party is Putin's and the Russian oligarchy's favourite UK political party - they have bankrolled it. The idea that the Tories's current leader is more trustworthy in dealing with Putin and the Russian oligarchs than a man who has relentlessly opposed them from the start is absurd.
Throughout the world Putin has formed close links with hard right/racist politicians and their political parties, in the US, France, the UK, Brazil,Italy, Hungary, etc. The idea that a left-wing Labour government led by Corbyn would buck the global trend and do him any favours is ridiculous.
Still don't listen to me, embrace what the Daily Mail tells you about Corbyn.
Starmer is Corbyns fault.
Starmer ran on a left wing manifesto! Is it Corbyn's fault that he lied?
All of these points imo appear to have endeared him to the general public, whether this will benefit the Labour Party remains to be seen. I am unconvinced, more likely it exposes the current Labour regime as inapt and incapable of standing up for ordinary working men and women.
Well as a bit of balance to inkster I think you are right on the money Ernie.
Jeez,
I remember why I rarely post on this thread, within a couple of posts someone will always be accusing me of Sri king the Daily Mail kool-aid.
It wasn't the RW press that told me Corbyn was a t***, He managed to do that all by himself.
Big swing in Tory land for council by-election
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1542641437283684361?t=_xrNbeA-WmlnLNXwBSCnFQ&s=19
It wasn’t the RW press that told me Corbyn was a t***, He managed to do that all by himself
And here we are.
Corbyn was always an easy target for RW media. He wasn't very good at dealing with it and they had a lot of stuff they could stick on him (right or wrong) meaning he would have to have been exceptional at dealing with it, which again he wasn't.
Which is where Starmer came in where it has been difficult for the media to attack him to anything like the same level so they have supported all of Johnson's shit instead.
Lose, lose.
edit: actually I can't be bothered
Which is where Starmer came in where it has been difficult for the media to attack him to anything like the same level so they have supported all of Johnson’s shit instead.
I don't think Starmer is the threat to the status-quo that Corbyn was. That's the main driver for me.
within a couple of posts someone will always be accusing me of Sri king the Daily Mail kool-aid.
Says the person who has just told me:
then you went on to do exactly what the Daily Mail wants you to do
That is a staggering lack of self-awareness.
Corbyn supported Putin (wrong), Corbyn opposed NATO expansionism (correct), Corbyn to blame for Starmer (wrong), Corbyn was seen as a threat to the establishment (correct). Intriguing conflation of ideas there.
Starmer doesn’t even realise the problem does he?
https://twitter.com/bat020/status/1542444875240689665?s=21&t=LWQ9WLaadwRieZqHQTVBSQ
Jeez,
I remember why I rarely post on this thread, within a couple of posts someone will always be accusing me of Sri king the Daily Mail kool-aid.
You come on to a thread where you know there are a bunch of lefties, and repeat rightwing propaganda which has been proven to be factually incorrect, and then complain when someone tells you you're wrong. 🤔
Who needs the tories when we have a whole load of centrist types willing to do their job for them?