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.”

Fact check: No politician has been more consistent about Putin than Corbyn

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

Bridlington North (East Riding of Yorkshire) council by-election result:

LDEM: 57.1% (+57.1)
CON: 31.5% (-39.5)
LAB: 5.0% (-23.9)
SDP: 3.7% (+3.7)
YRK: 2.7% (+2.7)

Votes cast: 3,416

Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.

— Britain Elects (@BritainElects) June 30, 2022

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?

honestly beyond parody pic.twitter.com/6bvwc5m6Ug

— bat020 (@bat020) June 30, 2022

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?

I’ve yet to see a decently constructed argument in support of Starmer.

It’s all about Corbyn was xxx so Starmer is the answer.

He’s only the answer for right-wing Labour. That’s it. Nothing else.

Even his amazing touted electability has been a damp squib.

So not sure what exactly he’s offering other than very low Labour aspirations.

It wasn’t the RW press that told me Corbyn was a t***, He managed to do that all by himself.

Classy. I’m sure that the usual suspects will all be piling in to denounce the tone of this thread.

Aye, right.

He’s guarded against saying the neoliberal agenda he is offering so it all comes out as word-salad respect, security, decency, equiwobble, safe supply, good for business. He looks like he embarrasses himself, he doesn’t look like his own man at all.

Perhaps Keir Starmer should read this.

Government and Capitalism: A New Economic Narrative for the Left

I think the title would put him off. Only last week Starmer publicly redefined the Labour Party as a party of the centre, not the left.

Tbh I didn’t read much of the article beyond the claimed historical background to the neo-liberal model, which I felt seemed over-simplistic at best.

Tbh I didn’t read much of the article beyond the claimed historical background to the neo-liberal model, which I felt seemed over-simplistic at best.

You won’t get a more on point UK economist than Richard Murphy. (Along with Mark Blyth and Danny Blanchflower perhaps)

He understands the government’s financial operations like no one else.

And actually economists like him are absolutely key to the left’s future. He did co-author the original green new deal.

Well I think he missed the point when he appeared to suggest that the postwar consensus collapsed due to the end of the empire and the alleged desire of voters for more economic freedom. Even if that were true, and I am not entirely convinced that it is, it was nevertheless more complex than that.

I am not challenging his expertise on taxation issues though, just his over-simplistic explanation for the collapse of the postwar consensus.

beyond the claimed historical background to the neo-liberal model, which I felt seemed over-simplistic at best.

Of course it was simplistic, it was a few sentences when you could write a book on it. Doesn’t make the broad thrust of it wrong though. Personally I always preferred David Graebers analysis, that the collapse of the postwar social democratic model was a result of widening social and political inequalities as a result of economic policies which largely benefitted white men, and not being able to respond to the demand for economic equality by women and ethnic minorities. I think we forget just how much society and the world changed in the late 60s and early 70s, and we’re at a similar transition point now.

Personally I always preferred David Graebers analysis, that the collapse of the postwar social democratic model was a result of widening social and political inequalities as a result of economic policies which largely benefitted white men, and not being able to respond to the demand for economic equality by women and ethnic minorities.

Eh? That makes even less sense imo. Inequality in the UK fell for all the postwar period up until 1979.

And if it did indeed not benefit women and ethic minorities is it seriously being suggested that they rejected social democracy in favour of neo-liberalism/thatcherism?

It wasn’t the losers who backed Thatcher in 79 it was those who were in fact relative winners. Ironically social democracy became a victim of its own success.

Skilled highly unionised and well paid workers from the UK’s industrial heartland, plus their aspirational university educated children, were seduced by Thatcher’s appeal to their personal and selfish greed. Despite the fact that they owned their relative prosperity and life chances to social democracy.

A small minority bought into the scam dream, although many subsequently paid the price through unemployment, destroyed industries, the collapse of social cohesion, rising crime, etc. But it was a sufficient minority to tip the balance in Thatcher’s favour and finally bury the postwar social democratic consensus.

It was also helped in no small way by the right-wing within the Labour movement which deliberately attacked the LP forming a rival party and thereby guaranteeing Thatcher and the neo-liberals remained in power.

Which is of course exactly what the right-wing have done again recently only this time they decided that they could do the maximum amount of damage by remaining in the party, although there was at one time talk of forming a rival party.

They were of course again highly successful and have guaranteed that the Labour Party will not be a vehicle for a return to social democracy anytime soon.

Labour will never get elected whilst that far left crazy faction of the party keeps playing these games.

I’m a liberal socialist for want of a better term, and I’d happily vote labour, rather than lib dem.. but (some) labour voters seem to be so blindly hard-core, it’s quite worrying. Almost as mad as the tories..

Can we please just focus on getting the conservatives out of power?

Eh? That makes even less sense imo.

I didn’t describe it very well TBF. It wasn’t a case of minorities and women choosing a rightwing alternative to the largely socialist policies of the post-war period. It was a result of the US and UK governments deciding they couldn’t afford to give women and ethnic minorities the same benefits that white men received. So they traded economic rights for political rights and replaced the economic benefits with cheap debt.

Here you go… (actually wasn’t Graeber’s idea, but some Italian marxists)

Labour will never get elected whilst that far left crazy faction of the party keeps playing these games.

What far left crazy faction and what games?

Can we please just focus on getting the conservatives out of power?

Sure. Do you think Starmer is doing well on that front seeing that if there were an election tomorrow he would lose against the most shocking PM we have ever had and the worst and most useless government and cabinet I have seen in my lifetime.

Labour will never get elected whilst that far left crazy faction of the party keeps playing these games.

There is no far-left here. There’s only the far-right dragging all politics rightwards.

There will be a point that things are so bad that the only smallest part of society is doing well and that will be the time that people will have no choice. And by then it may also be too late.

You want to wait until then by calling things currently far-left?

Complete an utter nonsense to be using the term far-left in the current context.

You want to fix the climate, poverty and make the country a better place to live? Then simply stop referring to basic redistributive politics as far-left.

How hard can it be to have a moral compass that pushes back against this lot !

(I’m hearing rumours that Starmer has been issued with a fine. I’m not taking it seriously but can you imagine – we’d probably be straight in GE!)

Oh House prices growth looks to have stalled – I always thought this metric could be the thing that puts the boot in for the Tory loving asset-class.

Talk of this recession being short and sharp.

I’m not so sure…

I’ve yet to see a decently constructed argument in support of Starmer.

You wont on here. This is a lovely little bubble of all mouth and trousers pseudo lefties who will never support Starmer because he is not ideologically pure and whithin this group think you have all convinced yourselves that Starmer is the antichrist despite no evidence and in tbe process constructing a completly false narrative . Anyone supporting Starmer gets shouted down

Btw another poll had labour at an 11% lead

Ooooof!

You wont on here. This is a lovely little bubble of all mouth and trousers pseudo lefties who will never support Starmer because he is not ideologically pure

Who started this ideologically pure nonsense?

I heard James O’Brien say it the other day.

It shows a basic misunderstanding of economics and how it doesn’t serve us currently, and becomes a block to reversing things.

It’s not ideology pure to want to redistribute resources and support strong government investment.

And Starmer is over to the right (that makes him by your own ridiculous notion ideologically pure too by not wanting to change the status-quo)

The 11pt poll yep fine – but he’s not in the driving seat of these polls.

Ill give one example:

You have all convinced yourselves he has abandoned the pledge to bring utilities etc into public ownership. He has not. He said he did not believe the form of nationalisation used in the 70s worked. There are many other models of state ownersip and control. Golden share. Co ops. Arms length not for profits. Etc etc

It’s not ideology pure to want to redistribute resources and support strong government investment.

And where has he said he won’t? Your post demonstrates exactly what i mean

You have all convinced yourselves he has abandoned the pledge to bring utilities etc into public ownership. He has not. He said he did not believe the form of nationalisation used in the 70s worked. There are many other models of state ownersip and control. Golden share. Co ops. Arms length not for profits. Etc etc

It’s not the 70s. We didn’t ask for a 70s model.

I think all the suggestions you are offering are pointless models to avoid calling it nationalisation.

If the state doesn’t control delivery of essential services then it’s doomed to market interference.

And here we are.

The man’s an idiot to not understand the modern context and need of nationalisation. He’s a avoiding the term nationalisation because he thinks that doesn’t serve the right thinking electorate.

There is no need for shareholders in public ownership other than the government.