Keir Starmer Labour Leader

Smores said:
Disappointing in a way as i don't want the party relying on high wealth donors. I can understand why they've done this though.
Click to expand...

I'm not disappointed because they are one of the few actors with leverage to pull Starmer back to the pledges he made in his leadership campaign. But if he's able to plug the gap with wealthy donors he will.

I'm still fascinated by how the membership figures are doing… it's been suspiciously quiet on that front since January. And because of how the Party processes it will take a long time to see the direction – people leaving in the last few weeks will still be counted as members for 6 months.
 
Smores said:
Disappointing in a way as i don't want the party relying on high wealth donors. I can understand why they've done this though.
Click to expand...
Better ways to spend the money it seems.This could be potentially very interesting for left politics.

 
Last edited:
It’s a fair point. Unite had always struck me as wanting to posture and protest rather than lead.

Unite have the power to self destruct the Labour Party.
 
hopefully the EHRC report will be published and the antisemites can be booted out and Im sure Len will be happy to fund some fringe party for them

Nothing would do Starmer and Labour more good to show a clear line had been drawn with the past - its a bonus if corbyn gets booted as well
 
Sweet Square said:


The centre "left".
Click to expand...


There is nothing more amusing than the deification of David Miliband by centrists. He’s a wooden plank. It is telling of the worldview of these lot that they think all the problems we have today would simply not exist had David Miliband won the Labour leadership contest - these are the same lot who did nothing but slaughter Corbyn for years when the best alternative they could offer was Owen Smith.

Anyway, positive steps from Unite given the circumstances. And I have zero time for people who claim to support Labour and be on the left yet are hostile to trade unions.
 
BobbyManc said:
There is nothing more amusing than the deification of David Miliband by centrists. He’s a wooden plank. It is telling of the worldview of these lot that they think all the problems we have today would simply not exist had David Miliband won the Labour leadership contest - these are the same lot who did nothing but slaughter Corbyn for years when the best alternative they could offer was Owen Smith.

Anyway, positive steps from Unite given the circumstances. And I have zero time for people who claim to support Labour and be on the left yet are hostile to trade unions.
Click to expand...
Owen Smith was awful
 
BobbyManc said:
There is nothing more amusing than the deification of David Miliband by centrists. He’s a wooden plank. It is telling of the worldview of these lot that they think all the problems we have today would simply not exist had David Miliband won the Labour leadership contest - these are the same lot who did nothing but slaughter Corbyn for years when the best alternative they could offer was Owen Smith.

Anyway, positive steps from Unite given the circumstances. And I have zero time for people who claim to support Labour and be on the left yet are hostile to trade unions.
Click to expand...

Why can’t you support Labour in 2020 and disagree with a lot of what trade unions do/ stand for?
 
If Unite is doing this, then the other Unions may well step up and increase their affiliations. I'm not sure of the long-term logic of the move by McCluskey - reducing your influence means fewer MPs, Councillors, Mayoral candidates who are Unite members. It may lead to the GMB and Unison becoming more dominant.
 
Also, surely this is a big own goal from Unite? They have basically told the electorate that the Party is moving away from where it was under Corbyn, and dared Starmer to defy them (which he will do, because it is a clear opportunity to show he isn't a puppet of Unite, which was a criticism levelled at Miliband)
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Why can’t you support Labour in 2020 and disagree with a lot of what trade unions do/ stand for?
Click to expand...

The fact that someone can call organised labour a millstone around the neck of the political party of organised Labour shows the extent to which the Labour party was taken over by neoliberal capitalism post-Thatcher

It's a doomed party. The two wings are in total opposition about the fundamentals of what the future of Britain should look like, and you cannot unite people simply around 'not the Tories'
 
Frosty said:
Also, surely this is a big own goal from Unite? They have basically told the electorate that the Party is moving away from where it was under Corbyn, and dared Starmer to defy them (which he will do, because it is a clear opportunity to show he isn't a puppet of Unite, which was a criticism levelled at Miliband)
Click to expand...

Defy them by taking more money from wealthy donors? Damn that will show Unite and really reinforce the left of his vote.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Why can’t you support Labour in 2020 and disagree with a lot of what trade unions do/ stand for?
Click to expand...

The clue is in the name of the party. If you have an issue with labour organising itself to keep its exploitation by employers as difficult as possible, then the party of labour is not for you.
 
BobbyManc said:
The clue is in the name of the party. If you have an issue with labour organising itself to keep its exploitation by employers as difficult as possible, then the party of labour is not for you.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem.

Perhaps that’s why the party is not electable. Yet, finally it gets a leader who is credible, but doesn’t ceed willingly enough to unions to get elected.

Brilliant.
 
Untied said:
Defy them by taking more money from wealthy donors? Damn that will show Unite and really reinforce the left of his vote.
Click to expand...

Defy them by standing his ground and reinforce the narrative that he is not a puppet of the unions.

He could shift Unite to the sidelines, prioritising Unison and GMB, reducing the influence of Unite over selections. That would be a significant impact on them, given their current influence.

Generally speaking the largest income stream is from the membership: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/NEC-Annual-Report-2019.pdf
 
Untied said:
The fact that someone can call organised labour a millstone around the neck of the political party of organised Labour shows the extent to which the Labour party was taken over by neoliberal capitalism post-Thatcher

It's a doomed party. The two wings are in total opposition about the fundamentals of what the future of Britain should look like, and you cannot unite people simply around 'not the Tories'
Click to expand...
I don't agree that the party is doomed but I do agree that the two wings are irreconcilable and the sooner it splits the better for both of them. As you said earlier the membership figures will be very interesting. I am hoping they don't just show the net rise or fall, but the numbers leaving and the numbers joining.

As for political donations the answer for me is that there should be a maximum amount that can be legally donated by any company, organisation, or individual to any party. I know this isn't how Labour was set up or run in the past but I think it is best for the future of both Labour and the country.
 
Last edited:
711 said:
I don't agree that the party is doomed but I do agree that the two wings are irreconcilable and the sooner it splits the better for both of them. As you said earlier the membership figures will be very interesting. I am hoping they don't just show the net rise or fall, but the numbers leaving and the numbers joining.

As for political donations the answer for me is that there should be a maximum amount that can be legally donated by any company, organisation, or individual to any party. I know this isn't how Labour was set up or run in the past but I think it is best for the future of both Labour and the country.
Click to expand...

Obvious question perhaps, but would this be instituted after a Labour Government has been elected?

The current war of donations is skewed heavily in favour of the Tories: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-spent-16m-on-2019-election-win-figures-show
 
Frosty said:
Obvious question perhaps, but would this be instituted after a Labour Government has been elected?

The current war of donations is skewed heavily in favour of the Tories: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-spent-16m-on-2019-election-win-figures-show
Click to expand...
It is skewed indeed, and as you posted earlier union donations only go a part way to rectifying that. As a policy it would have to be in an election manifesto. Whether it would have to be passed by a party conference first I honestly don't know, my eyes glaze over at the convoluted way these things are done I'm afraid. And I don't know what the chances of it ever happening are, I'm just saying it would be a better and fairer way of financing our political parties than the one we have now.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
And therein lies the problem.

Perhaps that’s why the party is not electable. Yet, finally it gets a leader who is credible, but doesn’t ceed willingly enough to unions to get elected.

Brilliant.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you want a party that claims to represent the interests of labour but does not actually do so? Centrism in a nutshell :lol:
 
BobbyManc said:
The problem is that you want a party that claims to represent the interests of labour but does not actually do so? Centrism in a nutshell :lol:
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be nice to have a party that can genuinely challenge at an election. Or do we just want a protest party?

You realise most of the electorate are centurists, rather than left or right, clearly a party needs to appeal to them.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Perhaps it would be nice to have a party that can genuinely challenge at an election. Or do we just want a protest party?

You realise most of the electorate are centurists, rather than left or right, clearly a party needs to appeal to them.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be nice to have a party that represents the interests of labour. That’s why the Labour party exists, and such a party is perfectly capable of both serving its purpose and challenging at an election. It’s one of the most tired, erroneous and done to death arguments on here that appealing to the centre is some magic recipe for electability.
 
BobbyManc said:
Perhaps it would be nice to have a party that represents the interests of labour. That’s why the Labour party exists, and such a party is perfectly capable of both serving its purpose and challenging at an election. It’s one of the most tired, erroneous and done to death arguments on here that appealing to the centre is some magic recipe for electability.
Click to expand...

Parties do, and should change. Clearly it has not been a party capable of effectively challenging for a long time.

Edit. Look at the Tories at the last election, they appealed to traditional labour voters, and in doing so got a massive majority.
 
"Starmer should tell the unions to feck off"
"Wait why are they taking their money away".
 
The causes important to the labour movement are clearly better advanced by groups outside of The Labour Party at present. It's a move in the right direction and I hope they go further and that other unions do too.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Parties do, and should change. Clearly it has not been a party capable of effectively challenging for a long time.
Click to expand...

The Labour party should change from representing the interests of labour? Give me strength.

Yes, Labour was incapable of effectively challenging in 2010 under Brown, 2015 under Miliband and Corbyn in 2019. In 2017 it was capable under Corbyn and without efforts to undermine it could have won. Conclusion: centrism is the answer, because obviously.
 
BobbyManc said:
The Labour party should change from representing the interests of labour? Give me strength.

Yes, Labour was incapable of effectively challenging in 2010 under Brown, 2015 under Miliband and Corbyn in 2019. In 2017 it was capable under Corbyn and without efforts to undermine it could have won. Conclusion: centrism is the answer, because obviously.
Click to expand...
That's revisionist at best, given what a surprise result the hung parliament was. I had a lucrative bet on it, so I remember the odds.
 
BobbyManc said:
The Labour party should change from representing the interests of labour? Give me strength.

Yes, Labour was incapable of effectively challenging in 2010 under Brown, 2015 under Miliband and Corbyn in 2019. In 2017 it was capable under Corbyn and without efforts to undermine it could have won. Conclusion: centrism is the answer, because obviously.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say that, but it clearly needs to evolve.

Consider the move away from large companies represented by unions to small and entrepreneurial companies that we have seen, and are a massive part of our workforce, trends have changed over the past century. Tell me how the Labour Party is supporting small businesses? SMEs make up half 3/5ths of UK employment.

2017 was such a weak Tory Party, it’s not a plus to say Labour could have won.
 
Jippy said:
That's revisionist at best, given what a surprise result the hung parliament was. I had a lucrative bet on it, so I remember the odds.
Click to expand...

It’s not revisionist and the fact it was a ‘surprise’ at the time is irrelevant, we’re talking about the actual result. There’s a cogent argument to be made that the few thousand votes needed in marginal seats could have been won had the party united behind Corbyn and not undermined him and some actively worked against its election.
 
BobbyManc said:
It’s not revisionist and the fact it was a ‘surprise’ at the time is irrelevant, we’re talking about the actual result. There’s a cogent argument to be made that the few thousand votes needed in marginal seats could have been won had the party united behind Corbyn and not undermined him and some actively worked against its election.
Click to expand...
Where’s the evidence for this? The only thing I’ve ever seen is that if those marginals had been won Corbyn would have had an opportunity to form a progressive alliance which would have given 321 seats (and an alliance being formed would have been very unlikely anyway)
 
esmufc07 said:
Where’s the evidence for this? The only thing I’ve ever seen is that if those marginals had been won Corbyn would have had an opportunity to form a progressive alliance which would have given 321 seats (and an alliance being formed would have been very unlikely anyway)
Click to expand...

Well, yes, lead an alliance or at least make it impossible for the Tories to govern, which in the political landscape he inherited is the best anyone could have achieved. Expecting Labour to win a majority on their own is just not in the realm of feasibility any more, and it most certainly wasn’t in 2017 given they had a single seat in Scotland.
 
esmufc07 said:
Where’s the evidence for this? The only thing I’ve ever seen is that if those marginals had been won Corbyn would have had an opportunity to form a progressive alliance which would have given 321 seats (and an alliance being formed would have been very unlikely anyway)
Click to expand...

From this?

https://nicktyrone.com/no-labour-di...a-breakdown-of-why-and-why-this-is-important/

Im sure that there was another article posted in here saying that if the Tories got the same amount of extra votes then May could have won a working majorty.
 
BobbyManc said:
It’s not revisionist and the fact it was a ‘surprise’ at the time is irrelevant, we’re talking about the actual result. There’s a cogent argument to be made that the few thousand votes needed in marginal seats could have been won had the party united behind Corbyn and not undermined him and some actively worked against its election.
Click to expand...

The 'few thousand votes' claim has been shown to be miscalculated - https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-2017-general-election-not-that-close-after-all/
 
F-Red said:
The 'few thousand votes' claim has been shown to be miscalculated - https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-2017-general-election-not-that-close-after-all/
Click to expand...

That article admits as its basis that a switch of 2k votes in those 7 constituencies would have changed the govt being formed. The claim is true. You can argue that it would have needed a big national swing of 100k votes (a 0.3% swing) as the article does, or you can argue that it could be acheived by better targeting or better canvassing in those seats, but the numbers are what they are.
 
BobbyManc said:
The Labour party should change from representing the interests of labour? Give me strength.

Yes, Labour was incapable of effectively challenging in 2010 under Brown, 2015 under Miliband and Corbyn in 2019. In 2017 it was capable under Corbyn and without efforts to undermine it could have won. Conclusion: centrism is the answer, because obviously.
Click to expand...
It's not a change, really. It's a return to normalcy. I am 30 years old and The Labour Party has very rarely represented my views. I have spent most of my adult life on benefits, due to health problems, and The Labour Party has generally not given a shit about people in my position. We are necessary collateral in the 'being serious and electable' thing.

Unions are better than The Labour Party. Small orgs are better than unions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.