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

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Go on then. Please tell me what, in 2022, is to be gained by a Labour MP joining a picket line, when they are in Opposition?

He's jumped before he was pushed. Amazingly enough before his deselection came up he had nothing at all to do with strike action, anywhere, ever.

I support the rail workers FWIW. But I'm not a Labour MP.

Well for one it's showing solidarity with workers who deserve a pay rise whilst their bosses coin it. That alone should be enough!

But this is the Labour party, the Labour party is largely funded by unions, it has traditionally backed unions and they have backed them.

As i said there are around 6 million people in those unions, perhaps showing support for them would be a good idea to solidify support, rather than lurch even more alarmingly to the right.

Labour will have lost a lot of voters today, and for what?

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

They lost one by absolutely fucking miles in 2019 because the public were spooked into thinking your Comrade was going to take us back to the 1970s.

Probably not a great idea to indulge in 1970s tactics in that case.

I shouldn't even bother, but hey - the strikers have the support of the majority of the general public, there was nothing to gain and plenty to lose by Starmer putting himself in this position.

He didn't need to set that ultimatum, but he did.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

It's such a non-issue.

You can support improved public sector wages without singing the fucking Red Flag and literally lining up, it's the political version of pinning up disrespectful quotes from an opposition manager on the dressing room wall. It doesn't happen (well, shouldn't happen) because it's so laughably outdated.

I don't think anyone is going to give a fuck about this at the next election. They wouldn't if the next election were next Thursday, let alone in 18 months or more.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

You're wrong. This won't be forgotten.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

You think after energy prices have gone up at least 75%+ (as they're set to in January), inflation is raging at close to 10%, all our trade routes are fucked because of stupid bloody Brexit, the employment market is dismal, we can't fill low paid jobs because we told all the foreigners to fuck off, we have the weakest Cabinet literally ever, headed by a PM that no-one actually voted for...people are going to vote Tory rather than Labour because Starmer sacked an anti-Semite nobody for doing what he was explicitly told not to do?

I don't think so.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Many of those things you mention he doesn't have a solution to at all, and we now have him punishing a minister (that he gave the role to) for supporting workers who are fighting against the cost of living crisis.

I've voted Labour all my life, and my dad the same, neither of us will be, and there will be thousands possibly millions, (particularly in unions) just the same, and not just because he isn't backing striking workers, but because he has reneged on the pledges that got him elected and he offers nothing that suggests he is likely to be any better than Truss or Sunak.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Of course he'd be better than Truss or Sunak, in that Matt Doherty would be better than Ki-Jana Hoever.

I'm not particularly enthused by him and never have been. Don't think you'll find a single post from me anywhere saying he's the answer to everything. However I want rid of the piece of shit, fake Wolves fan MP that I have if nothing else, I also don't want a party running the country who've done a terrible job for 12 (TWELVE!) years and can't appoint a Prime Minister who lasts a term so we end up with an anti-democratic shambles, so I'll vote Labour now my vote counts.

I don't give a fuck about Sam Tarry, he's a cunt who was itching to get sacked.

The general public will never have heard of him and won't care.

You cut your nose off to spite your face if you really want to, it's your vote.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Why would he be better than one of those two?

As you said yourself, all three of those would be an improvement on the corrupt oaf.

But what is it about Starmer that has convinced you he'd be better than Truss or Sunak? What policies would he reverse? What would he do about Brexit? Reverse it? No! What would he do about inflation? Or the energy crisis? I don't know, he's said nothing?

And now we have him going against his own unions who fund and vote for the Labour party? Smart

I wouldn't be cutting my nose of at all, Starmer offers nothing that would improve society in this country, i don't owe him my vote just because he isn't a Tory.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Best stick with the Tories then mate. They've done such an amazing job and can definitely be trusted.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Best stick with the Tories then mate. They've done such an amazing job and can definitely be trusted.

I just wanted to know why you automatically assume it'd be any better under Starmer, i'm not surprised you can't answer, because he's given us no reason to believe that.

So it's just "hope" apparently. He already had that from me when i voted for him as leader.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Ok. If you want one thing then I don't think he'd permanently act like a complete prick towards the EU forever because Brexit, which badly hurts us as a country and directly hits people in the pocket, whereas for the foreseeable future any Tory PM will act that way.

He also has an IQ of above 60 so better than Liz Truss on that front.

 

[Sniffer]

Labour will have lost a lot of voters today, and for what?

So in a choice at the next election voters who were siding with Labour will chose the party that is against striking full stop (or keep them in government by not voting Labour) as opposed to the party whose stated aim was to get round the table and reach a settlement with the unions?

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

So in a choice at the next election voters who were siding with Labour will chose the party that is against striking full stop (or keep them in government by not voting Labour) as opposed to the party who stated aim was to get round the table and reach a settlement with the unions?

No, they just won't vote.

 

[Sniffer]

No, they just won't vote.

So they’ll keep the Conservatives in power and further damage their rights to prove a point.

Cracking.

 

[Sniffer]

Just to add that I agree with the strikes and would love it if the Shadow Cabinet could openly show their support. To get elected though they need to appeal to the not necessarily engaged/wavering voters in the middle who get their politics from the front pages of the UKs predominately right wing press.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Just to add that I agree with the strikes and would love it if the Shadow Cabinet could openly show their support. To get elected though they need to appeal to the not necessarily engaged/wavering voters in the middle who get their politics from the front pages of the UKs predominately right wing press.

A recent survey said that the majority of the general public agreed with the strikes.

Not only does this decision by Starmer go against the core ideas of the Labour Party, it will also lose them votes, not gain them.

Anyone who is against the strikes will vote Tory, they won't suddenly decide to vote Labour.

And anyone who is in favour of the strikes and/or in a union will be far less likely to vote Labour now, that's saying nothing of the crack it will cause with the Unions.

It's just a stupid and unnecessary position for Starmer to take.

 

[Tony Towner]

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

 

[Dire Wolf]

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.

 

[Johnny75]

So they’ll keep the Conservatives in power and further damage their rights to prove a point.

Cracking.

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.

 

[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