[Abernathy]

Well, "Red Rosa " has certainly got the embittered Corbynite script down pat. But seriously how on earth do you deal with people like this? She's ewrong about everything, but when she's ranting at you in a cafe like an escapee from Broadmoor and accusing a party worker of groping her tits, what are you gonna do?

Ignore her and move on, I guess.

[RedSparrows]

I must say I dislike this anti-picketing thing Starmer's got going atm. I've not read much so maybe I'm missing something, but is it not possible to be a weeee bit more overt in support for unions? Angela Rayner's been saying good stuff, at least.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think the policy of keeping politicians the public have heard of away from picket lines is OK. As I said before, that's exactly what the Tories want to happen, and it's an incentive not to settle strikes for them if they can blame Labour for them,

But banningthe PPS to the minister for paperclips was an overreach. Having said it though, it's hard not to follow through. Starmer to his credit disregarded once, but I see Sam Tarry has defied him again and has duly been sacked. If Angela Rayner can work round something she doesn't like, then he should have been able to. Tarry sounds like he's about to be deselected (replaced by someone contraversially kept off the selection list last time), so this might be going out with a self-important bang.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Starmer does have a serious problem with having chucked away promises. Many of the promises were silly ones to make, but that's not quite the point. There's a strong case for getting new approval for a very different programme, I think. If I had my way, I'd have MPs choose a new leader (Lisa Nandy), but I suppose it doesn't quite work like that.

[Abernathy]

I understand Tarry was not sacked from the front bench for joining an RMT picket line, but for breaching collective responsibility by going onto TV and making up policy on the hoof without reference to the leader’s office. Which is totally understandable and reasonable (IMO).

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Corbynite sets out to cause trouble, gets bollocks kicked.

[Abernathy]

Starmer does have a serious problem with having chucked away promises.

So the Trots would have you believe. But it’s completely absurd if you stop to think about it. I do not take the view that the leader of the Labour Party is elected rigidly to stick to policies that he talked about when seeking election. No, I want a leader to be trusted to exercise his strategic and tactical political know-how and judgement, in a changing political landscape, in the service of Labour’s principal objective of getting rid of the Tories , avoiding a fifth successive election defeat, and returning the party to government where it can actually begin to re-build things and improve people’s lives made utterly miserable by 12+ years of Tory government. If that means eschewing, at least for Labour’s first term, any commitment to public ownership of the utilities, I’m completely relaxed about that. It does not mean ruling it out for all time. I’ve taken to reminding the Trots that when running his campaign for leader, Jeremy Corbyn also made his own “ten pledges”, not a single one of which Corbyn stuck to, admittedly, and typically, because they were all contingent on him winning an election, something he proved to be totally incapable of doing.But you never hear the Trots whining about those ten broken pledges, do you?

Many of the promises were silly ones to make, but that's not quite the point. There's a strong case for getting new approval for a very different programme, I think.

Labour has a long-established mechanism for developing and adopting policy(and it doesn’t solely involve the whims of Keir Starmer), right up to the clause V meeting that finalises the content of the manifesto just before each election, and involves representatives from every part of the party. Keeping the manifesto which led to Labour’s worst election defeat since 1935 would be absurd, as well as unprecedented(but is seemingly what the Trots want to do).

If I had my way, I'd have MPs choose a new leader (Lisa Nandy), but I suppose it doesn't quite work like that.

There is no vacancy. And besides, I really don’t think Labour needs a change of leader right now, though I agree with the idea of the leadership being predominantly chosen by the PLP, and I also think that Nandy will be a brilliant Labour leader - just not yet. Starmer is doing a fine job, and is well on track.

[Boiler]

I'd 'like' your post Abers, but ATM the forum won't let me do so, or add a reaction... wah!

[Tubby Isaacs]

Abers,

Sure, promises made in internal elections are different to ones made at general elections. DIshonesty of Johnson and (presumably) Truss is a trump card, and it's harder to play it if people can say you were dishonest too. The usual suspects will make sure that's prominent in a general election. "Say anything to get elected", "they're all the same!" is going to hurt. I don't think Starmer was actually dishonest, as it happens. I reckon he just chucked a load of stuff out and then got tapped on the shoulder and asked "You know what this actually costs, right?" or "you realize that lots of people in Stoke/Wakefield whose votes you need really hate freedom of movement, don't you?"

But that's not really the point. And sure, policy shouldn't be made in leadership elections. They're a sodding nuisance. What you have to do is keep your policy powder dry in them, or elese it bites you on the arse. Hence, with my benevolent dictator hat on, I call all the MPs in and tell them Lisa Nandy is taking over. But seeing that couldn't happen (more likely a contest lasting about 2 years happens, with some Corbynite spouting nonsense in full public glare) I'll agree to stick with Keir.

[Abernathy]

Abers,

The usual suspects will make sure that's prominent in a general election. "Say anything to get elected", "they're all the same!" is going to hurt.

If by “usual suspects” you mean the hostile tabloid press, I don’t think I agree. Their agenda doesn’t really concern itself with “pledges” made during leadership election campaigns. - they’re much more interested in scuppering Labour’s election chances in a general election. Which isn’t to say they won’t try and pin absolutely anything on Starmer that they can.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Abers,

The usual suspects will make sure that's prominent in a general election. "Say anything to get elected", "they're all the same!" is going to hurt.

If by “usual suspects” you mean the hostile tabloid press, I don’t think I agree. Their agenda doesn’t really concern itself with “pledges” made during leadership election campaigns. - they’re much more interested in scuppering Labour’s election chances in a general election. Which isn’t to say they won’t try and pin absolutely anything on Starmer that they can.
[/quote]

I'm thinking more of the Jez left, who might suddenly find that "the MSM" has become interest in them. I think that has potential to cut through, though it may not.

[Abernathy]

Yes, that is a possibility. Most of them still have a humungous chip on their shoulders about the centrists having been the only thing that actively prevented Jeremy from becoming PM. They may well be contemplating some sort of revenge by fucking up Labour’s chances if they can. But I’m relatively unworried about that. For the most part, they couldn’t organise a piss-up in the proverbial brewery.

[Tubby Isaacs]

They won't have to. The Tory friendly media will do the organising.

I recall something like this happening in 2015 when the Green Party were suddenly found to be of major importance...

[Tubby Isaacs]

More on Tarry here. He made up his own pay policy on live tv. And an odd policy too- rail unions have settled below inflation in other disputes this year, and would doubtless accept something close to the inflation rate in this one.

[The Weeping Angel]

Jesus what I've been having to deal with on another forum.

I feel the bottom line is that, if Starmer actually realised what the Labour Party stood for (clue's in the name Sir Keir!) and let MPs go to picket lines (it's important to note that these striking workers are people's constituents) then all of this PR nightmare could have been avoided. The leaked memo threatening sackings and his refusal to actually come out and properly support the workers has done far more harm and given his opponents much more ammunition than if he'd just let MPs do what they wanted. It really shows to me that the Starmer administration really aren't that much better at PR than the Corbyn administration as all this has done is show that the party is deeply divided and run by a leader who can't control his MPs.

In short, by trying to do 'damage limitation' all he's done is make keyworkers question why they should vote Labour, give more ammunition to his critics both inside and outside the party and appear extremely weak. Coming out and saying something like: "I deeply regret the inconvenience many people have been put through but keyworkers are really struggling due to the Tory government's mishandling of the cost of living crisis. It's also important to remember that the right to strike is a fundamental one and one the Tory government want to take away" would have been fine.

[Boiler]

If it's any consolation TWA, I'm trying to avoid rabid Brexiteers on a forum I've just been readmitted to - who are treating the 105 pages of the risible "Benefits of Brexit" as akin to The Holy Bible, King James Version and demanding of Remainers to prove why it's bollocks...

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I see that Saint Jez has rocked up on the picket lines at Euston.

Gesture politics. Starmer is right that we have to move on to actual policies...

[The Weeping Angel]

Yes but as loads of people keep parroting we're the party of Labour the clue is in the name.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

The clue would be if the word was 'union'...

'Labour' and 'union' are not synonyms.

[mattomac]

I’ve had it really, Tories have won this argument, well done Sam Tarry enjoy your retirement.

This country is crumbling and all they care about is little battles on Twitter. I don’t care about the RMT, I voted against striking at my work. I don’t need or want to hold out for strike action any payrise I can get I want, 4% will keep me above water for now and we’re not getting anymore (the Tories cut London Weighting for Universities so they are funding that too).

I’m angry with the whole sodding thing, my mum has cancer and I’m worried about the winter bills tsunami not to mention the NHS is struggling.

Principles are all fine and dandy but don’t pay the bills especially supporting a Union that supported Brexit.

If they get in for another 5 years I’m going have to head Wales (Scotland won’t probably want anyone).