Keir Starmer's time is up

[Geri]

I havent really paid enough attention to the rhetoric of the Stop the War coalition in recent years to be able to fully form an opinion on the following yet, but I expect its another clear example of Starmer trying to show his "middle ground" status quo credentials, wave some flags, and wind up the left, and there are plenty of Keir quotes in it that make me groan. He certainly resembles someone who wont be short of war rhetoric of his own if he ever finds himself in charge when such death opportunities knock.

Keir Starmer accuses Stop the War coalition of siding with Nato’s enemies

Exclusive: Labour leader affirms support for transatlantic alliance and attacks organisation in which Jeremy Corbyn is leading figure

www.theguardian.com

He is 100% correct and it's refreshing to read this.

 

[MickiQ]

So do you contribute financially to the Labour Party in any way, or do you just expect others to do it and then accuse them of blackmail when they decide they don't want to do it any more?

Nope I don't contribute to them at all nor do I expect anyone else including Unite or its members to do, I'm not defending the Labour Party or Starmer and it's my point is what it was a few pages back. Unite (which claims to have some political influence) has the ear of no-one else in Govt beside the Labour Party and is threatening to cut them off from the funding it provides. I'm not denying their right to do so what I am saying is that this will cost them that already limited influence and gain them nothing.
They want to do that then OK that's their choice but no-one else in power or anyone remotely near it gives even one shit what the Unite leadership thinks about anything.

 

[hitmouse]

Nope I don't contribute to them at all nor do I expect anyone else including Unite or its members to do, I'm not defending the Labour Party or Starmer and it's my point is what it was a few pages back. Unite (which claims to have some political influence) has the ear of no-one else in Govt beside the Labour Party and is threatening to cut them off from the funding it provides. I'm not denying their right to do so what I am saying is that this will cost them that already limited influence and gain them nothing.
They want to do that then OK that's their choice but no-one else in power or anyone remotely near it gives even one shit what the Unite leadership thinks about anything.

I mean, we might be going round in circles here, but influence is only really influence if you can get people to do things, I wouldn't really call it influence if it's like "can you stop using scabs to break our members' strike?" "No" "OK, would you like some more free money then?"
As for gaining them nothing, it will at least gain them the money that they're currently giving away?

 

[MickiQ]

I mean, we might be going round in circles here, but influence is only really influence if you can get people to do things, I wouldn't really call it influence if it's like "can you stop using scabs to break our members' strike?" "No" "OK, would you like some more free money then?"
As for gaining them nothing, it will at least gain them the money that they're currently giving away?

At the moment their influence with the Labour Party isn't worth a lot however a couple of years ago under a different leader it was considerable though naturally the fact that Corbyn wasn't PM was always a handicap.
I seem to remember people complaining that he wasn't as vocal in his support of striking workers as they wanted him to be, whilst he was no doubt more sympathetic than the current wastrel he was equally constrained by his lack of actual authority.
Who's to say when Starmer loses the next election (which I am sure he will no matter what) that another more sympathetic leader won't take his place but even he/she will still have to win an election to actually have an effect on anything.
Money's a good point though they will have to decide whether they think it's buying them value, it's clear that people on this forum largely think no but we will see.

 

[bluescreen]

Money's a good point though they will have to decide whether they think it's buying them value

If only there were another way.

 

[Serge Forward]

All this said, I'd like to be wrong, but I can't see Unite cutting the financial link, whether Graham wants to. It just too embedded into the Labour Party.

 

[Sue]

Who's to say when Starmer loses the next election (which I am sure he will no matter what) that another more sympathetic leader won't take his place but even he/she will still have to win an election to actually have an effect on anything.

So if that were to happen (though it seems very unlikely), the union could reconsider its position.

 

[Pickman's model]

He is 100% correct and it's refreshing to read this.

Good to see you posting

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Anti-Revisionist Pop Band TheIanDuncanSmiths deliver a heavy blow to that renegade Starmer

 

[redsquirrel]

Nope I don't contribute to them at all nor do I expect anyone else including Unite or its members to do, I'm not defending the Labour Party or Starmer and it's my point is what it was a few pages back. Unite (which claims to have some political influence) has the ear of no-one else in Govt beside the Labour Party and is threatening to cut them off from the funding it provides. I'm not denying their right to do so what I am saying is that this will cost them that already limited influence and gain them nothing.

But you are defending the Labour Party. Labour are not good but they are the only alternative is a defence, a really poor once but nevertheless a defence.You have specifically ruled out any alternatives but the LP.

And what it will gain Unite is money not being wasted, money that can be spent on defending members conditions and attacking employers. Moreover your proposal actual removes any influence from Unite. If they keep on just feeding the LP money, regardless of what the LP does then they don't have any influence. If they do want to influence the LP then they need to be credible when they say that that there will be consequences for actions.

 

[ska invita]

He is 100% correct and it's refreshing to read this.

100%? There can be a tendency amongst STW leadership towards reactionary anti-imperialism, but STW criticism of NATO expansionism and Western exceptionalism is fundamentally correct IMO

Is there something you have read STW say about the Ukraine conflict you explicitly disagree with?

Playing With Fire: Diplomacy Must Prevail Over Ukraine

Even the Ukrainian foreign minister is calling for calm following Johnson’s visit to Kyiv Terina Hine...

www.stopwar.org.uk

 

[andysays]

MickiQ and others might be interested in an email I (and other Unite members) had the other day

​

Dear andysays, Working people do not need lectures from the Governor of the Bank of England on the cost of living, writes the General Secretary​ This month the RPI rose to 7.5% and the difference between that and the Government’s preferred but inadequate measure of inflation (CPI) is now 2.1%. This means that the cost of basic goods and services is rising at a rate not seen for many years. In response, the Governor of the Bank of England recently called for “pay restraint”. Our response is simple. Working people will not pay for a crisis they did not cause. We will be demanding that employers who can pay, do pay. Wage restraint is nothing more than a call for a national pay cut. Negotiations covering well over half of Unite’s members are due to start before the end of April. That is 500,000 workers relying on their Union to safeguard living standards. Everyone understands that talk and action are different things. And as trade unions we are in the fortunate position of being able to do something about the situation ourselves. Many firms are sitting on piles of cash and making profits. We cannot afford to treat this year’s negotiations as a routine to follow. With costs rising it is now time to change tack. As we speak, we are investing in resources that will allow us to scrutinise the finances of employers – to see what the real ability to pay is. And we now have the first of our Combines set up and ready to roll. In addition, I am pleased to announce that plans are underway to deliver new activist training that will further tool up our Reps – deeper analysis of accounts, analysing who really makes decisions and spreading best practice in campaigning and disputes. These actions are the start of a long term plan to give you everything you need to help make real, meaningful judgements as to your bargaining position. But as inflation rises and our members take the hit, we cannot afford to wait. This year, where we can make progress, we need to make sure that we do. TL;DR we can't wait for the Labour Party to help us, we need to focus on acting for ourselves now​

 

[MickiQ]

But you are defending the Labour Party. Labour are not good but they are the only alternative is a defence, a really poor once but nevertheless a defence.You have specifically ruled out any alternatives but the LP.

And what it will gain Unite is money not being wasted, money that can be spent on defending members conditions and attacking employers. Moreover your proposal actual removes any influence from Unite. If they keep on just feeding the LP money, regardless of what the LP does then they don't have any influence. If they do want to influence the LP then they need to be credible when they say that that there will be consequences for actions.

Some very good points there and yes you've got my argument in a nutshell but I still don't see any alternative (currently) to the Labour Party, not ruling out alternatives won't cause them to exist.
Another interesting point is your statement that money can be spent elsewhere, can it? Political donations are a separate fund which members can opt out of, if this money isn't being passed along to a registered political party then I would imagine that Unite probably wouldn't just be allowed to keep it but would have to stop collecting it. I suspect quite a bit of it is going it initially end up in the hands of lawyers.

MickiQ and others might be interested in an email I (and other Unite members) had the other day

​

Dear andysays, Working people do not need lectures from the Governor of the Bank of England on the cost of living, writes the General Secretary​ This month the RPI rose to 7.5% and the difference between that and the Government’s preferred but inadequate measure of inflation (CPI) is now 2.1%. This means that the cost of basic goods and services is rising at a rate not seen for many years. In response, the Governor of the Bank of England recently called for “pay restraint”. Our response is simple. Working people will not pay for a crisis they did not cause. We will be demanding that employers who can pay, do pay. Wage restraint is nothing more than a call for a national pay cut. Negotiations covering well over half of Unite’s members are due to start before the end of April. That is 500,000 workers relying on their Union to safeguard living standards. Everyone understands that talk and action are different things. And as trade unions we are in the fortunate position of being able to do something about the situation ourselves. Many firms are sitting on piles of cash and making profits. We cannot afford to treat this year’s negotiations as a routine to follow. With costs rising it is now time to change tack. As we speak, we are investing in resources that will allow us to scrutinise the finances of employers – to see what the real ability to pay is. And we now have the first of our Combines set up and ready to roll. In addition, I am pleased to announce that plans are underway to deliver new activist training that will further tool up our Reps – deeper analysis of accounts, analysing who really makes decisions and spreading best practice in campaigning and disputes. These actions are the start of a long term plan to give you everything you need to help make real, meaningful judgements as to your bargaining position. But as inflation rises and our members take the hit, we cannot afford to wait. This year, where we can make progress, we need to make sure that we do. TL;DR we can't wait for the Labour Party to help us, we need to focus on acting for ourselves now​

Well a man on half a million a year lecturing folks on or barely above the breadline about pay restraint was always going to go down like a cup of cold vomit. This is exactly what a Union is for, they will have some successes and some failures but I wish them well.

 

[Serge Forward]

MickiQ and others might be interested in an email I (and other Unite members) had the other day

​

Dear andysays, Working people do not need lectures from the Governor of the Bank of England on the cost of living, writes the General Secretary​ This month the RPI rose to 7.5% and the difference between that and the Government’s preferred but inadequate measure of inflation (CPI) is now 2.1%. This means that the cost of basic goods and services is rising at a rate not seen for many years. In response, the Governor of the Bank of England recently called for “pay restraint”. Our response is simple. Working people will not pay for a crisis they did not cause. We will be demanding that employers who can pay, do pay. Wage restraint is nothing more than a call for a national pay cut. Negotiations covering well over half of Unite’s members are due to start before the end of April. That is 500,000 workers relying on their Union to safeguard living standards. Everyone understands that talk and action are different things. And as trade unions we are in the fortunate position of being able to do something about the situation ourselves. Many firms are sitting on piles of cash and making profits. We cannot afford to treat this year’s negotiations as a routine to follow. With costs rising it is now time to change tack. As we speak, we are investing in resources that will allow us to scrutinise the finances of employers – to see what the real ability to pay is. And we now have the first of our Combines set up and ready to roll. In addition, I am pleased to announce that plans are underway to deliver new activist training that will further tool up our Reps – deeper analysis of accounts, analysing who really makes decisions and spreading best practice in campaigning and disputes. These actions are the start of a long term plan to give you everything you need to help make real, meaningful judgements as to your bargaining position. But as inflation rises and our members take the hit, we cannot afford to wait. This year, where we can make progress, we need to make sure that we do. TL;DR we can't wait for the Labour Party to help us, we need to focus on acting for ourselves now​

Andrew Bailey: the gall of a parasite - Anarchist Communist Group

 

[andysays]

Andrew Bailey: the gall of a parasite - Anarchist Communist Group

Thanks, will read later

 

[Spandex]

Liverpool Council initially won concessions and money from the Conservative government and there was a growing national campaign across left-wing councils. Labour refused to back its own councils against Thatcher and the start of the decades-long squeeze on local autonomy went into full swing.

This is yet another reason why backing the Labour right is a hiding to nothing, not a reason to concede eternal defeat to Westminster.

Whenever local government cuts come up, Militant in Liverpool are bought up as an example of what councils can do, but since 1985 a number of laws have been bought in to prevent that situation arising again.

The Local Government Finance Act 1988 created a legal duty for the council's Chief Finance Officer to report if there is likely to be an unbalanced budget.

The Local Government Finance Act 1992 created a legal duty for Councils to set a balanced budget and set dates for when the budget must be announced.

The Local Government Act 1999 meant a failure to set a balanced budget gave the Secretary of State powers to intervene, setting their own budget for the council, appointing Commissioners who can dismiss any statutory position (such as the Cheif Finance Officer) from within the Council and making Councillors personally liable for costs of setting an unlawful budget.

If a council was to deliberately set an unbalanced budget now they would be taken over by central government comissioners who would force them to balance their budget, probably by selling off council assets and forcing cuts, and Councillors could be made personally bankrupt having been charged with malfeasance and misconduct in public office.

Militant wouldn't have stood a chance of success under the current legal framework. Local Councils are powerless to do anything other than stick to their budgets. Which is something George Osborne was well aware of when he piled austerity cuts onto local councils, knowing perfectly well that a lot of the damage caused by austerity would be blamed on local councils rather than central government.

None of which excuses Labour Councillors from being useless shits who meekly went along with it all and especially Ed Milliband's Labour party for accepting the Tory lie that the 2008 financial crash and its consequences were somehow all the fault of Labour's overspending and accepting the austerity that continues to blight the country.

 

[PR1Berske]

 

[AmateurAgitator]

 

[killer b]

due to this presumably:

Henry Dyer: A personal statement on my interaction with Neil Coyle

Henry Dyer has accused Neil Coyle MP of racist abuse. This is his story in his words.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Rob Ray]

I confidently await a deluge of outraged headlines and opinion columns about how reluctant to deal with racism Kier Starmer's Labour is after his party waited an entire week, until a piece had popped off in the media, to act on serious allegations of racist behaviour by a senior Parliamentarian.

Also this.

 

[steveseagull]

So Starmer and his team of fuckwitted boomers got totally rinsed by a tech company.

Labour blew $1.3 million pursuing "anti-Semitism" leakers

Secret document shows how party tried to suppress embarrassing report.

electronicintifada.net

 

[Humberto]

Under my leadership, Labour’s commitment to Nato is unshakable | Keir Starmer

Our party was foundational in forming the postwar alliance, which – as Ukraine shows – remains essential today, says Labour leader Keir Starmer

www.theguardian.com

Can't agree with his analysis on NATO membership (why 'Nato' btw even NATO spells it 'NATO').

'Unshakeable support' = grotesque partisan profiteering for the masters of war that poison the planet and stamp on it's weakest.

 

[B.I.G]

Under my leadership, Labour’s commitment to Nato is unshakable | Keir Starmer

Our party was foundational in forming the postwar alliance, which – as Ukraine shows – remains essential today, says Labour leader Keir Starmer

www.theguardian.com

Can't agree with his analysis on NATO membership (why 'Nato' btw even NATO spells it 'NATO').

'Unshakeable support' = grotesque partisan profiteering for the masters of war that poison the planet and stamp on it's weakest.

Its the guardian style.

 

[Humberto]

It's not just the Guardian, but it's obviously a minor point.

 

[B.I.G]

It's not just the Guardian, but it's obviously a minor point.

I didn’t see the point in you making it. But I thought I’d answer your question.

 

[Humberto]

Can you fuck off back to Dulwich forum if you've nothing worth saying?

 

[B.I.G]

Can you fuck off back to Dulwich forum if you've nothing worth saying?

You were the one asking questions you apparently knew the answer to.

I must have missed your worthwhile points.

 

[Humberto]

As I say...

 

[two sheds]

You were the one asking questions you apparently knew the answer to.

I must have missed your worthwhile points.

told me I was laughing too much

 

[Humberto]

'Unshakeable support' = grotesque partisan profiteering for the masters of war that poison the planet and stamp on it's weakest.