Rebecca Long Bailey sacked by Keir Starmer

The core left in the Labour movement are the trade union activists. It was them that secured the seventy-five percent plus reduction from wages for labour funding (Check off) in 2016 when the Tory government demanded through legislation that it had to be reaffirmed every five years.

Those on-site representatives along with their full-time organisers are the wider Labour Movement in the country and it is them that trade union members always follow.

There has been large-scale discussion among those core union activists since the resignation of Corbyn as leader as to whether the Broader movement should continue to fund the Labour Party, and that discussion may now come into sharper focus.

Starmer could try to fund the Parliamentary Labour Party by way of corporate and private donations. However, Tony Blair did just that by selling the Labour party to the Bankers and Arms Manufacturers, and we all know how that ended up.

Away we are working today, but many thanks to those who have made this a good early morning debate.

See you later.

No you are wrong grandad the “core left” of the unions may regret it but the unions are a democratic organisation and given the choice between funding a party of the left or one of left of centre the membership will choose the left of centre every time, and they know it.

Tony Blair, the only Labour Party leader to win 3 consecutive
general elections.

Whitewavemark2

No you are wrong grandad the “core left” of the unions may regret it but the unions are a democratic organisation and given the choice between funding a party of the left or one of left of centre the membership will choose the left of centre every time, and they know it.

It is the Lay Member led General Executive committees of the trade unions that decide on the political funding is alocated, and they are made up of elected shop floor activist.

In the above, it will be those bodies who will decide on Labour funding in conjunction with the TUC.

If there is a radical change that means that the funding will go to a different political party and not the Labour Party, that decision will not be made by a few party activists but by the membership as a whole. If not then the unions will lose their democratic credentials.

Huff Post, Trisher.

Long-Bailey was asked to take down her tweet and to apologise. Instead, she retweeted her original message with a clarification that she had not endorsed the entire Peake article. This was a form of words that she later claimed was agreed with the leader’s office (which is disputed). But this only caused more anger, and she was repeatedly told that Starmer wanted her to delete the message and issue a full apology.

HuffPost UK has been told Long-Bailey refused to take phone calls from the leader’s office, and after being given four hours to comply with his wishes, Starmer decided enough was enough. Having given her a way out, he felt he was left with no option but to fire her as shadow education secretary. After informing his deputy Angela Rayner, he rang Long-Bailey in person and said he was removing her from her post.

None of us know, do we. We can only go on what we read from those we trust and each of the reporters will have different sources. This was also part of the same article. I agree with the summary. This has got to stop in the LP - if only so that the worst of Israel's attacks can be called out without the conversation steering off in the anti-Semitism direction. It may be heavy handed to start with but that is because nothing was really done under the last leadership about it.

For Starmer, whose leadership campaign was launched with a zero tolerance vow on anti-semitism, the need to act was obvious. The day he defeated Long-Bailey on April 4, his first message as leader was that he would “tear this poison out by its roots”.

Whitewavemark2. It will be the elected General Executive Committees of the major unions that decide on political spending allocation, and no one else. Taking those decisions are what they are elected for.

Anyway must get on with the work. ?

GGumpteenth The Independent gives a different story. I think perhaps Starmer has more to lose than she has in shifting the communications blame. (the whole left wing of the party). There is a growing demand now for Long Bailey to become a focus point for left wing activity, perhaps in the Labour Party or perhaps out of it. If that happened it is difficult to see what would be left for Starmer.

Chewbacca

I admire Starmer for getting rid of RLB as quickly as he did. I'm liking him more and more......

The point is not what she she re-tweeted, it's the fact that she was stupid enough to do so.
Having someone that foolish as his Shadow Education Secretary was an embarrassment Starmer didn't need if he is going to win over the majority before the next GE.

Just your opinion Trisher and I did comment on the different sources we get our information from - and the fact that none of us actually know what happened. As in a divorce there are always at least two 'truths'. You repeating yours will not make others change their minds.

Of course there are the actions of Labour Party officers in the past working against the left, but they will all have gone won't they?

I think RLB re-tweeted the article containing controversial views without thinking. I wonder if she even read the interview before re-tweeting it? Politicians are supposed to have an awareness of how their words and actions can be interpreted by others. RLB seems to lack this essential skill.

If she did read the whole of the interview beforehand why call Maxine Peake an "absolute diamond" as well and then expect others to work out that she didn't really endorse everything Maxine Peake had said? Naive or what?

It's even more embarrassing for RLB as Maxine Peake has admitted that she now knows that the Amnesty International allegation that the US police forces were taught to knee-on-the-neck technique by Israel's security services is false. As a lawyer RLB should be aware of the power of false allegations.

It's not always the intention behind what people do that is important but it is the perception of what they intended that is important. That's what Jenrick admitted in relation to his own faux pas - the perception of bias.

As for her sacking from the Shadow Cabinet she'll be no loss.

She was lacklustre in her leadership campaign and is very "wooden" in her manner. She lied about her CV, saying she remembered her father being afraid of being sacked from the docks when she couldn't have been more than 2 years old at that time.

Contrary to all the conspiracy theories I don't see this as a left versus right thing at all. I believe that Starmer would have sacked anyone in the Shadow Cabinet who had acted as RLB has just done.

ramblingrose

?

We need a like button
rambling rose

ramblingrose managed to articulate very well what I've been struggling to say. Neither RLB nor Maxine Peake have come out of this very well. Keir Starmer, on the other hand, has shown that he's perfectly capable of taking control.

We do Iam

?ramblingrose

ramblingrose ?

Chewbacca could you elaborate on who or what he is "taking control" of? because all the indications I have seen show he is in fact losing the support of a huge section of the party and supporters.

trisher then it would be the quickest reverse ever!!

Starmer received nearly 57% of the vote, in the leadership contest.

With the left wing candidate receiving only 27%

Which bit says that he is losing support in droves?

Nandy received 16% .

Starmer has the highest satisfaction for an opposition leader since Blair in the mid 90s..

Only 16% of labour members say Starmer was wrong to sack RLB

That sentence ending in droves should be at the bottom?

Well said ramblingrose

Kier Starmer when he became leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party promised to bring unity to the organisation. However, his strong leanings towards the right of the party became very apparent when he refused to suspend employees at Labours Central Office following allegations of them working, possibly illegally, against their own elected leader came to light.

Any employee working for any other employer in Britain would have received such a suspension while an investigation is carried out. However, no such action in the Labour Party Central Office under Kier Starmer. They have been left at their posts to destroy evidence if they so wish and still be in communication with others who may be requested to give evidence to the investigation.

The above had already greatly "dented" Starmer's claim of bringing unity to the party, but the instant outright sacking of Rebbeca Long-Bailey has confirmed to many that Starmer has no intention whatsoever of maintaining any broad church stance in the Parliamentary Party.

Starmer wishes only to have Labour viewed as a Blair type mark two conservative party with no allegiance to its traditional roots at all. However, the problem is for Starmer and his followers would be that he will be desperately requiring those trade unions largescale funding if the Parliamentary party are to survive insolvency in the coming months due to the actions of those at Central Office.

This morning those unions have been almost unanimous in their support of Long-Bailey along with equal condemnation of Starmer's actions.

Kier Starmer seems to lack judgment of a given situation, for that was demonstrated just three weeks back when he failed lamentably to show any real opposition leadership in the Dominic Cummings situation. That crisis had virtually all the country united against Cummings and Boris Johnson's support for him in a "one rule for them and another for all the rest in Britain".

The above should have been an outright gift for any opposition leader, but not for Starmer and the Labour Party due to the fact he did not turn up until the fourth day of the crisis to make any live television statement. That turned out to be too far little, far too late.
Some Leader.

Link to the trade unions reaction to the sacking of Rebbeca Long-Baley can be found here:-

www.union-news.co.uk/unions-rally-round-rebecca-long-bailey/
Some leader.

A minority of union leaders have spoken against the RLB sacking.

They almost certainly voted for her to be leader.

The vast majority of union members if they were Labour members would have voted for a Starmer.

The union leaders are not speaking for the majority.

trisher

Chewbacca could you elaborate on who or what he is "taking control" of? because all the indications I have seen show he is in fact losing the support of a huge section of the party and supporters.

The only section of the party and supporters that Starmer is in danger of losing trisher are the people who were solely responsible for trying to shift the party so far to the left that they became unelectable. If that had been popular and were speaking for the majority of both the electorate and party members, Corbyn would be the leader now. And he ain't. Is he?

Some leader.
A leader with an approval rating Corbyn could only dream of.