McCluskey really wants to ensure Labour will never be electable !

Tony Blair was the best thing that happened to the Labour party, but then it all went wrong for him ie. the Iraq war/weapons of mass destruction etc. However, I think Starmer is more like Blair and therefore more electable. Jeremy Corbyn was a man of principle and I respected him, but he just didn't appeal to the electorate in the same way that Michael Foot didn't either. I think we have a chance with Starmer but he needs to stand up to Johnson more. At present he seems to be still finding his feet.

The unions are their members Monica, private donors serve their own interests. Whether or not you (not you personally) like or approve of McCluskey personally, unions continue to be the means for working people to protect their basic employment and economic interests in the broader labour movement and remain inextricably linked to the party they gave birth to.

Alan Johnson, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, David Blunkett ,
Tory light , really ?

Not re-read the whole thread again- but I do believe this is correct - 1 person on Gransnet thinks McCluskey is right - and would rather scupper the LP and the country with it. Right.

I take it I am the "one person" interesting isn't it that I'm not named. Actually I don't want to "scupper" the LP I want to see an LP which is true to it's socialist ideals, that proposes real change, and will return to centre politics, the left wing views that the country I grew up in believed in. It isn't my fault if GN posters have done what a lot of people do in later years and moved to the right. There are younger people who think as I do. And the people I know who are Unite members are behind McCluskey. They don't want to fund Tory lite policies. If you don't realise how disenfranchised people feel when there are two very similar parties involved in an election look at how the numbers of people voting dropped after Tony Blair and rose when Corbyn was leader.

And look at the number of elections Blair won and Corbyn lost

I would just be happy to see a credible opposition

I thought I was the "one person"

Principles are important of course, but they are cold comfort when a party spends years in the political wilderness. I think Starmer is playing a clever game with Johnson; agreeing with much of the covid19 safety measures, but being persistent in his questioning, not losing his temper and thus making Johnson look like the blustering liar he is. I also agree that he is right in not putting forward what Labour would do, this will merely deflect from what the Tories are doing badly and give the Tory supporting press fodder for their front pages. I would however, like him to tackle Johnson and/or Hancock about the absolute clusterf**k of Track and Trace run by their buddy Dido Harding.

As said before, I actually hear what you are saying Trisher- and I understand it, even though I do not entirely subscribe to it- but I hear you and agree to much you say.

But what then ... as Gill says, cold comfort when a party spends years in wilderness- watching, not Starmer going a long way (even if you think it is not far enough- and yes, I get it) ...doing his best to get the best conditions for the majority- but ERG and Cummings (not Johnson, but probably worse)- selling the country to the USA and all who are prepared to fill their coffers.

Surely, even if any of us agree with what you say - is that truly the best of the two alternatives. Because the one you dream of (and again, I can see why) - is just not going to happen- I am sorry to say. THAT is the reality.

The problem is that those who voted for Johnson (and yes I do know some) are now seeing him as inadequate and yet too restrictive. They look at Starmer and see a "yes"man. The very scary thing being that they do not espouse the centre views that many believe are electable but are moving rapidly to the right. With no credible outspoken opposition I fear for what will happen in the next 4 years.It isn't enough to just allow Johnson to make mistakes and do things badly. This government will take defeat in every PMQs and let Johnson wallow in his ineffectiveness, whilst people like Pritti Patel take the temperature of the public and try to work out just how far they can go in introducing restrictions and curbing freedoms, and Cummings pulls strings behind the scenes. Unfortunately Starmer doesn't seem able to combat this (or is unwilling to).

I disagree Trisher- I think Starmer is playing a very clever game against Johnson- and will win. But then be scuppered by his own party (mine too btw). And with respect, and I mean that- no animosity against you at all- as said, I hear you.

If someone can post on here the LP policies which Starmer agrees with and the ones he doesn't support I would be grateful. Unfortunately having spent years as a QC I fear the man will never commit to anything, but will try to walk the middle road, being all things to all people and will suffer the fate that Nye Bevan warned about.

Ilovecheese Fight yer for it! Or maybe there are 2 of us???

I want to say that many of the points made are all referring to the past.
we won't be the same people or country when Covid has finished with us.
Nor will much of the world be the same.

Starmer does seem to be a decent person with a moral compass....and that in itself is rare these days. So far I like him and would vote for him.

You cannot expect the country to ever vote for a Lab Party that is banging on about a return to socialist values because the young have no idea what that means!
I doubt it is taught in schools.

We need new more progressive thinking, probably get rid of the FPTP and be more like our European neighbours.
If the Tories keep being returned to power there will nothing left of this country at all.

trisher I find myself totally agreeing with your post of 2.09.

(I am a Conservative)

Oops 14.09

Havn't the Government just banned any criticism of capitalism in schools.

Trisha is more articulate than I am and expresses many views that I agree with.
This is a very interesting thread though, with thought out and reasoned responses, in the main, which are making me think.
I hope very much to be able to vote for Labour at the next election, but would like more opposition to Conservative policies which want to retain the inequalities in our society, and which are wasting millions of taxpayers money on contracts for their friends.
I hope that those of you who think Keir Starmer is biding his time will be proved right.

nightowl aren't union members serving their own interests? they would be remarkably altruistic if they thought only of others and never of themselves. perhaps that is what all the union members in the rust belt were thinking when they voted conservative.

Those who know Starmer say that playing the long game is a key part of his personality. I like the subtlety but whether it will be successful who knows. The polling at the moment seems to indicate it will be but we have a very long way to go. I also think in a crisis situation such as this you have to play things very carefully.

Is winning the next general election any use if all you have is a watered down Conservative party who won't commit to changing anything?

Why do you think they wouldn't change anything, trisher?
The alternative is to continue with the Tories/Cummings in power for even longer.

I prefer moderate to watered down.

Labour run in Momentum style was rejected and McClusky is becoming more of an obstruction than an aid to the possibility of a future Labour Government.
If he worked with, rather than against, the present leadership then they would achieve more.
Sometimes we have to compromise to get what we wish for.

I am, however, mildly disappointed in Starmer so far and expected more 'spark'.

Not all union members vote Labour.

"Havn't the Government just banned any criticism of capitalism in schools"

I thought they had banned teaching material calling for an end to capitalism - just as no doubt Labour would want to ban any teaching material calling for an end to socialism

No propaganda should be taught in schools and healthy discussion should be encouraged without any pupil being condemned for differing views.