McCluskey really wants to ensure Labour will never be electable !

trisher

M0nica but McCluskey unlike millionaires is subject to the oversight of a committee and answerable ultimately to his members. Some of the questions those members will be asking Keir Starmer is how he will support unions and what he will do about zero hours contracts, unfortunately he seems to be reluctant to commit to anything. Peraps tightening the purse strings will make him more vocal.

Blimey, if the unions won’t stop at blackmail to try to force Starmer to comply with their demands then they lose my support and I would look for ways to lesson their power.

That is disgraceful!

M0nica but McCluskey unlike millionaires is subject to the oversight of a committee and answerable ultimately to his members. Some of the questions those members will be asking Keir Starmer is how he will support unions and what he will do about zero hours contracts, unfortunately he seems to be reluctant to commit to anything. Peraps tightening the purse strings will make him more vocal.

MOnica, very well put there.

As is often said of Conservative donors, he who pays the piper chooses the tune. Sometimes it is done quietly. Others are so brass necked and thick headed, that they cannot see that saying out light places them in a very bad light.

Well we digress here- but those gambling and day loans adverts would not be allowed in most countries- and truly shock us every time. Shameful.

And yes, I do hear you Trisher- but just cannot see how a divided LP tearing each other apart- is going to help. It will just ensure Tories get in again and again.

I'm with you on the gambling ads trisher. I wonder if we are old and out of step? (not meaning to be rude at all). I'm also fairly judgeypants about the extent of drug and alcohol used by many people, so called 'recreational drugs'. The UK has a bigger problem than most other European countries and I've long felt its a negative aspect of our 'culture'. Look at the Hogarth cartoons, its a longstanding problem, over indulgence.

And yes, we do have an increasingly polarised political scene. Abuse hurled rather than debates. I'm trying to stay positive

Iam64 thankfully the culture in the UK is different to that in the USA. There, 'liberals' are dangerous, an NHS is a wicked thing and just don't ever say socialism because they'll be hunting invisible reds under every bed
And yet isn't exactly that happening here? Socialism decried, people labelled as far left rather than red. the liberal elite castigated.
The number of adverts on TV for ways to win money astonishes me and some people must believe they will win some.

The Labour party must listen to its members who campaign for real democracy in the UK.

www.labourcampaignforelectoralreform.org.uk/

I think most people see being treated as "exploited proletariat" as patronising. They don't want to be pawns in a political game. They have hopes, aspirations and pride just like anybody else. They want politicians who will promise them something better - and that's exactly what the Conservatives have done. Whether they'll deliver and whether Starmer's Labour can give them the same promises is another matter.

trisher, thankfully the culture in the UK is different to that in the USA. There, 'liberals' are dangerous, an NHS is a wicked thing and just don't ever say socialism because they'll be hunting invisible reds under every bed

I live in hope that we can elect a Labour Party that appeals to the many not the few (see what I did there).
That's much more likely under the current leadership than it has been in recent years.

The hopes of voters winning the lottery is the reason the Corbyn led Labour Party lost the elections , does this mean labour supporters who didn’t vote for Corbyn are thick.

It may in fact already be too late. The reason socialism never took root in the USA was identified by Steinbeck Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist.
or in fact is more clearly described by Ronald Wright- Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Given the number of lotteries and games now available, perhaps this is now even more true.

I wonder what will have to happen to convince people of that Devorgilla?
Starmer is right, there's a mountain to climb to win an election, even to reduce that 80 majority. I know its important the LP pulls together but it takes two to tango. The image of McClusky trying the threaten Starmer won't be a positive one.

Iam64, I agree with your comments about the difference Blair and Brown made to many institutions across the country. I visited many schools in London during that time and the difference was enormous - decent buildings, equipment, teaching staff, inside loos etc. They brought education for the majority, and other areas, into the 21st Century and should be lauded for that.
If McCluskey fails to fund Labour's election efforts towards a Labour Government and we endure many more years of Tory rule I doubt there will be a Union left in this country to lead. Even if we don't get a Labour Government in four years time we need a much, much narrower majority to control the excesses of the likes of BJ and co.

Agree Iam

McClusky is indeed a dinosaur.
The Blair government came in after years of tory misrule, public services, including the premises in which they were based were in need of repair or rebuild. PFI is one of the things they're criticised for but anyone who worked in schools, nurseries, family centres, health, midwifery, drug/alcohol treatment teams, youth justice, social work etc etc during that period will tell you how many positives there were
One community school I worked in, built in an area of high deprivation, a former mining village, changed the lives of many for the better.
Iraq -of course, dreadful.
I want a LP that can win an election. The current lot have been dismantling those family centres, drug/alcohol, social work, probation etc etc that theBlair government funded. Not they're going after our Judiciary and "lefty" human rights lawyers. Its ok for Johnson and co. If they need legal representation they can afford to pay for it.
I can't see McClusky helping the LP to appeal to my neighbours, here in one of the Red Wall seats. It wasn't just Brexit that got them voting Tory for the first time. For several years I heard a growing chorus expressing the view theLP no longer stood for ordinary working folks. The Unions weren't popular either.

The LP being un-electable if totally controlled and led by the Unions and McC- is a strong argument in itself.

trisher, I actually agree- but division in the Labout Party will not achieve anything- only re-elect Tories.

I find what he says really interesting - and he is not talking about going back to the 70s and uncontrolled power to the Unions and McC

www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2749242995395997

trisher

I really object to the terminology which has become accepted as the norm. I am not, nor have I ever been far-left although I do know people who are. It is one of the ways that the Tories have succesfully colonised the middle ground of propaganda by appearing to change but still pursuing far right policies. They have pushed the Labour Party into joining the debate on their terms, speaking of Marxism and far left policies and insinuating that this would somehow make Britain like Russia. The fact is that the policies which the LP supports are neither far left nor Marxist they are simply socialist policies and all McCluskey is asking is that Starmer sticks to those policies. If Starmer refuses to do so why should he have the money and support of the Unions who are involved in the everyday battle to maintain the rights of their members (and therefore all workers' rights)? It would be betraying those people to give the money to him.

No not the people who give money, because just like the country at large they will be represented by all parts of the party. You cannot assume that they are all of the left rather than centre left.

So Starmer isn’t betraying anyone. He has never said that he intends to water down workers rights. Absolutely not!

I would also like to see the evidence that Starmer is refusing to accept policies that you describe as socialist. What you must however accept is that Starmer is not Corbyn and neither is he a carbon copy so I would be astounded if he does not intend to plough his own furrow. In fact I think it is essential to put clear blue water between the failed policies of the 2019 election an£ the future Labour Party.

However McCluskey who is of the left will feel betrayed. Well, hard cheese he is only one. Starmer is hoping to represent over half the country and so cannot be so narrow minded.

McCluskey’s threat may or may not become fact, we shall see, but the Labour Party cannot under any circumstances allow itself to be subject to such blackmail.

Can't see what that has to do with anything biba70 but your reluctance to present any real argument reinforces my belief. There is nothing far left going on, there are simply those people who have understood what has happened with the Tory propaganda machine and those who haven't.

who pays for his 400K London flat, I wonder

I really object to the terminology which has become accepted as the norm. I am not, nor have I ever been far-left although I do know people who are. It is one of the ways that the Tories have succesfully colonised the middle ground of propaganda by appearing to change but still pursuing far right policies. They have pushed the Labour Party into joining the debate on their terms, speaking of Marxism and far left policies and insinuating that this would somehow make Britain like Russia. The fact is that the policies which the LP supports are neither far left nor Marxist they are simply socialist policies and all McCluskey is asking is that Starmer sticks to those policies. If Starmer refuses to do so why should he have the money and support of the Unions who are involved in the everyday battle to maintain the rights of their members (and therefore all workers' rights)? It would be betraying those people to give the money to him.

If a centre left party is assumed to be more electable, doesn't the fact that the unions will give less money and therefore have less influence, improve the chances of Labour winning an election, not diminish the chances?

I am not sure that trying to take over Tory territory is always an election winner either. A couple of elections ago, when Labour were saying that they wanted austerity at least as much and possibly more than the Conservatives, they didn't win then either.

When Rachel Reeves was saying that Labour was no longer the party for unemployed people, that did not lead to a Labour win.

The mugs stating that they were tough on immigration did not lead to a win.

New Labour sometimes seemed almost to want to hide the improvements that they introduced, they should have been far more vocal about the improvements that things like Sure Start made to peoples lives, and that improving the lives of everybody is a good thing for the country as a whole.

The children who were in many cases helped (actually on aome cases I would say rescued) by the early intervention of sure start etc are now adults in our society. If Starmer wins which is more likely than corbyn, he would build on the work done with those families. Or we could just leave them to the likes of Johnsons government. I wonder which would improve their lives more.

Whitewavemark2
The working class struggle argument is nothing to do with the the ruling class and everything to do with Marxist philosophy
I'm glad somebody understood where I was coming from