Keir Starmer’s reshuffle & Angela Rayner

Ignored by the press, but AndyMcDonaldMP’s Shadow Cabinet position of Secretary of State for Employment Rights has simply not been filled by KS in today’s reshuffle.

It sums up Starmer's politics that he's cancelled the post of shadow secretary of state for employment rights.
Presumably, it's not needed because 'when business profits, we all do'.

KS donations from big businesses.

And you don’t get those without giving big businesses what they want.

Oh drone on Grany

More hot air. The function hasn’t been lost. We now have Imran Hussain as Shadow Minister for Employment Rights and Protections.

I think that Keir Starmers timing in introducing his reshuffle when Angela Rayner was giving a big speech has made him look a bit, well, ill mannered really. He may not want her, but she is his elected deputy and deserves respect at the very least.

I am also not sure that making it so obvious that he is either taking left wing voters for granted or actively discouraging them from voting Labour is very clever politically.

It will be interesting to see whether this new shadow cabinet leads to a sustainable poll lead for Labour. Will it depend on what policies they put forward?

Is it no longer the case that divided parties don't win elections as both major parties are pretty divided at the moment?

Labour’s biggest union donor is set to cut funding for the party Sharon Graham the Union leader said more needed to be done for workers.

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said that Unite would still pay £1 million in affiliation fees to Labour.

But Ms Graham, who took over from Len McCluskey in August, said in an interview with the Guardian newspaper that “there’s a lot of other money that we use from our political fund where, actually, I’m not sure we’re getting the best value for it”.

labourheartlands.com/unite-to-cut-funds-to-labour-party/?fbclid=IwAR2WYvOuFPcj1JBSyrfn8_rTiuzTegoPfijVNwdDjdoWMxB98ZgJs3ILDiU

That’s no surprise

That’s good news in my book. Being beholden to the unions is not a good place to be for any political party.

Agree Casdon

I think that the repurcussions of the re-shuffle in terms of Starmer vs Raynor are damaging to Labour. It would have been nice to hear people/media saying how good it was rather than focusing on the Starmer/Raynor relationship.
Starmer needs someone like Alistair Campbell to manage the message.

Sharon Graham is right though, in thinking that if no one in Westminster is going to support the people who are in her union, then they will have to do more themselves. There is a lot of uncertainty in today's workforce, they need an organisation which is there to support them.

Casdon and Annibach Do you prefer a political party which is beholden to its corporate donors then?

*Jane71 *What Starmer needs, I think, are policies as much as messages.

Maybe it’s time for all political parties to be centrally funded?

No income from Unions or big businesses, just membership fees along with an allowance from Parliament.

Yes I do prefer corporate donors to unions as a funding mechanism Ilovecheese, so long as it’s above board, and that donations are no strings attached. The demands from the unions in return for their financial commitment has become a burden that holds the party back from becoming electable. I agree that unions do need to become stronger representatives of their members, but not through political influence linked to funding.

Corporate donors won't fund the Labour Party for nothing they'd want something for their money.

All donations have strings attached.
Unions are likely to want more rights and better conditions for their members.
Corporate businesses are likely to want less rights for their workers and less regulation.
Both have their own interests at heart.
Neither give money with no hope of influence.

In principle you’re right, but there’s a difference though Ilovecheese. Donations from corporate bodies are one off, voluntary and any ‘terms’ can be negotiated and refuted if unacceptable.
For too long the party has been beholden to the unions, who in some cases are unrealistic (which is of course because they have to answer to their membership who always want more than is achievable). It’s all about proportionality.

How many Tory Lords were appointed after giving their party a donation of £3 million?

*Ilovecheese
Jane71 *What Starmer needs, I think, are policies as much as messages.

I think policies will come nearer the election. The aim now should be to appear as a government in waiting, and that is why messaging is key.

I realy can't believe that anyone would think that corporate donations to a party can in any way be compared to a Union donating to a party. What you are actually saying is that political parties should be available for purchase by the richest. Does anyone seriously think that a donation is made to any party without an expectation of some sort of return? And if there is a return isn't it better that the many working people who support Unions should have that return rather than a single rich individual seeking to increase their own wealth?

As for the Starmer reshuffle. He's digging a hole for himself and tryng to bury the left of the party. It's not what he promised to do. Isn't it interesting that the two most prominent MPs are both incapable of keeping promises.

GrannyGravy13

Maybe it’s time for all political parties to be centrally funded?

No income from Unions or big businesses, just membership fees along with an allowance from Parliament.

I've been saying this for a long time now, GG13. The current cash for peerages scandal has to come to an end.

What about donations to individual MPs, though?

And second jobs? The latest tory MP with 2 'second jobs' is getting £115,000 pa for about 10 -15 hours work pm. How can they possibly claim that this has no influence on them at all?

The unions control Labour governments. They even kept Lord
Robens in his job even though he lied in the enquiry for the
Aberfan disaster , remained silent when those who lost their houses were housed in caravans by the NCB and they had to
pay rent , remained silent when money was taken from the
memorial fund to pay towards removal of the tips.

Yes unions are for the workers !

The unions vetoed the motion at the last Labour Party conference for the Labour Party to support proportional representation, which was supported by more that 80% of constituency representatives.

There are dinosaurs in the unions who will keep the corrupt Tories in government forever and a day.

varian

The unions vetoed the motion at the last Labour Party conference for the Labour Party to support proportional representation, which was supported by more that 80% of constituency representatives.

There are dinosaurs in the unions who will keep the corrupt Tories in government forever and a day.

This

So you would rather have a party controlled by big business and rich individuals. Who do you think cares more about ordinary people? Of course unions make mistakes and take decisions people disagree with, but they have the best interests of ordinary people at their heart. Honestly talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.

Can you believe it? After blowing a £13 million war chest within just 18 months, Labour Party leader Keir Starmer is hammering the little people for cash again.

He’s embarking on a fourth round of staff redundancies and has been writing around to all constituency party units to find out if they have property he can sell off to pay for the huge expenses of the lawsuits he has incurred.

Starmer seems hell-bent on pushing his ideological support for the genocidal Israeli government to its worst extreme, persecuting rank-and-file members who hate the racism and persecution he represents – even though they are responding in the courts, to his party’s cost.

Would he be so keen on litigation if it was his own cash at risk? Doubtful.

But we all have to get behind him Grany or else it's our fault the Tories stay in power (nowt to do with the people who vote for them of course). He needs to go.