Keir Starmer’s reshuffle & Angela Rayner

Commonwealth citizens were affected by the government’s ‘Hostile Environment’ legislation - a policy announced in 2012 which tasked the NHS, landlords, banks, employers and many others with enforcing immigration controls. It aimed to make the UK unlivable for undocumented migrants and ultimately push them to leave.

Ian Hislop says that Keir Starmer has finally brought ‘some sensible people’ into the Shadow Cabinet and Clive Myrie rightly points out that Yvette Cooper is an absolute proven failure. The look on Hislop’s face. #HIGNFY

— Pete Dudgeon ?? (@PeteDudgeon1) December 3, 2021

Fascinating how the fact Yvette Cooper was Shadow Home Secretary from 2011-2015 has been completely forgotten, for a very good reason – she was completely and utterly invisible in the role, except for occasional gratuitous pandering to migrant bashing rhetoric

Remembering when Yvette Cooper accused Theresa May's 2014 immigration bill of being too soft on immigration.

You know, the one that directly allowed the Windrush scandal to happen.

And her appalling Priti Patel-esque voting record on Asylum Seekers. @Keir_Starmer @UKLabour

— Daniel Grigg (@Daniel_Grigg) November 29, 2021

By the way Urmstongran I love the way you put photos in your opening posts.

Not sure what it has got to do with Keir Starmer, but are you confusing the President and the Prime Minister of France Lincslass? Castex is the PM.

This is all I am saying, the French President is going to have to get re elected next year, hence the foot stamping,
fullfact.org/europe/french-pm-eu-president-punishment-letter/

For what it's worth I was very impressed with Peter Kyle and Kate Green, when they shadowed education together. Peter Kyle now shadows Northern Ireland. He really is worth listening to.

Wes Streeting is another. Bridget Phillipson, Thangam, Debbonaire, Rosina Allin-Khan, Lucy Powell, Rachel Reeves. Just a few of the lesser known MPs I rate. We can but hope.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 !

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?

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.

*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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agree Casdon

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