Jesus fecking christ..
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Seriously what kind of fecking stupid asshole do you have to be that you would even think something like that, let alone tweet it?!
This is why Corbyn was not liked. He reduced their influence.
Good to see them taking a stand. They should ask for transparency around the decision to pay out, rather than fight it.
Every candidate in the leadership election said they'd be settling the case, so that's probably as transparent as you'll get. And Len McCluskey complaining about Unite funds being misspent on legal fees is bold, to say the least.
How much does McCluskey earn per year? Hopefully he’s paid back that free loan he used to buy his house.
Very smart politics to piss off one of the biggest unions in the country.
That’s not transparent? I don’t care if it was Long-Bailey or Nandy in charge, I’d like some openness about the rationale behind the decision and the legal advice the party received.
But you already know why the decision was taken to settle, surely? It's the same reason that Long-Bailey said she'd do it during her (Unite funded) campaign. They want the EHRC to be the last pain they have to take, so they can move on with trying to build back trust (which, however you feel about where the blame lies in head office, was undoubtedly at a nadir among the jewish community). I imagine Unite were also told by their lawyers that they stood a good chance of winning against Anna Turley until they didn't, the risk of going through a lengthy court battle against people that complained against antisemitism in the party and losing was simply too great and would've been pretty catastrophic for any new leader.
There isn't one of Sir Keith's 10 pledges left not shat on and he's been in the job for four months.
This was before the report leaked. And every candidate said they were a Zionist too, which is pretty outrageous.
I think it’s easy to infer why they made the decision they did, but given the huge sums involved and the implications of not fighting especially in that regard, transparency on what the legal advice was would be helpful.
I think most people accept the logic in all that but justifying spending such sums of donors money is a lot harder. It's also asking people to ignore perceived injustices which is a harder pill to swallow.
It would be okay if people could get behind his policies but so far there's not been anything. If Sheerman isn't publically rebuked for his latest tweets it's just going to embed divisions and it'll be justified.
Pissing off McCluskey is a vote winner to be honest.
When you give money to the Labour party, the party decides what it is spent on. If McCluskey thinks he can buy more influence donating to the SWP or Liberals then get on with it.
He needs to shut up while the serious politicians try to clean up his mess.
When you give money to the Labour party, the party decides what it is spent on. If McCluskey thinks he can buy more influence donating to the SWP or Liberals then get on with it.
He needs to shut up while the serious politicians try to clean up his mess.
That's how I interpreted his threat.
But if you're going to settle, that's what you have to do, right? Labour Live cost £1m and I didn't see McCluskey complaining about that (at a time when Labour staff almost went on strike due to pay), even aside from his own hypocrisy regarding the use of Unite contributions to fund legal campaigns.
Sheerman should definitely be rebuked. Should also be said that the reason Long-Bailey was sacked was apparently because she refused to take the tweet down and didn't pick up her phone for 4 hours.
Perhaps he does not fancy paying off the legal timebomb that "sources close to the mother of his child" has left ticking on labours doorstep
better yet kick corbyn out of labour and let len fund some fringe party for him
I'll never quite understand the group of people who stay in the Labour party but also hate trade unions. Gives off very strange mid life crisis vibes but hey the world is made up off sorts.
You can hate several of the union leaders without hating the unions themselves.
A position that has never back fired.
Also if the issue is simply certain trade unions leaders then it's seems a bit useless, no ? At that point people might as well be complaining about a t.v. host they don't like(politics is show business but for ugly people etc etc).
Last edited:
Depends how much control those leaders have over the unions. If they're just a public face then sure your comparison is apt, but if they're actually controlling the direction/funding of those organizations then its a more reasonable reason to separate the two.
I'm pro-union but I really hate it when you get people in the top positions using their own political opinions and likes/dislikes to wield the power of the union, instead of just doing what's right for their members. Are Unite's members going to benefit from the union pulling their funding of Labour and strengthening the Tories? You could make an argument that just the threat of it might help push Labour leadership in a more leftward direction, but right now Labour are deeply mired in anti-semitism issues and trying to get out from under it so they can start to prepare for the next election. McCluskey apparently would rather leave them fighting the same shit for a lot longer to protect some of his pals on the Labour left. Considering how bad a beating Labour recently took, I don't see in the slightest how that benefits the Unite membership, and I'm damn sure this issue isn't in the top 10 (or probably top 100) priority list for those same members.
McCluskey also clearly thinks he's a really smart political operator as well, ten years of scheming to get his personal allies into positions in the party and feck all to show for it.
Different organisations with different mandates having different priorities and idea as to how to achieve their objectives. I know its a difficult one but if you really try I'm sure you will get the light bulb moment when it all makes sense. I fear that you might be middle aged by then though. It became pretty clear to me in the late 1970's, people won't vote for a Labour party prisoner to unions or the extreme left. Some lessons have to be learnt the hard way and over and over and over and over it seems.
It is almost as if the old unions knew what they were doing when they started a Labour party to do the Westminster getting voted into government/politics bit.
Aren't you the guy who sent me a link to a YouTube video interview with Matthew godwin(the man who eats books)on a channel called "triggernometry" ?
Yeah we might just have a tad different way of seeing the world.
Can't wait for my Damascene conversion in a couple of decades so I can adopt the correct position of *checks notes* opposing the organisation of workers as a Labour voter. The workers have been dictating affairs for too long. It's time we, as Labour voters, endorsed that fabled ideology of *checks notes* Margaret Thatcher and made sure Labour is no longer beholden to the destructive whims of trade unions.Aren't you the guy who sent me a link to a YouTube video interview with Matthew godwin(the man who eats books)on a channel called "triggernometry" ?
Yeah we might just have a tad different way of seeing the world.
You love me really.Aren't you the guy who sent me a link to a YouTube video interview with Matthew godwin(the man who eats books)on a channel called "triggernometry" ?
Yeah we might just have a tad different way of seeing the world.
As I remember it,
After Corbyn's disastrous defeat and your sorry mournful lament about analysis and where we might go from here, in the post election I told you so threads where you were not coping very well. I took pity on you and posted a link to people who had predicted the Labour defeat and Brexit well in advance. People who were correct in their analysis as apposed to you and your buddies on here who were wrong about the youth quake and everything relating to Corbyn and the Labour party and momentum.
People like Paul Embery for example who served on the executive council of the Fire Brigades Union and Godwin who's analysis was spot on about voting trends.
It would take the reasoning of a dumpling to come on this thread and try to belittle that given how wrong you were about the last election but here you are trying and failing once again.
Says Bobby, delegate from the Straw person Pointless Bullshitters and related trades confederation.
Yeah, and we have a strong trade union behind us, the Straw person Pointless Bullshitters confederation. Kind of useful in mitigating against the exploitation of workers. But you and your friend Maggie are correct, trade union power must be resisted at all costs.
Goodwin's had a shocker today. Got called out for citing a source that actually said the opposite of what he claimed and rather than acting with a shred of humility he basically said 'no I won't correct it I'm fine thanks', and then pretended he was being victimised for getting called out on that alongside other errors. It's a shame as Goodwin has the potential to be a very good commentator, his analysis can be insightful and he makes points that the left should engage with, even if that's merely to counter his inferences and conclusions.
But anyway, back to the point: there is nothing more depressing than seeing people who claim to support Labour yet buttress the neoliberal legacy of the likes of Thatcher and Reagan by supporting the erosion of trade union power.
Nothing more depressing than seeing people who claim to be Labour supporters yet buttress momentum ideological bullshit like anyone who knew Corbyn would be a disaster is a Thatcherite and supports the self interest of the Unite union over the Labour Party
Bobbies list of people he thinks hates Unions grows to include 1/2 of former Labour voters. The current Labour Leader, Most of the PLP and life long trade union members.
More straw.
Bobbies list of people he thinks hates Unions grows to include 1/2 of former Labour voters. The current Labour Leader, Most of the PLP and life long trade union members.
More straw.
You don't sound like a Labour voter.
Hell, you don't even understand that the biggest own goals under Corbyn were caused by the back stabbing and smears started from the very sections of the Labour party you now champion. Or have you not read the leaked messages?
I suggest you at least read this.
Anti-Corbyn Labour officials worked to lose general election to oust leader, leaked dossier finds
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html
Well that’s a ‘dossier’ written by Corbynites and refers to the election where they stopped the Tories getting a majority, not the one where they suffered the worst electoral defeat in modern history.
I wish I could agree, but I feel that's very much on the ascent within Labour at the moment.
Why does that Paul Embery guy have 'blue Labour' on his Twitter page. Firstly what the feck is blue Labour, and secondly his opinions on there are a perfect match for some UKIP cnut not a socialist.
Yes, Purple makes much more sense, if being a sort of conservative social democrat is the goal.
Really ? Where do you see it in the Labour party ?
Stuart Hall - Mad Dogs And Englishmen
https://jacobinmag.com/2012/09/mad-dogs-and-englishmen-stuart-hall-on-englishness/
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Impressive Starmer’s managed to see a -5 point swing against Labour with all that’s going on.
You can’t just dismiss it based on who wrote it, it’s based on WhatsApp messages and emails, the veracity of which are uncontested. Any Labour voter, pro-Corbyn or not, should be outraged at the dossier. It baffles me you want to downplay it. This is people at the heart of the party actively rooting against its electoral success. There’s no more egregious act I can imagine.