Snapshot of _What is the point of the Labour Party if it isn't going to loudly support the rail strikes?_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/opinion/labour-party-what-point-not-support-rail-strikes-1691975)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People will say that the point of Labour is to win elections, so they can govern. If that is their only goal then surely it would make more sense to become a populist party who support whatever policies will win them the most votes?
But that's not what Labour is about, because Labour is meant to stand for something. The clue is in the name. They're meant to be the party of working people. Labour are supposed to stand for workers rights and that includes the right to strike and fair compensation.
Labour isn't only about winning votes, its about changing hearts and minds. They're supposed to put forward the case for the alternative and defend it in order to win votes. Not just copy the Tory Party's homework and hope the teacher doesn't notice.
We need a proactive Labour Party that leads and doesn't follow. Is willing to offer people something other than Tory-lite. That doesn't allow Boris Johnson and the right-wing media to write the narrative for them.
> Democratic Socialism= Marxism=Communism
I mean, you need to talk to a lot of Corbynists that were running round shouting "RAISE THE RED FLAG, WE'RE SOCIALISTS!"
Except that socialism isn't communism or marxism (and was in fact around long before Marx).
Let's be honest, given the options, who else are actual socialists going to support? Even if Labour wasn't socialist it's still the closest chance they got.
>But that's not what Labour is about, because Labour is meant to stand for something
Exactly, I'm 100% sure if they actually committed to something relating to brexit, 2019 wouldn't have been so disappointing.
>Labour isn't only about winning votes, its about changing hearts and minds
Those two things are the same thing.
>Those two things are the same thing.
Not necessarily.
There's a difference between changing your policy to make it more appealing and making your policy more appealing by changing minds.
A national political party serves the whole nation. Not only those that vote for it, also those that voted for the other guy. Otherwise, it's just tribal.
It needs to be about both. Labour is not a union, and cannot be a pressure group that never gets elected.
If all the train workers vote Labour, and all the rail users vote Tory: there are a lot more users.
Labour is a political party, it's role is politics. It needs to be distinct from the Unions: and help more people understand what the unions are trying to say.
>People will say that the point of Labour is to win elections, so they can govern. If that is their only goal then surely it would make more sense to become a populist party who support whatever policies will win them the most votes?
I cannot stop reiterating Tony Blair's comments enough. Power without principles is barren Principles without power is futile. I'm sure that Labour do not want to be the party of futility. I'm not proposing Labour pursue blind populism, but nor should they martyr themselves at the altar of the sanctimonious principle. Political parties need to win elections to enact change! The point of the Labour party is to *enact change* not to be sitting on the sidelines.
>We need a proactive Labour Party that leads and doesn't follow. Is willing to offer people something other than Tory-lite. That doesn't allow Boris Johnson and the right-wing media to write the narrative for them.
We don't *need* that. And what's more, as the voters keep telling us, we don't *want* it either. I'm not sure if I'm living in some sort of alternative reality where Corbyn lost two elections on the spin, but just to verify - a genuine alternative was offered and roundly rejected, right?
Corbyn's policies were, on the whole, very popular:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/12/labour-economic-policies-are-popular-so-why-arent-
It was the man himself who wasn't:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corybn-labour-policies-toxic-general-election-2019-leadership-latest-a9279946.html
The last election was about Brexit, and Brexit only.
Other policies unfortunately became pointless
The second he went against himself and other socialists and refused to back Brexit he allowed Boris to sneak in through the back.
He didn't win, policies were popular individually but combined the public didn't see them as credible.
The public is aspirational and wants a positive message, not just stealing from the rich.
Blair's Third Way principles, which solve no underlying problems, like the neoliberalism of Clinton and Obama in the US, led directly to Boris and Trump. It's always one step forward, five steps back, as the system slides further and further toward a kind of techno-feudalism.
> a genuine alternative was offered and roundly rejected, right
Most parties would conclude they didn’t get the alternative right. It takes true Labour genius to conclude “No, a genuine alternative was rejected, so the public must want a fake and dishonest alternative!”
There are fundamental issues impacting this country that are far more important than striking, and the current conservative party is institutionally incapable of tackling them.
A change in government means a chance to fix those things. Pissing that away for some performative statements about something the opposition cannot control, is a dereliction of duty towards the much larger group of working people suffering (and to suffer) from the fundamental demographic, trade, economic and col problems that will be hammering us for the foreseeable future.
>What reason is there to believe that the current iteration of labour is capable of tackling them?
Because they're a team of competent, decent enough people. This is why most people generally think they would be better across a fair range of topics.
>They largely seem to want to continue the same policies that got us into this mess.
In some ways, this is because these are the issues that the British public are concerned about. Even if we just assume that they'll execute some of these things reasonably competently, instead of spending months threatening to rip up the NIP (for example), then that would be a good start.
People - mostly - aren't against the Tory agenda. That's why they voted for it. This is where the voters stand on the whole. They want less immigration, higher wages, better schools, etc. The Tories promised it and haven't delivered, but that doesn't mean Labour shouldn't also attempt to address people's concerns.
> Because they're a team of competent, decent enough people. This is why most people generally think they would be better across a fair range of topics.
This is the only Labour leader in the history of the party to be on the Trilateral Commission. Starmer will be a bankster shill, just like Blair was (his first act as Prime Minister was to deregulate the banks), both prepared by the ruling class specifically because it was understood that the Tories were falling out of favor. Whatever right wing populist comes after Starmer,and Biden in the US - because their Third Way politics never actually addresses root causes - will be horrendous.
We tried that with Corbyn. Returning successive Tory landslides.
We didn't like the idea of being permenantly unelectable.
We didn't like Tory sleaze-balls putting public funds in their friends pockets.
We didn't want another decade of that.
You don't have to be hard-left though to stand with workers or at least take principled stances on issues. The Tories are on the backfoot and many workers believe they've been treated with contempt while in the midst of a cost of living crisis, it's such an easy attack line for Labour to pursue, even from a cynical POV.
That's the problem with the modern Labour Party, as far as they're considered there are only two options: Tory-lite or Corbyn 2.0.
There's a whole middle-ground of politics between the centre and the far-left that are appealing to people.
Corbyn was an unpopular politician running on a popular platform. Its obvious that although his policies were popular he had a lot of issues which made him unpopular.
But does that mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater? Gordon Brown lost to Cameron in 2010 but we didn't claim that his policies were unelectable and vowed to never let the party lurch to the right again.
Plenty of his policies regarding higher spending/taxing the rich were and are pretty popular with the public. We've seen the Tories just recently doing a U-turn on the windfall tax because the public wanted them to take on big oil and gas firms. The primary issue was that Corbyn himself wasn't very popular for a mixture of reasons. But there's no reason Labour can't borrow from his platform while doing more to appease Tory voters in other regards (standard patriotic stuff he was seen as weak on etc).
The media that says judges are enemies of the people and though Brexit was a good idea? I understand the dilemma of needing to win power but also stand for something, I'm just not wholly convinced Labour will do much if they do get in.
It wasn't glowing. It begrudgingly backed Labour as a whole but skirted around its leader. "Can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all".
Focused mostly on sinking the Tories instead.
>They're meant to be the party of working people.
tbf these strikes are deliberately aimed at disrupting the lives of working people, there's no winners in this except the government because now all eyes are on the opposition
that plus the supporters of the strikes will vote for Labour no matter what
Because when it releases a manifesto it will be a mixture of centrist and left wing stuff that enough people will like, and we live with a crappy electoral system which benefits larger established parties.
That’s what I don’t get here. The average Tory voter and the wealthy aren’t desperately bothered by these strikes. Even those in London who use the tube or commuter trains will likely just work from home for a few days. These strikes really only disadvantage other workers.
See, in politics whatever you do is going to really piss some people off. That's always going to happen, but you have to decide who you want to appeal to, and in doing so who you will really piss off.
It's just not possible to please everyone.
Then, when you try to please some people, you really have to own that. You have to explain in a way that cuts through why you believe what you do and why you're doing what you do.
The problem is that this Labour Party operates on the back foot, through fear. It doesn't do things because what the Tories and their client media will claim.
But guess what? The Tories and their client media are still going to attack you. They're going to call you out for not having policy. They're going to say that you're weak. They're going to find every way they can of still attacking you.
In the meantime, you really piss off people that you should be courting... In this Labour Party's case a lot of their core support including workers, including the soft left and those further to the left.
In the hope of getting some of the Tory's centre-right voters. Some of whom might vote for Starmer.
But many won't still. Even over this issue, Johnson keeps calling them "Labour strikes" and "Labours' strikes" - meaning strikes by people who provide Labour... But his MP's are going into the media and saying things like "Thanks, Keir!" about the strikes happening...
And of course, those that do or would vote for Starmer's Labour and are centre-right or at least not far-right... Well, as soon as Johnson is replaced will end up voting for the new Tory leader anyway - likely no matter who it is "to give them a chance" to begin with.
Then Labour have really pissed off a lot of their own support base, and lost those new voters they were trying to trade them in for....
As I say, Labour needs to start standing for something again, and taking control of the narrative - having the backbone to say it with conviction and to challenge those that BS about their intentions, etc.
>The problem is that this Labour Party operates on the back foot, through fear. It doesn't do things because what the Tories and their client media will claim.
Just want to echo this sentiment. The pants wetting fear thats gripped Labour and the left in general at this point is truly pathetic, and so transparent. It's laughable, and an enormous obstacle to the success of the party.
And what's more you can never bring this criticism up, even from the center ground, because its always instantly met with some hysterical shrill about far leftism or Corbyn or some such nonsense, as if having a spine and principles and going out and arguing for them vociferously in the public arena is somehow exclusive to the political fringes.
Labours best electoral success was under New Labour, which most people attribute to their policy triangulation. Whilst that was a key ingredient, what people forget about that formula was the additional, and equally important, factor that was present of the party having an actual ideological backbone, principles and vision for the country that it was happy to shout from the rooftops and explain to people who disagreed with it why they were wrong. You knew what Blair's Britain was going to look like long before the '97 election. That's very different to whatever weird needle Keir's Labour keeps trying to thread. They've missed the most important part of the puzzle.
>You knew what Blair's Britain was going to look like long before the '97 election. That's very different to whatever weird needle Keir's Labour keeps trying to thread
This is by far my biggest issue with Labour under Starmer, I'm not a fan of Corbyn in the slightest but it was something he did right. I knew what I would be getting under a Corbyn govt (admittedly that made me not vote for him).
I see no real positive reason for voting for Starmer. There's lots of negative reasons, such as he *isn't* Boris, he *isn't* this, he *doesn't* do that, he's finally *against* this, he absolutely categorically *wouldn't* do that.
Its a general fact of politics that making the people that will vote for you any way super happy at the expense of people that might vote for you is not a great strategy. Any political advisor to Starmer is saying "support the unions and the right to strike lukewarmly, don't end up on photographs with hammer and sickles & Palestinian flags"
The National Rifle Association of America was founded in 1871. Since 1977, the National Rifle Association of America has focussed on political activism and pro-gun lobbying, at the expense of firearm safety programmes.
The National Rifle Association of America is completely different to the [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) in Britain (founded earlier, in 1859); the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au);
the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com) and the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), which are all non-political sporting organisations that promote target shooting.
It is very important not to confuse the National Rifle Association of America with any of these other Rifle Associations. The British [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) is headquartered on Bisley Camp, in Surrey, England. Bisley Camp is now known as the National Shooting Centre and has hosted World Championships for Fullbore Target Rifle and F-Class shooting,
as well as the shooting events for the 1908 Olympic Games and the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The National Small-bore Rifle Association (NSRA) and Clay Pigeon Shooting Association (CPSA) also have their headquarters on the Camp.
Most of that is quite sensible, just not the full support bit, I'd tone it down to "the right to withdraw labour generally" rather than fully support this specific strike.
Depends on the numbers of those categories. If the number of people you make happy far out-weigh the numbers your actions displease then the electoral calculus suggests to make those people unhappy.
As long as you give decent reasoning at the time so people can go back and look at it with the benefit of hindsight and say "actually, maybe I was wrong and this was for the best" rather than your messaging being needlessly antagonistic and vague in your reasoning.
Honest politics requires decent communications.
Not being on the picket lines loses no votes from the current position of an election winning 41%. Being on picket lines photographed with the SWP and worse risks a swing.
No sensible party would risk it
Demanding that your front bench isn't on the picket lines does lose votes though.
There's a nuance in there that's lost on many.
Combine that with a lot of the rhetoric and lack of clarity coming from Starmer on the matter, because he can't give a clear position with clear messaging on the matter....
And then he can't give a clear position with clear messaging on many other policy items.
It's not a good look - and overall does lose lots of votes.
This is so naive its painful. If the people who you make happy would vote for you anyway, making them happier gets you exactly zero extra votes. Meanwhile switching a tory voter counts double towards switching a seat. This means the only way to get elected is from the centre. Voters also do not look back with hindsight and admit they were wrong. It is just not in human nature to do so.
>making the people that will vote for you any way super happy at the expense of people that might vote for you is not a great strategy
Sure. What your missing here is that for Labour and the left in general "people who will vote for you anyway" is actually a very relatively small number of people. There are plenty of people who Labour will alienate who quite happily won't vote for them, because they're far more comfortable with staying at home or voting for the multitude of left wing alternatives that are out there.
Nowadays Labour don't have a loyal base that's wide enough to rely on. They do, at times, actually need to throw some red meat to them, even if it comes at the expense of another groups support.
Both parties have a floor of about 30% (I think the Liberals could have shattered that if they hadn't been stupid but...).
Sure you use some red meat, but you pick your cuts. For the tories is stuff like Rwanda, fires the base, annoys people in labours base. The rail strikes attack everyone outside the 30%, the optics of being on the picket with tankies, attacks everyone outside the 30%. Kier and his advisors aren't stupid.
To be clear this strategy is the exact reason why support for Labour in Northern seats fell for the best part of 20 years and ultimately, cost them the election in 2019.
If you ignore your base, eventually they'll not bother turning up, at which point they're primed to vote for anyone else who isn't assuming they will vote for them regardless.
Labour really hasn't learnt this lesson from 2019, it hasn't learnt that in order to concentrate on the fringes, you have to make sure your base is secure.
'Who the fuck else are you going to vote for' isn't a sustainable offer and eventually it will blow up in their face, again.
Not sure thats really correct
2019 was purely because Labour positioned themselves categorically as anti-brexit, not ignoring their base, but being actively against them. It would be more analogous to Labour MPs currently suggesting bussing in foreign contractors to manage the trains.
It was because they equivocated on Brexit, losing votes to the LDs from the anti-Brexit crowd, to the Tories from the Brexit supporters and through general apathy because they couldn’t pick a side and voters saw through that.
A better analogy would be regarding the Cost of Living crisis (the biggest actual issue) and Starmer standing there saying he wouldn’t reverse any of the Tory tax rises, reinstate the energy cap but also that if you vote Labour they’ll magically fix the crisis but without explaining any policies that will do so.
Can we not re-write history please? Labours explicit policy was for a second referendum based on renegotiation they wouldn't support. That isn't apathy, its anti and it cost them a decent vote swing.
I don't get your updated analogy, that just sounds like a standard Labour manifesto to me :)
Cancelling Brexit would be anti-Brexit. Having a referendum “based on a renegotiation they wouldn’t support” is exactly the equivocation I described - it’s punting the choice onto voters without taking a stance. Thanks for confirming.
It wasn't equivocation, it was anti-brexit. A double referendum is and was anti Brexit, which rightfully narked off a motivated base and punished Labour. Regardless of its being a bad idea or not, that needed to happen.
Farage advocated a second referendum prior to getting the result he wanted and I doubt his intentions were “anti”. Holding a second referendum isn’t in and of itself “anti”.
Labour could’ve easily taken a position where they’d have had a second referendum, and actively campaigned against Brexit. They didn’t and the public didn’t like that. *That* would’ve been anti-Brexit. The fact they couldn’t say whether they’d campaign to stay in or leave was (rightly) seen as equivocation. You do see the difference, right?
Holding a referendum isn’t actively taking a position.
Holding a referendum and not specifically saying which way you would campaign is equivocation.
Holding a referendum and actively campaigning against the previous referendum is “anti”.
It's also down to the fact a lot of Red Wall areas have increasingly older populations who own their own homes - basically prime Tory voter territory. Labour will likely win some of these areas back next time but non-city areas with lots of homeowners are intrinsically going to be more difficult for Labour to win compared to before in years to come for as long as there's a housing crisis, because Tory policy largely operates to the benefit of homeowners at the expense of renters who are being squeezed.
This trend wasn't noticed by some because Corbyn overperformed to expectations in 2017, but a lot of these Red Wall seats had been trending downwards for a while for Labour, even if they, say, gain Dennis Skinner's seat, a dominant Labour Party probably isn't going to rack up the types of majorities there they did back in 97.
If you think backbone and conviction is what's lacking in the Labour recipe, you haven't really been paying attention. Plenty of people in Labour's history have stood their ground with backbone, with conviction, with compelling, powerful rhetoric. They've backed it with serious policy proposals, crafted messaging to excite the base, they've gotten people on the streets en masse to back the message. And still Labour governments over the last hundred years are so few and far between, a drop of red in an ocean of blue - most of that drop being a three-term government which didn't exactly follow your approach.
The number of elections lost through failing to excite the base is zero. Number of elections lost through failing to win the middle ground and the undecided swing voters is **all of them**.
Labour isn't an activist group. Their one singular job is to bid to represent the broadest coalition of voters possible, and that almost always means denying your core voters many of the items on their policy and identity wishlist.
> Labour isn't an activist group. Their one singular job is to bid to represent the broadest coalition of voters possible, and that almost always means denying your core voters many of the items on their policy and identity wishlist.
That's true but you can still do this while having strong ideological policies motivated by conviction. Brexit at one point was a fringe idea that only primarily interested a selection of the Tory membership for the most part as something to pursue rigidly - by 2019 they had managed to turn it into a central election winning issue because they pursued it effectively.
The issue here for Starmer is that he risks being perceived as weak by both sides. Most right-wing voters will perceive him as pro-union because Labour is inherently the party associated with unions, and Boris will probably just continue to lie and say Starmer backs the strikes anyway. The Tories aren't in a good position right now and the public don't trust the PM - if there's ever a time for Starmer to try to win over the electorate on key issues, it's now. And while Starmer is doing better than Corbyn was, he's currently only just ahead of a PM who's widely detested at the moment and isn't guaranteed to win in 2024. His approach isn't failing disastrously but it's hardly been given a ringing endorsement by voters either.
>Their one singular job is to bid to represent the broadest coalition of voters possible
Except that's not what they're doing, is it?
They're bidding to represent just the smallest set of soft-right voters at the moment.
That's the problem. And if that means that they're willing to lose a lot of other voters on the left, then so be it. That's on them.
Time will tell which of us is right... But the country and the world isn't the same as it was 15 years ago, or 25 years ago, or more....
The key flaw with this argument is that it assumes ‘swing voters’ are inherently in the political middle. This isn’t the case, there are swing-voters all over the political spectrum. Some of them are relatively centrist sure, but there’s no inherent reason why pandering to them would be more fruitful than pandering to anyone else.
Absolutely- there’s a distinct lack of any sort of Left-Right debate at the moment. I’m a lifelong labour voter but can’t see any reason to continue- “not the tories” is not a valid campaign argument, particularly when the difference is so minimal.
They have, the people they're supposedly upsetting by not taking a stance vote Labour no matter what
and here's an inconvenient truth; the Labour party hates the unions, it hates that it's seen as dependent on them, it's costs them elections, it makes them look weak, they'd love nothing better than to separate from them if they could
>They have, the people they're supposedly upsetting by not taking a stance vote Labour no matter what
That's changing, rapidly. Too many are fed up being taken for granted, being told to "shut up and be quiet, but you MUST vote for us otherwise it's ALL YOUR FAULT!".
Too many are wanted purely for votes, for membership fees... And in return get shown contempt.... Often by those who did everything they could to attack the party, even sabotage elections, when their preferred faction didn't have control of the party.
(That's not a defence of Corbyn, before anyone goes down that path - just stating the hypocrisy that exists, and both major factions of the Labour Party can be guilty of it...)
But Starmer and co, with zero vision - or at least no vision that they're willing to actually share, with no desire to set the narrative, and only wanting to appeal to the centre-right and take everyone else for granted...
Well those they choose to alienate is on them. People are getting increasingly fed up of being taken for granted and treated like shit.
If they don't rapidly change things, they'll probably not win. If they do win, then in large part it will be down to how bad the Tories are as much as anything else.
I expect better, personally, and so do many others.
Time will tell if I'm right or not.
Isn't the clue in the name of the party?
For years people were saying that Labour needed to get back to it's roots to stop losing the working class vote.
Out of curiosity, would any labour leader have survived 2019 with Labour's stance?
Second do you think people were voting for manifestos or were they voting for Brexit in 2019?
>Out of curiosity, would any labour leader have survived 2019 with Labour's stance?
I'm not who you asked but I'd say no. The policies really didn't matter that much in the 2019 election; it was all about Brexit, and I know for a fact that Yvette Cooper, who possibly could've won the leadership election if Corbyn wasn't there, was opposed to a second referendum. But that would've lost a lot of remain votes.
Fact is, Labour were caught between rock and a hard place in 2019. Whichever way they went they would've lost votes. So I don't blame Corbyn for prevaricating at all - what else could he have done? Labour were truly stuffed when it came to Brexit - every other party's voters, by and large, were one side or the other, but Labour? Basically split down the middle - 60%+ of their voters were remain but 60%+ of their constituencies were leave. No Labour leader could've done much in that situation.
Obviously you didn’t actually read the Manifesto before the last GE…like so many who complained on the doorstep about, communism, terrors its friends, Brexit confusion…yet the manifesto quite clearly set out a road to better pay and rights for workers, cutting off tax avoidance and off shore banking, funding health and education properly with more health/ education professional and not poorly qualified non professionals and controlling the financial service sector to prevent 2008-10 happening again. Palestine was a minor issue below that…but hey Get Brexit Done…..
I read it, but my point is that the majority of "traditional" Labour voters didn't because of all the noise that had been kicked up about other things.
Corbyn was a decent man, who had too much baggage to ever be a realistic proposition for as an election winner.
With hindsight I would agree but the last Labour Socialist died following a heart attack, allowing Anthony Lynton Blair to hijack the Party via the Dark Lord Mandehlson and his den of dirty thieves...Tony Benn has been proved right I think, "we now have a 'Socialist' Party without any 'Socialists' and they are becoming the alternative to the Tory's when the public get tired of them", the Policies are so similar that no-one notices....
That kind of depends; in the old days people would understand the differential employed by Governments or employers to paint up the strikers in a negative way. Now people don't really get it. People have become more inverted in their lives. Look at Covid. Millions of people adhered because they understood THEY were in danger. But climate change is different because it's somewhere else, it's cognitive dissonance.
I hear a lot of people saying 'sack the lot of them' or 'it's inconsiderate to mess people about' but these people miss the point; largely these people do good work and get nothing back, no thanks, nothing. So when their terms and conditions are altered to an unreasonably degree, people who use those services have to admit such people exist. And because it makes their ride a bit more bumpy, they get all shirty about it.
But many of them don't realise they are subject to the same actions the train staff are facing now. they don't appreciate that; it's the 'it won't happen to me' mentality which never works out well.
The people that are going to be pissed off are going to be pissed off either way - see for example Telegraph headlines calling this "Labour's Summer of Discontent". If you read that sort of paper and believe it's schtick then the real statements that Labour make are only going to get through in an unrecognisably warped form. There's no point pandering to a hostile press that's going to attack you whatever and their readership who are, unfortunately, too far under the influence to be reached.
>The people that are going to be pissed off are going to be pissed off either way
Yeah but if there's a sure fire way to get people politically engaged it's to piss them off so you want to make sure it's not you pissing them off.
Think about how many businesses, coffee shops etc are set up around stations, how many retail workers rely on the tube etc.
This isn't the miners' strike which was a direct miners' vs government, or some factory strike etc, it's deliberately targeting people who probably aren't normally politically engaged, hence Labour would really like to distance themselves
No-one in their right mind "supports" strikes. Strikes are a last resort. A failure of communication and diplomacy. But the ability to withhold your labour for genuinely good reason is one of the most fundamental rights in our democracy.
Put bluntly, Labour isn't in need of votes from those who want to see full-throated support for strikes.
Labour does need votes from those who are massively inconvenienced by them.
The former group are comprised of people who will either vote Labour regardless or won't vote for this current Labour Party as they're not left-wing enough. Their stance on rail strikes alone isn't going to change their vote.
For the swing voters, however, they have to play the game.
Too many left wingers complain about right wingers playing politics to stay in power (such as Boris's campaign from the right, rule from the left, "stealing Corbyn's ideas"), then whinge when Labour finally takes on a strategy to actually get back into power.
They'd prefer a solid idealist like Corbyn to loudly and valiantly stand up for what they believe in and get destroyed in election after election instead.
Rail strikes disproportionately impact lower paid workers because they are (1) more reliant on public transport and (2) more likely to be obliged to be physically present for their jobs.
The answer then shouldn't be less workers rights. Instead of saying people shouldn't strike because it disproportionately impacts lower paid workers Labour should be saying that there should be greater protections for employees who are effected by strikes against being reprimanded by their employers.
Boris and the Tories have fed this strike. They want it to go ahead and made sure it would happen. The Tories and their MSM propaganda machine will now relentlessly blame the strikers, the Unions and Labour for a worsening economy. Their aim will be to convince floating voters in key constituencies that these strikes have made the next round of cost of living rises worse than they would have been and that they have a plan to make sure the Unions can't do it again if we vote them back in at the next election.
Labour, on the other hand, have one job. Their job is to win the next election. That's it because they can do absolutely nothing from the opposition benches where they've sat for the last 12 years. To do this, they are going to have to win the same marginal seats that the Tories are after without the aid of a predominantly right wing propaganda outlet we know as the MSM. The hard facts are that the Tories (since Thatcher) have suceeded in convincing people that strikes are greedy workers holding the country to ransom. This is why Grant Schapps is quoting that train drivers earn 50k+ a year at every opportunity. It doesn't matter that train drivers are not even represented by the RMT.
IMHO if Labour came out in full support of the strike, they would undo all the progress they have made in the last two years in a stroke and would literally be playing straight into the Tories hands.
Just my opinion... I hope I'm wrong :)
One glaring issue in all of this that you have missed is that labour can work to reframe that narrative and call the tories out on their bullshit.
They should be on the news, front and centre as much as the tories pointing out that the drivers on 50k aren't part of this union, this union is for guards, cleaners etc, and that the tories are lying to you because they think you're thick. Go on the offensive for fucking once.
Labour are too fucking passive and constantly let the tories shape the narrative under Kier and I don't think it's a winning strategy. The whole labour strategy has been to point out that Boris is bad and you know what? The tories will replace him with someone like Hunt and labour will have no attack lines left
>One glaring issue in all of this that you have missed is that labour can work to reframe that narrative and call the tories out on their bullshit.
The narrative here is that these are Tory strikes, from a decade of Tory austerity. Angela Rayner comes out today and says as much but it gets little to no traction.
>Labour are too fucking passive and constantly let the tories shape the narrative under Kier and I don't think it's a winning strategy.
Then why are Labour ahead in the polls?!
>The whole labour strategy has been to point out that Boris is bad and you know what? The tories will replace him with someone like Hunt and labour will have no attack lines left
Their attack angle - which again, is getting no traction - is that the Tories, collectively, are incompetent. That they cannot deliver on *anything* they promise. The media are running it as a "Boris Johnson is bad" story because - again - Labour do not have the power to set the agenda without a press outlet.
I honestly *wish* I lived in the UK that you Redditors seem to live in, where everyone is a socialist revolutionary hiding in the docile body of a middle-aged accountant living in the home counties and an active member of his rotary club. In that UK, presumably they're casually reading the Times everyday waiting for a call to arms from Starmer, but Starmer is holding fire. Next time I'm sat in a fucking Zizzi's in some godforsaken part of the Midlands like Coalville, I'll look around and think "Yes, this is the setting from which a revolution will arise", as Carol, a retired school-teacher from Letchworth, tucks into her lukewarm spagbol.
The vast majority of people are basically status quo Tories and appealing to them is *how you win elections*. And on top of that, everyone complaining that Starmer hasn't marched with the RMT would continue to say "Labour will lose votes" because Starmer still isn't left enough. It's just absolutely pointless him trying to appeal to this group - it will *only* lose him votes.
One of starmers allies was on telly today arguing against the head of the RMT union. Not sure that necessarily fits your narrative there.
He doesn't have to be on the front lines, but sending people out to argue against the RMT and threatening people to not go out and picket is plain wrong, dumb and goes against your point.
That's why Starmer should of focused on the manifesto which was popular. To do that, he would have to admit that 2019's loss was due to Brexit. But he, Ashworth and the gang came up and made it about Corbyn as soon as we lost.
This was an obvious ideological power grab which has now put them in a pickle.
Any attempt to use those policies will sound dishonest ( See Streetings support for strikes as soon as Starmer is rumoured to leave versus his stance on NHS privatisation).
I think this project will come halting to an end quicker than most anticipated. Labour needs a leader who isn't an ideological purger, bring the membership on board and once and for all inspire something that is not tied to Blair.
Edit:
It feels like the Tories evolved into what Blairism would evolve to, hence why Starmer and Co struggle for inspiring policies. "We are not the tories" screams " we will adopt similar policies just without a clown".
2017 showed that people do desire an alternative in policies and ideology to what the tories were doing. 2019 was a brexit election. Why not go back to the most recent and popular manifesto?
Oh yeah, ideology warfare caused by broken pledges..
It makes full sense...the manifesto, was a living thing as it was being explained and put forward by human beings, who were drowned out by the howls and caterwauling of a biased media doing the bidding of it's paymasters...
>Why not go back to the most recent and popular manifesto?
Manifestos play next to no part in elections. However, specifically rehashing a Corbyn one would be the world's easiest attack line for the Tories.
> That's why Starmer should of focused on the manifesto which was popular.
**It was not popular enough to win an election**
I question whether it was really popular at all given the only evidence is a survey that can be boiled to down people being asked "Would you like a free pony"? And answering "Yes".
Of course they're going to say yes, there was no cost or downside to any of the things they were asked about.
New Labour is all about big business and nestling into their bossom
Old Labour are red commie marxist's
Sorry Labour is....less about the working man, the Labourer as it were, then ever before - sure they're better then the Tories, but it's pretty much now 'Tory-lite' maybe a little less cronyism and rich mates, but not by much
I'd love a choice a party for the people......just ain't one
I mean, I largely support these strikes, but you have to be completely politically tone-deaf to think being "loudly supportive" about them wouldn't be detrimental to getting elected.
You can't stand for everyone at once. That's impossible and near-contradictory.
Unions are organised and informed on what the working class, the Labour movement, want to see from their politicians.
>The question marks are because I was asking what you think.
>
>"if you think they should essentially run as a direct democracy of the entire electorate"
Nope - you assumed I believed something that wasn't remotely connected to what I wrote, and framed a question accordingly.
They seem to stand for nothing other than avoiding standing for something for fear of what Johnson and the Tories client media might say, to be honest....
Can't imagine there are many workers who don't want a pay rise. The public sector have been getting below inflation rises for years - they are tapped out.
Can't wait to read the headlines about cancelled trains / hospital operations / etc. twelve months from now as people leave and they struggle to recruit replacements.
Who are the people of the uk? Are the people who are striking or support the strikes no longer uk citizens? Or do I have to wave a flag around and refuse to shut up about brexit to be considered British nowadays
Would you rather lose and implement 0% of your policies but at least you can say you had your principles or compromise, win and implement 50%.
The point of the Labour Party is to win, not to shout things loudly.
Or put another way, would you rather look like you have no backbone, stand for nothing, are running scared of even the joke that is Johnson, letting him set the narrative and manipulate you... And so lose and implement 0% of your policy that way?
Or would you rather explain that you support workers that are at the end of their tether, been trying to work with their employers and government to solve this problem for two years... And as a matter of last resort, have democratically elected to take industrial action? That the government could have and should have come to the table and helped with negotiations in good faith to prevent this - but even yesterday were lying through their teeth and have actually forced this action because they're trying to divide people for their own benefit? That this isn't acceptable and that we should stand with ordinary people that this government is trying to crush - and although it's train workers today, who will it be tomorrow? To tell this truth clearly, and win people over so that you can win the next election and implement your policies that way.
The fact is, from 2020 figures, only 24% of UK employees are Trade Union members, 76% are not.
Labour can either stand up for the rights of the 24% which would alienate the 76% and give the Tories an open goal when it comes to dividing the population in their favour (again) or they can continue to work for the rights of all workers by not abandoning the 76% of employees that are being treated just as badly as those in unions.
>Labour can either stand up for the rights of the 24% which would alienate the 76%
This is a false dichotomy. Standing for the rights of 24% of the population doesn't automatically mean the other 76% are alienated. It's not an either/or situation. I know plenty of people who are supporting the strike despite not being in a union.
We shall see. From the reports I have seen from just todays strike and it's Labour back bench support, I think the way the MSM will play this will pretty much guarantee alienation from the strikers. I think Labour and their poll lead is about to get battered.
I hope I'm wrong !
It's not about that though is it.
It's about apealing to the majority of voters in order to win an election and in the workforce, the majority are not union members.
Maybe they just don't see will paid rail workers striking for 11% pay rise something worth throwing an election away for?
I'd much rather they support other strikes than this one, personally.
Amen.
Unfortunately for many involved in the left of Labour, the most important thing is not to win, but to be seen to performatively "do a Socialism" - actual impact on people's lives be dammed.
Because it’s trying to win the votes of a country of 60 million people, many of whom see the strike action as selfish given the huge amount of covid support train workers got and that passenger levels have still not returned to pre covid levels.
They’re not after the votes of 50,000 rail workers.
>the huge amount of covid support train workers got
What support support did train workers get?
They continued to work throughout lockdown as they are essential workers, they didn't recieve furlough.
Train _companies_ received support from the government but that was mainly used to pay existing wages rather than paid out as any sort of bonus.
The support that rail workers are actually going to recieve is a cut to their real term wages via a below inflation payrise and mandatory redundancies. Doesn't sound like support to me.
Because how DARE people want good working conditions, and to not have to worry about falling into poverty. Its so greedy! If people don't want to be miserable, they should have just been born rich! /s
There are better groups to support. The railways receives huge public subsidies and still has ridiculous costs. This was was exacerbated by covid when the industry received even more public money for no return.
Sir Keir is right to have a muted response here, the public aren’t overjoyed at the thought of railway workers getting even more money.
But when the nurses or teachers start protesting, that’s when the mood will shift and Labour can be far more supportive
You're joking - I see people shit-talking teachers all the time. A lot of people are under the impression we didn't actually do any work during the lockdowns!
Nurses, I'm with you though.
What does any of that have to do with the workers? They don't set the prices.
What the workers did was continue to work throughout lockdown, (they were essential workers, they're weren't furloughed) and in exchange they're facing redundancies and real term cuts to their wages.
There is no point to them anymore. Labour supporters are (59%) [broadly in favour](https://www.newstatesman.com/chart-of-the-day/2022/06/where-does-public-opinion-stand-on-rail-strikes) of the strikes. Yet once again the leadership does the opposite of something the majority agree with out of fear of being attacked. Yet they're being attacked anyway. It's just another Starmer cowardly stance.
This pre-supposes that post-Corbyn Labour has a heart and is being politically shrewd. This is belied by everything we’ve seen of Starmer and co. When people show you who they are, believe them.
Solidarity, forever.
>What is the point of the Labour Party if it isn't going to loudly support the rail strikes?
To get into power so they can quietly support the rail workers
Let's flip this round. Why do you think they aren't making a big show of support for rail workers right now? Do you think endorsing the rail strikes is a vote winner? Rightly or wrongly, Joe Public fucking hates train drivers (I know it's support staff striking, not just drivers. Doesn't matter to Joe.) They're perceived as overpaid, over-entitled, prima donnas who retire at 45 with giant benefits and make other people's lives a misery. You will find scant sympathy amongst the general population for them. Yes, this is perception is entirely down to relentless right wing propaganda. Yes, Labour in a perfect world would combat that propaganda. But it isn't a perfect world. The right control the press and the BBC. Labour's tools are limited. What are you going to do? are you going to **withold your vote for Labour out of purity**? what do you think will happen as a result?
Judging by people on this subreddit Labour's job is to "not be the Tories" enough to get into power and then they will supposedly help workers.
Despite not helping workers while trying to get into power.
Blair had the chance to rip up Thatchers anti worker anti union legislation and he didnt. The modern Labour party stands for nothing
>The modern Labour party stands for nothing
This, other than allowing me to vote for a slightly better brand of Tory......basically same shit sandwich but with sprinkles
Supporting the strikes is precisely what the Tories would love.
My question for the left is, whats the point of opposing the Tory party if you behave exactly as they'd like you too?
Was Corbyn standing up and saying he wasnt anti semetic he just wants to criticise Israel a great plan? Are we seeing the fruits of this now? Or did it play into the rights hands? Because where in sitting Israel is worse not better, and completely supported by the west.
Trouble is the Government want strikes where those striking can be dismissed and replaced without any hassle. They want subservience and slavish obedience, the same as early 19th century mill owners or workhouse employers. Amazon may be a terrible environment to work in, but it is a model. If they didn't want that model of 'do it or you're out' then they would have stopped it. The idea is to have a powerless workforce who will be grateful for any crumbs they can get. And those sick and disabled people? They'll be f\*cked. Either make them money or die. That's the endgame.
Labour should be shouting this from the rooftops. Instead, they are straightening their ties and coughing loudly to show support, before going to a sumptuous lunch.
> What is the point of the Labour Party if it isn't going to loudly support the rail strikes?
.
Getting in to power so there needn’t be any strikes for people to be treated fairly?
>Liberal entryists killed it decades ago. Forget about it.
The liberals won three generally elections in a row - the only Labour GE victories in the 48 years since 1974.
Remember, to win you *need* not just the support of the left, but much of the centre too. It's not an easy balance to get right, but demonising the liberals and centerists doesn't seem the right way to go about it.
It's was founded explicitly as a socialist party. Liberals had no right to commandeer it. They could have taken their ideas to the Lib Dems and lost elections with them, but ther took over a *socialist* party...
See, I find this interesting; you talk about the Labour Party as if it should be seen as private property, "stolen" from its rightful owners.
MPs should act in their interests of, and are accountable to, their constituents, and the nation as a whole.
EDIT: I know one shouldn't complain about downvotes but I do find these interesting. Would anyone like to explain what in my post they disagree with?
I just don’t think that is reasonable equivalence.
This is most corrupt government I’ve seen in my lifetime. Lies about Brexit, policy on the fly, Covid parties, ministerial code breaches, defence of the indefensible, culture war obsessed etc.
The two parties are not the same.
Maybe not but I pretty much have to hold my nose and vote Labour - this party is power with the standard Tory principles, protect the rich and wealthy and ensure the system works for top 5 -10% maybe
Yes this is the worst in my lifetime but it's what you expect, vote Tory got Tory....but hey it kept them lefty commies out huh, nice media man tells me we did good
But if Labour get into power and arn't there to do good but just to not be as bad is that a good thing? Are we just happy it's not as bad as 'them' and that will do?
We're talking like that, and that yeh power without principles is fine, we don't so much WANT Labour as don't want Tory - Labour are not appealing they're just better then them, and have shot at getting them out, so locally my options are, protest vote or spoiled vote....meh, libs and split that 'not Tory' vote a little more, or vote Labour and hope
I'd much rather have a party that's got something diffrent that's really 'for the many not the few' to steal the old phrase, not just 'not as bad as the others' Tory-lite
Because they have become Tory imitators, you didn’t think Starmer and Co are Socialists? the ‘Socialist’ Labour Party has become a ‘Socialist’ party with no ‘Socialists’ as Tony Benn warned…
After 12 years of Tory rule, the Labour Party have obviously shifted towards the right. They have to if they’re going to appeal to those floaters who clearly want those conservative benefits. Sating the working class who are bewitched by the tabloids putting them beyond reach, is futile.
They’ve got to appeal to the non labour voters.. labour in the 80’s suffered for years and Blair made labour palatable to swing voters (disregard the fact he made labour unpalatable for me) and they’ve got to pull off the same trick..
Because I think keir starmer is not really a unionist if he was he would have tell his frontbench to join the picket line I people think it is a leftwing thing but I am not a l don't have a leftwing view but do believe in the strike
It's a numbers thing. There are far more UK employees (76%) who are not members of a union than there are who are members of a union (26%).
To win elections, you have to court the majority.
Ok.but 'working people' include many millions of small business owners and self employed entrepreneurs and tradesmen who are capitalists and don't strike or belong to a union. Do you mean them too?
Fascism never sweeps in suddenly it creeps insidiously into society, with it's weasel words and mealy mouthed cliches. Get Brexit Done, Stay Home Save the NHS, Oven Ready Deal...We see you...we hear you...NO PASARAN!!
Starving the Right-wing press of Fodder and Sound bites, is getting fun! 2 years to the next election, i'll bet the hands of newspaper Editors are going to be getting very sweaty, contemplating having to report on Johnson and his cohorts until the election cycle begins.
Snapshot of _What is the point of the Labour Party if it isn't going to loudly support the rail strikes?_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/opinion/labour-party-what-point-not-support-rail-strikes-1691975) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**inews** is owned by the Daily Mail.
People will say that the point of Labour is to win elections, so they can govern. If that is their only goal then surely it would make more sense to become a populist party who support whatever policies will win them the most votes? But that's not what Labour is about, because Labour is meant to stand for something. The clue is in the name. They're meant to be the party of working people. Labour are supposed to stand for workers rights and that includes the right to strike and fair compensation. Labour isn't only about winning votes, its about changing hearts and minds. They're supposed to put forward the case for the alternative and defend it in order to win votes. Not just copy the Tory Party's homework and hope the teacher doesn't notice. We need a proactive Labour Party that leads and doesn't follow. Is willing to offer people something other than Tory-lite. That doesn't allow Boris Johnson and the right-wing media to write the narrative for them.
We could have had that in 2019 but hey Democratic Socialism= Marxism=Communism, they’re all the same apparently…
> Democratic Socialism= Marxism=Communism I mean, you need to talk to a lot of Corbynists that were running round shouting "RAISE THE RED FLAG, WE'RE SOCIALISTS!"
Except that socialism isn't communism or marxism (and was in fact around long before Marx). Let's be honest, given the options, who else are actual socialists going to support? Even if Labour wasn't socialist it's still the closest chance they got.
The 'Red Flag' isn't a Communist Icon, it's the symbol of Universal Collectivism and the Commonality of the Working Classes...
>But that's not what Labour is about, because Labour is meant to stand for something Exactly, I'm 100% sure if they actually committed to something relating to brexit, 2019 wouldn't have been so disappointing. >Labour isn't only about winning votes, its about changing hearts and minds Those two things are the same thing.
>Those two things are the same thing. Not necessarily. There's a difference between changing your policy to make it more appealing and making your policy more appealing by changing minds.
As a party, you're supposed to serve your voters' interests, not the reverse. It's a bit perverse to suggest otherwise.
A national political party serves the whole nation. Not only those that vote for it, also those that voted for the other guy. Otherwise, it's just tribal.
It needs to be about both. Labour is not a union, and cannot be a pressure group that never gets elected. If all the train workers vote Labour, and all the rail users vote Tory: there are a lot more users. Labour is a political party, it's role is politics. It needs to be distinct from the Unions: and help more people understand what the unions are trying to say.
>People will say that the point of Labour is to win elections, so they can govern. If that is their only goal then surely it would make more sense to become a populist party who support whatever policies will win them the most votes? I cannot stop reiterating Tony Blair's comments enough. Power without principles is barren Principles without power is futile. I'm sure that Labour do not want to be the party of futility. I'm not proposing Labour pursue blind populism, but nor should they martyr themselves at the altar of the sanctimonious principle. Political parties need to win elections to enact change! The point of the Labour party is to *enact change* not to be sitting on the sidelines. >We need a proactive Labour Party that leads and doesn't follow. Is willing to offer people something other than Tory-lite. That doesn't allow Boris Johnson and the right-wing media to write the narrative for them. We don't *need* that. And what's more, as the voters keep telling us, we don't *want* it either. I'm not sure if I'm living in some sort of alternative reality where Corbyn lost two elections on the spin, but just to verify - a genuine alternative was offered and roundly rejected, right?
Corbyn's policies were, on the whole, very popular: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/12/labour-economic-policies-are-popular-so-why-arent- It was the man himself who wasn't: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corybn-labour-policies-toxic-general-election-2019-leadership-latest-a9279946.html
The last election was about Brexit, and Brexit only. Other policies unfortunately became pointless The second he went against himself and other socialists and refused to back Brexit he allowed Boris to sneak in through the back.
It’s also possible to have policies which are popular in isolation but cease to be credible in aggregate.
Yes. Also voters who support a policy but wouldn’t trust Labour to implement it effectively.
He didn't win, policies were popular individually but combined the public didn't see them as credible. The public is aspirational and wants a positive message, not just stealing from the rich.
"Stealing".
Yep.
Blair's Third Way principles, which solve no underlying problems, like the neoliberalism of Clinton and Obama in the US, led directly to Boris and Trump. It's always one step forward, five steps back, as the system slides further and further toward a kind of techno-feudalism.
> a genuine alternative was offered and roundly rejected, right Most parties would conclude they didn’t get the alternative right. It takes true Labour genius to conclude “No, a genuine alternative was rejected, so the public must want a fake and dishonest alternative!”
>Power without principles is barren Principles without power is futile Fine then I'll choose barren.
There are fundamental issues impacting this country that are far more important than striking, and the current conservative party is institutionally incapable of tackling them. A change in government means a chance to fix those things. Pissing that away for some performative statements about something the opposition cannot control, is a dereliction of duty towards the much larger group of working people suffering (and to suffer) from the fundamental demographic, trade, economic and col problems that will be hammering us for the foreseeable future.
[удалено]
>What reason is there to believe that the current iteration of labour is capable of tackling them? Because they're a team of competent, decent enough people. This is why most people generally think they would be better across a fair range of topics. >They largely seem to want to continue the same policies that got us into this mess. In some ways, this is because these are the issues that the British public are concerned about. Even if we just assume that they'll execute some of these things reasonably competently, instead of spending months threatening to rip up the NIP (for example), then that would be a good start. People - mostly - aren't against the Tory agenda. That's why they voted for it. This is where the voters stand on the whole. They want less immigration, higher wages, better schools, etc. The Tories promised it and haven't delivered, but that doesn't mean Labour shouldn't also attempt to address people's concerns.
> Because they're a team of competent, decent enough people. This is why most people generally think they would be better across a fair range of topics. This is the only Labour leader in the history of the party to be on the Trilateral Commission. Starmer will be a bankster shill, just like Blair was (his first act as Prime Minister was to deregulate the banks), both prepared by the ruling class specifically because it was understood that the Tories were falling out of favor. Whatever right wing populist comes after Starmer,and Biden in the US - because their Third Way politics never actually addresses root causes - will be horrendous.
Just change name to "Not conservative" party then
We would do but half of the front bench should be in the Conservatives
We tried that with Corbyn. Returning successive Tory landslides. We didn't like the idea of being permenantly unelectable. We didn't like Tory sleaze-balls putting public funds in their friends pockets. We didn't want another decade of that.
To be accurate it returned one tory minority government and one tory landslide.
You don't have to be hard-left though to stand with workers or at least take principled stances on issues. The Tories are on the backfoot and many workers believe they've been treated with contempt while in the midst of a cost of living crisis, it's such an easy attack line for Labour to pursue, even from a cynical POV.
That's the problem with the modern Labour Party, as far as they're considered there are only two options: Tory-lite or Corbyn 2.0. There's a whole middle-ground of politics between the centre and the far-left that are appealing to people. Corbyn was an unpopular politician running on a popular platform. Its obvious that although his policies were popular he had a lot of issues which made him unpopular. But does that mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater? Gordon Brown lost to Cameron in 2010 but we didn't claim that his policies were unelectable and vowed to never let the party lurch to the right again.
We are on two different worlds. I only saw Corbyn policies get ridiculed in the media. He and his policies were both unpopular.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/12/labour-economic-policies-are-popular-so-why-arent- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tactical-voting-blog/labour-manifesto-policies-popular-polling-nationalise-tax-rising-a9214276.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corybn-labour-policies-toxic-general-election-2019-leadership-latest-a9279946.html
It's long been established that individual policy polls are inaccurate, not least because in the end it's down to the whole thing.
His policies, individually, were popular. Having them all at the same time, not that popular.
Plenty of his policies regarding higher spending/taxing the rich were and are pretty popular with the public. We've seen the Tories just recently doing a U-turn on the windfall tax because the public wanted them to take on big oil and gas firms. The primary issue was that Corbyn himself wasn't very popular for a mixture of reasons. But there's no reason Labour can't borrow from his platform while doing more to appease Tory voters in other regards (standard patriotic stuff he was seen as weak on etc).
The media that says judges are enemies of the people and though Brexit was a good idea? I understand the dilemma of needing to win power but also stand for something, I'm just not wholly convinced Labour will do much if they do get in.
Sections of media thought those things. When it came to Corbyn, it was universal across the board
I don't think the Mirror was particularly anti-Corbyn was it?
It wasn't glowing. It begrudgingly backed Labour as a whole but skirted around its leader. "Can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all". Focused mostly on sinking the Tories instead.
>They're meant to be the party of working people. tbf these strikes are deliberately aimed at disrupting the lives of working people, there's no winners in this except the government because now all eyes are on the opposition that plus the supporters of the strikes will vote for Labour no matter what
> that plus the supporters of the strikes will vote for Labour no matter what Why?
Because when it releases a manifesto it will be a mixture of centrist and left wing stuff that enough people will like, and we live with a crappy electoral system which benefits larger established parties.
That’s what I don’t get here. The average Tory voter and the wealthy aren’t desperately bothered by these strikes. Even those in London who use the tube or commuter trains will likely just work from home for a few days. These strikes really only disadvantage other workers.
Because obviously the only two options are 100% ideology and 100% populism.
Loudly supporting something that is going to really piss people off, is not exactly good politics.
See, in politics whatever you do is going to really piss some people off. That's always going to happen, but you have to decide who you want to appeal to, and in doing so who you will really piss off. It's just not possible to please everyone. Then, when you try to please some people, you really have to own that. You have to explain in a way that cuts through why you believe what you do and why you're doing what you do. The problem is that this Labour Party operates on the back foot, through fear. It doesn't do things because what the Tories and their client media will claim. But guess what? The Tories and their client media are still going to attack you. They're going to call you out for not having policy. They're going to say that you're weak. They're going to find every way they can of still attacking you. In the meantime, you really piss off people that you should be courting... In this Labour Party's case a lot of their core support including workers, including the soft left and those further to the left. In the hope of getting some of the Tory's centre-right voters. Some of whom might vote for Starmer. But many won't still. Even over this issue, Johnson keeps calling them "Labour strikes" and "Labours' strikes" - meaning strikes by people who provide Labour... But his MP's are going into the media and saying things like "Thanks, Keir!" about the strikes happening... And of course, those that do or would vote for Starmer's Labour and are centre-right or at least not far-right... Well, as soon as Johnson is replaced will end up voting for the new Tory leader anyway - likely no matter who it is "to give them a chance" to begin with. Then Labour have really pissed off a lot of their own support base, and lost those new voters they were trying to trade them in for.... As I say, Labour needs to start standing for something again, and taking control of the narrative - having the backbone to say it with conviction and to challenge those that BS about their intentions, etc.
>The problem is that this Labour Party operates on the back foot, through fear. It doesn't do things because what the Tories and their client media will claim. Just want to echo this sentiment. The pants wetting fear thats gripped Labour and the left in general at this point is truly pathetic, and so transparent. It's laughable, and an enormous obstacle to the success of the party. And what's more you can never bring this criticism up, even from the center ground, because its always instantly met with some hysterical shrill about far leftism or Corbyn or some such nonsense, as if having a spine and principles and going out and arguing for them vociferously in the public arena is somehow exclusive to the political fringes. Labours best electoral success was under New Labour, which most people attribute to their policy triangulation. Whilst that was a key ingredient, what people forget about that formula was the additional, and equally important, factor that was present of the party having an actual ideological backbone, principles and vision for the country that it was happy to shout from the rooftops and explain to people who disagreed with it why they were wrong. You knew what Blair's Britain was going to look like long before the '97 election. That's very different to whatever weird needle Keir's Labour keeps trying to thread. They've missed the most important part of the puzzle.
>You knew what Blair's Britain was going to look like long before the '97 election. That's very different to whatever weird needle Keir's Labour keeps trying to thread This is by far my biggest issue with Labour under Starmer, I'm not a fan of Corbyn in the slightest but it was something he did right. I knew what I would be getting under a Corbyn govt (admittedly that made me not vote for him). I see no real positive reason for voting for Starmer. There's lots of negative reasons, such as he *isn't* Boris, he *isn't* this, he *doesn't* do that, he's finally *against* this, he absolutely categorically *wouldn't* do that.
Its a general fact of politics that making the people that will vote for you any way super happy at the expense of people that might vote for you is not a great strategy. Any political advisor to Starmer is saying "support the unions and the right to strike lukewarmly, don't end up on photographs with hammer and sickles & Palestinian flags"
The National Rifle Association of America was founded in 1871. Since 1977, the National Rifle Association of America has focussed on political activism and pro-gun lobbying, at the expense of firearm safety programmes. The National Rifle Association of America is completely different to the [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) in Britain (founded earlier, in 1859); the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au); the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com) and the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), which are all non-political sporting organisations that promote target shooting. It is very important not to confuse the National Rifle Association of America with any of these other Rifle Associations. The British [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) is headquartered on Bisley Camp, in Surrey, England. Bisley Camp is now known as the National Shooting Centre and has hosted World Championships for Fullbore Target Rifle and F-Class shooting, as well as the shooting events for the 1908 Olympic Games and the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The National Small-bore Rifle Association (NSRA) and Clay Pigeon Shooting Association (CPSA) also have their headquarters on the Camp.
Most of that is quite sensible, just not the full support bit, I'd tone it down to "the right to withdraw labour generally" rather than fully support this specific strike.
Depends on the numbers of those categories. If the number of people you make happy far out-weigh the numbers your actions displease then the electoral calculus suggests to make those people unhappy. As long as you give decent reasoning at the time so people can go back and look at it with the benefit of hindsight and say "actually, maybe I was wrong and this was for the best" rather than your messaging being needlessly antagonistic and vague in your reasoning. Honest politics requires decent communications.
Not being on the picket lines loses no votes from the current position of an election winning 41%. Being on picket lines photographed with the SWP and worse risks a swing. No sensible party would risk it
Demanding that your front bench isn't on the picket lines does lose votes though. There's a nuance in there that's lost on many. Combine that with a lot of the rhetoric and lack of clarity coming from Starmer on the matter, because he can't give a clear position with clear messaging on the matter.... And then he can't give a clear position with clear messaging on many other policy items. It's not a good look - and overall does lose lots of votes.
It really doesn't though, but it does signal to those not fully bought into the message that Labour is a serious party.
This is so naive its painful. If the people who you make happy would vote for you anyway, making them happier gets you exactly zero extra votes. Meanwhile switching a tory voter counts double towards switching a seat. This means the only way to get elected is from the centre. Voters also do not look back with hindsight and admit they were wrong. It is just not in human nature to do so.
Youre forgetting that if you fail to make that original person happy they can go third party or let apathy take other and stay home
>making the people that will vote for you any way super happy at the expense of people that might vote for you is not a great strategy Sure. What your missing here is that for Labour and the left in general "people who will vote for you anyway" is actually a very relatively small number of people. There are plenty of people who Labour will alienate who quite happily won't vote for them, because they're far more comfortable with staying at home or voting for the multitude of left wing alternatives that are out there. Nowadays Labour don't have a loyal base that's wide enough to rely on. They do, at times, actually need to throw some red meat to them, even if it comes at the expense of another groups support.
Both parties have a floor of about 30% (I think the Liberals could have shattered that if they hadn't been stupid but...). Sure you use some red meat, but you pick your cuts. For the tories is stuff like Rwanda, fires the base, annoys people in labours base. The rail strikes attack everyone outside the 30%, the optics of being on the picket with tankies, attacks everyone outside the 30%. Kier and his advisors aren't stupid.
To be clear this strategy is the exact reason why support for Labour in Northern seats fell for the best part of 20 years and ultimately, cost them the election in 2019. If you ignore your base, eventually they'll not bother turning up, at which point they're primed to vote for anyone else who isn't assuming they will vote for them regardless. Labour really hasn't learnt this lesson from 2019, it hasn't learnt that in order to concentrate on the fringes, you have to make sure your base is secure. 'Who the fuck else are you going to vote for' isn't a sustainable offer and eventually it will blow up in their face, again.
Not sure thats really correct 2019 was purely because Labour positioned themselves categorically as anti-brexit, not ignoring their base, but being actively against them. It would be more analogous to Labour MPs currently suggesting bussing in foreign contractors to manage the trains.
It was because they equivocated on Brexit, losing votes to the LDs from the anti-Brexit crowd, to the Tories from the Brexit supporters and through general apathy because they couldn’t pick a side and voters saw through that. A better analogy would be regarding the Cost of Living crisis (the biggest actual issue) and Starmer standing there saying he wouldn’t reverse any of the Tory tax rises, reinstate the energy cap but also that if you vote Labour they’ll magically fix the crisis but without explaining any policies that will do so.
Can we not re-write history please? Labours explicit policy was for a second referendum based on renegotiation they wouldn't support. That isn't apathy, its anti and it cost them a decent vote swing. I don't get your updated analogy, that just sounds like a standard Labour manifesto to me :)
Cancelling Brexit would be anti-Brexit. Having a referendum “based on a renegotiation they wouldn’t support” is exactly the equivocation I described - it’s punting the choice onto voters without taking a stance. Thanks for confirming.
It wasn't equivocation, it was anti-brexit. A double referendum is and was anti Brexit, which rightfully narked off a motivated base and punished Labour. Regardless of its being a bad idea or not, that needed to happen.
Farage advocated a second referendum prior to getting the result he wanted and I doubt his intentions were “anti”. Holding a second referendum isn’t in and of itself “anti”. Labour could’ve easily taken a position where they’d have had a second referendum, and actively campaigned against Brexit. They didn’t and the public didn’t like that. *That* would’ve been anti-Brexit. The fact they couldn’t say whether they’d campaign to stay in or leave was (rightly) seen as equivocation. You do see the difference, right? Holding a referendum isn’t actively taking a position. Holding a referendum and not specifically saying which way you would campaign is equivocation. Holding a referendum and actively campaigning against the previous referendum is “anti”.
It's also down to the fact a lot of Red Wall areas have increasingly older populations who own their own homes - basically prime Tory voter territory. Labour will likely win some of these areas back next time but non-city areas with lots of homeowners are intrinsically going to be more difficult for Labour to win compared to before in years to come for as long as there's a housing crisis, because Tory policy largely operates to the benefit of homeowners at the expense of renters who are being squeezed. This trend wasn't noticed by some because Corbyn overperformed to expectations in 2017, but a lot of these Red Wall seats had been trending downwards for a while for Labour, even if they, say, gain Dennis Skinner's seat, a dominant Labour Party probably isn't going to rack up the types of majorities there they did back in 97.
If you think backbone and conviction is what's lacking in the Labour recipe, you haven't really been paying attention. Plenty of people in Labour's history have stood their ground with backbone, with conviction, with compelling, powerful rhetoric. They've backed it with serious policy proposals, crafted messaging to excite the base, they've gotten people on the streets en masse to back the message. And still Labour governments over the last hundred years are so few and far between, a drop of red in an ocean of blue - most of that drop being a three-term government which didn't exactly follow your approach. The number of elections lost through failing to excite the base is zero. Number of elections lost through failing to win the middle ground and the undecided swing voters is **all of them**. Labour isn't an activist group. Their one singular job is to bid to represent the broadest coalition of voters possible, and that almost always means denying your core voters many of the items on their policy and identity wishlist.
> Labour isn't an activist group. Their one singular job is to bid to represent the broadest coalition of voters possible, and that almost always means denying your core voters many of the items on their policy and identity wishlist. That's true but you can still do this while having strong ideological policies motivated by conviction. Brexit at one point was a fringe idea that only primarily interested a selection of the Tory membership for the most part as something to pursue rigidly - by 2019 they had managed to turn it into a central election winning issue because they pursued it effectively. The issue here for Starmer is that he risks being perceived as weak by both sides. Most right-wing voters will perceive him as pro-union because Labour is inherently the party associated with unions, and Boris will probably just continue to lie and say Starmer backs the strikes anyway. The Tories aren't in a good position right now and the public don't trust the PM - if there's ever a time for Starmer to try to win over the electorate on key issues, it's now. And while Starmer is doing better than Corbyn was, he's currently only just ahead of a PM who's widely detested at the moment and isn't guaranteed to win in 2024. His approach isn't failing disastrously but it's hardly been given a ringing endorsement by voters either.
>Their one singular job is to bid to represent the broadest coalition of voters possible Except that's not what they're doing, is it? They're bidding to represent just the smallest set of soft-right voters at the moment. That's the problem. And if that means that they're willing to lose a lot of other voters on the left, then so be it. That's on them. Time will tell which of us is right... But the country and the world isn't the same as it was 15 years ago, or 25 years ago, or more....
The key flaw with this argument is that it assumes ‘swing voters’ are inherently in the political middle. This isn’t the case, there are swing-voters all over the political spectrum. Some of them are relatively centrist sure, but there’s no inherent reason why pandering to them would be more fruitful than pandering to anyone else.
Absolutely- there’s a distinct lack of any sort of Left-Right debate at the moment. I’m a lifelong labour voter but can’t see any reason to continue- “not the tories” is not a valid campaign argument, particularly when the difference is so minimal.
They have, the people they're supposedly upsetting by not taking a stance vote Labour no matter what and here's an inconvenient truth; the Labour party hates the unions, it hates that it's seen as dependent on them, it's costs them elections, it makes them look weak, they'd love nothing better than to separate from them if they could
>They have, the people they're supposedly upsetting by not taking a stance vote Labour no matter what That's changing, rapidly. Too many are fed up being taken for granted, being told to "shut up and be quiet, but you MUST vote for us otherwise it's ALL YOUR FAULT!". Too many are wanted purely for votes, for membership fees... And in return get shown contempt.... Often by those who did everything they could to attack the party, even sabotage elections, when their preferred faction didn't have control of the party. (That's not a defence of Corbyn, before anyone goes down that path - just stating the hypocrisy that exists, and both major factions of the Labour Party can be guilty of it...) But Starmer and co, with zero vision - or at least no vision that they're willing to actually share, with no desire to set the narrative, and only wanting to appeal to the centre-right and take everyone else for granted... Well those they choose to alienate is on them. People are getting increasingly fed up of being taken for granted and treated like shit. If they don't rapidly change things, they'll probably not win. If they do win, then in large part it will be down to how bad the Tories are as much as anything else. I expect better, personally, and so do many others. Time will tell if I'm right or not.
Isn't the clue in the name of the party? For years people were saying that Labour needed to get back to it's roots to stop losing the working class vote.
That strategy didn't work out very well, as I recall.
Not sure they have tried it recently. Corbynism was too tied up in Palenstine, etc for anyone to notice.
Out of curiosity, would any labour leader have survived 2019 with Labour's stance? Second do you think people were voting for manifestos or were they voting for Brexit in 2019?
>Out of curiosity, would any labour leader have survived 2019 with Labour's stance? I'm not who you asked but I'd say no. The policies really didn't matter that much in the 2019 election; it was all about Brexit, and I know for a fact that Yvette Cooper, who possibly could've won the leadership election if Corbyn wasn't there, was opposed to a second referendum. But that would've lost a lot of remain votes. Fact is, Labour were caught between rock and a hard place in 2019. Whichever way they went they would've lost votes. So I don't blame Corbyn for prevaricating at all - what else could he have done? Labour were truly stuffed when it came to Brexit - every other party's voters, by and large, were one side or the other, but Labour? Basically split down the middle - 60%+ of their voters were remain but 60%+ of their constituencies were leave. No Labour leader could've done much in that situation.
Obviously you didn’t actually read the Manifesto before the last GE…like so many who complained on the doorstep about, communism, terrors its friends, Brexit confusion…yet the manifesto quite clearly set out a road to better pay and rights for workers, cutting off tax avoidance and off shore banking, funding health and education properly with more health/ education professional and not poorly qualified non professionals and controlling the financial service sector to prevent 2008-10 happening again. Palestine was a minor issue below that…but hey Get Brexit Done…..
I read it, but my point is that the majority of "traditional" Labour voters didn't because of all the noise that had been kicked up about other things. Corbyn was a decent man, who had too much baggage to ever be a realistic proposition for as an election winner.
With hindsight I would agree but the last Labour Socialist died following a heart attack, allowing Anthony Lynton Blair to hijack the Party via the Dark Lord Mandehlson and his den of dirty thieves...Tony Benn has been proved right I think, "we now have a 'Socialist' Party without any 'Socialists' and they are becoming the alternative to the Tory's when the public get tired of them", the Policies are so similar that no-one notices....
That kind of depends; in the old days people would understand the differential employed by Governments or employers to paint up the strikers in a negative way. Now people don't really get it. People have become more inverted in their lives. Look at Covid. Millions of people adhered because they understood THEY were in danger. But climate change is different because it's somewhere else, it's cognitive dissonance. I hear a lot of people saying 'sack the lot of them' or 'it's inconsiderate to mess people about' but these people miss the point; largely these people do good work and get nothing back, no thanks, nothing. So when their terms and conditions are altered to an unreasonably degree, people who use those services have to admit such people exist. And because it makes their ride a bit more bumpy, they get all shirty about it. But many of them don't realise they are subject to the same actions the train staff are facing now. they don't appreciate that; it's the 'it won't happen to me' mentality which never works out well.
Not taking a stand is weak leadership.
They are taking a stand. They don't support the strikes.
That's not weak, it's just idiotic.
The people that are going to be pissed off are going to be pissed off either way - see for example Telegraph headlines calling this "Labour's Summer of Discontent". If you read that sort of paper and believe it's schtick then the real statements that Labour make are only going to get through in an unrecognisably warped form. There's no point pandering to a hostile press that's going to attack you whatever and their readership who are, unfortunately, too far under the influence to be reached.
>The people that are going to be pissed off are going to be pissed off either way Yeah but if there's a sure fire way to get people politically engaged it's to piss them off so you want to make sure it's not you pissing them off. Think about how many businesses, coffee shops etc are set up around stations, how many retail workers rely on the tube etc. This isn't the miners' strike which was a direct miners' vs government, or some factory strike etc, it's deliberately targeting people who probably aren't normally politically engaged, hence Labour would really like to distance themselves
No-one in their right mind "supports" strikes. Strikes are a last resort. A failure of communication and diplomacy. But the ability to withhold your labour for genuinely good reason is one of the most fundamental rights in our democracy.
Put bluntly, Labour isn't in need of votes from those who want to see full-throated support for strikes. Labour does need votes from those who are massively inconvenienced by them. The former group are comprised of people who will either vote Labour regardless or won't vote for this current Labour Party as they're not left-wing enough. Their stance on rail strikes alone isn't going to change their vote. For the swing voters, however, they have to play the game.
Too many left wingers complain about right wingers playing politics to stay in power (such as Boris's campaign from the right, rule from the left, "stealing Corbyn's ideas"), then whinge when Labour finally takes on a strategy to actually get back into power. They'd prefer a solid idealist like Corbyn to loudly and valiantly stand up for what they believe in and get destroyed in election after election instead.
>won't vote for this current Labour Party as they're not left-wing enough. Whats the leftier option, heck way it's going maybe lib dems
Rail strikes disproportionately impact lower paid workers because they are (1) more reliant on public transport and (2) more likely to be obliged to be physically present for their jobs.
Most bad things disproportionately impact lower paid workers. Rich people insulate themselves from most problems.
The answer then shouldn't be less workers rights. Instead of saying people shouldn't strike because it disproportionately impacts lower paid workers Labour should be saying that there should be greater protections for employees who are effected by strikes against being reprimanded by their employers.
This is more a reflection of the Labour leadership.
Boris and the Tories have fed this strike. They want it to go ahead and made sure it would happen. The Tories and their MSM propaganda machine will now relentlessly blame the strikers, the Unions and Labour for a worsening economy. Their aim will be to convince floating voters in key constituencies that these strikes have made the next round of cost of living rises worse than they would have been and that they have a plan to make sure the Unions can't do it again if we vote them back in at the next election. Labour, on the other hand, have one job. Their job is to win the next election. That's it because they can do absolutely nothing from the opposition benches where they've sat for the last 12 years. To do this, they are going to have to win the same marginal seats that the Tories are after without the aid of a predominantly right wing propaganda outlet we know as the MSM. The hard facts are that the Tories (since Thatcher) have suceeded in convincing people that strikes are greedy workers holding the country to ransom. This is why Grant Schapps is quoting that train drivers earn 50k+ a year at every opportunity. It doesn't matter that train drivers are not even represented by the RMT. IMHO if Labour came out in full support of the strike, they would undo all the progress they have made in the last two years in a stroke and would literally be playing straight into the Tories hands. Just my opinion... I hope I'm wrong :)
One glaring issue in all of this that you have missed is that labour can work to reframe that narrative and call the tories out on their bullshit. They should be on the news, front and centre as much as the tories pointing out that the drivers on 50k aren't part of this union, this union is for guards, cleaners etc, and that the tories are lying to you because they think you're thick. Go on the offensive for fucking once. Labour are too fucking passive and constantly let the tories shape the narrative under Kier and I don't think it's a winning strategy. The whole labour strategy has been to point out that Boris is bad and you know what? The tories will replace him with someone like Hunt and labour will have no attack lines left
I wholeheartedly agree !!
>One glaring issue in all of this that you have missed is that labour can work to reframe that narrative and call the tories out on their bullshit. The narrative here is that these are Tory strikes, from a decade of Tory austerity. Angela Rayner comes out today and says as much but it gets little to no traction. >Labour are too fucking passive and constantly let the tories shape the narrative under Kier and I don't think it's a winning strategy. Then why are Labour ahead in the polls?! >The whole labour strategy has been to point out that Boris is bad and you know what? The tories will replace him with someone like Hunt and labour will have no attack lines left Their attack angle - which again, is getting no traction - is that the Tories, collectively, are incompetent. That they cannot deliver on *anything* they promise. The media are running it as a "Boris Johnson is bad" story because - again - Labour do not have the power to set the agenda without a press outlet. I honestly *wish* I lived in the UK that you Redditors seem to live in, where everyone is a socialist revolutionary hiding in the docile body of a middle-aged accountant living in the home counties and an active member of his rotary club. In that UK, presumably they're casually reading the Times everyday waiting for a call to arms from Starmer, but Starmer is holding fire. Next time I'm sat in a fucking Zizzi's in some godforsaken part of the Midlands like Coalville, I'll look around and think "Yes, this is the setting from which a revolution will arise", as Carol, a retired school-teacher from Letchworth, tucks into her lukewarm spagbol. The vast majority of people are basically status quo Tories and appealing to them is *how you win elections*. And on top of that, everyone complaining that Starmer hasn't marched with the RMT would continue to say "Labour will lose votes" because Starmer still isn't left enough. It's just absolutely pointless him trying to appeal to this group - it will *only* lose him votes.
One of starmers allies was on telly today arguing against the head of the RMT union. Not sure that necessarily fits your narrative there. He doesn't have to be on the front lines, but sending people out to argue against the RMT and threatening people to not go out and picket is plain wrong, dumb and goes against your point.
That's why Starmer should of focused on the manifesto which was popular. To do that, he would have to admit that 2019's loss was due to Brexit. But he, Ashworth and the gang came up and made it about Corbyn as soon as we lost. This was an obvious ideological power grab which has now put them in a pickle. Any attempt to use those policies will sound dishonest ( See Streetings support for strikes as soon as Starmer is rumoured to leave versus his stance on NHS privatisation). I think this project will come halting to an end quicker than most anticipated. Labour needs a leader who isn't an ideological purger, bring the membership on board and once and for all inspire something that is not tied to Blair. Edit: It feels like the Tories evolved into what Blairism would evolve to, hence why Starmer and Co struggle for inspiring policies. "We are not the tories" screams " we will adopt similar policies just without a clown". 2017 showed that people do desire an alternative in policies and ideology to what the tories were doing. 2019 was a brexit election. Why not go back to the most recent and popular manifesto? Oh yeah, ideology warfare caused by broken pledges..
> Why not go back to the most recent and popular manifesto? Because it still lost.
It didn’t lose, it was assassinated by Brexit vulture capitalists like Reece-Mogg
That word makes no sense in this context. You can't assassinate a document, it's not a person.
It makes full sense...the manifesto, was a living thing as it was being explained and put forward by human beings, who were drowned out by the howls and caterwauling of a biased media doing the bidding of it's paymasters...
>Why not go back to the most recent and popular manifesto? Manifestos play next to no part in elections. However, specifically rehashing a Corbyn one would be the world's easiest attack line for the Tories.
> That's why Starmer should of focused on the manifesto which was popular. **It was not popular enough to win an election** I question whether it was really popular at all given the only evidence is a survey that can be boiled to down people being asked "Would you like a free pony"? And answering "Yes". Of course they're going to say yes, there was no cost or downside to any of the things they were asked about.
So 2019 was about manifestos and not brexit? Right gotcha
New Labour is all about big business and nestling into their bossom Old Labour are red commie marxist's Sorry Labour is....less about the working man, the Labourer as it were, then ever before - sure they're better then the Tories, but it's pretty much now 'Tory-lite' maybe a little less cronyism and rich mates, but not by much I'd love a choice a party for the people......just ain't one
It’s because there’s no such thing as the people
"Why wont they do the thing we want them to do. We have the attack articles written already for fuck sake!"
I mean, I largely support these strikes, but you have to be completely politically tone-deaf to think being "loudly supportive" about them wouldn't be detrimental to getting elected.
whats the point of being in power for 12 years and be blind to ones own creation.
Perhaps it actually stands for the people of the UK as a whole - instead of simply doing what a handful of Unions tell it to do.
You can't stand for everyone at once. That's impossible and near-contradictory. Unions are organised and informed on what the working class, the Labour movement, want to see from their politicians.
>Unions are organised and informed Brilliant! First genuine laugh of the day. Thank you
[удалено]
That isn't even remotely close to what I said lol.
[удалено]
>The question marks are because I was asking what you think. > >"if you think they should essentially run as a direct democracy of the entire electorate" Nope - you assumed I believed something that wasn't remotely connected to what I wrote, and framed a question accordingly.
[удалено]
No - you're confusing "Doing what every individual wants" with "Doing what's best for everyone".
They seem to stand for nothing other than avoiding standing for something for fear of what Johnson and the Tories client media might say, to be honest....
Can't imagine there are many workers who don't want a pay rise. The public sector have been getting below inflation rises for years - they are tapped out. Can't wait to read the headlines about cancelled trains / hospital operations / etc. twelve months from now as people leave and they struggle to recruit replacements.
Everyone always wants a pay rise. But in this case, the *intelligent* question to ask is what happens if we give them all one.
Well, what happens if you don't give a pay rise is you don't get the service. Railworkers are only the beginning, just wait for healthcare
Who are the people of the uk? Are the people who are striking or support the strikes no longer uk citizens? Or do I have to wave a flag around and refuse to shut up about brexit to be considered British nowadays
Would you rather lose and implement 0% of your policies but at least you can say you had your principles or compromise, win and implement 50%. The point of the Labour Party is to win, not to shout things loudly.
Or put another way, would you rather look like you have no backbone, stand for nothing, are running scared of even the joke that is Johnson, letting him set the narrative and manipulate you... And so lose and implement 0% of your policy that way? Or would you rather explain that you support workers that are at the end of their tether, been trying to work with their employers and government to solve this problem for two years... And as a matter of last resort, have democratically elected to take industrial action? That the government could have and should have come to the table and helped with negotiations in good faith to prevent this - but even yesterday were lying through their teeth and have actually forced this action because they're trying to divide people for their own benefit? That this isn't acceptable and that we should stand with ordinary people that this government is trying to crush - and although it's train workers today, who will it be tomorrow? To tell this truth clearly, and win people over so that you can win the next election and implement your policies that way.
The fact is, from 2020 figures, only 24% of UK employees are Trade Union members, 76% are not. Labour can either stand up for the rights of the 24% which would alienate the 76% and give the Tories an open goal when it comes to dividing the population in their favour (again) or they can continue to work for the rights of all workers by not abandoning the 76% of employees that are being treated just as badly as those in unions.
>Labour can either stand up for the rights of the 24% which would alienate the 76% This is a false dichotomy. Standing for the rights of 24% of the population doesn't automatically mean the other 76% are alienated. It's not an either/or situation. I know plenty of people who are supporting the strike despite not being in a union.
We shall see. From the reports I have seen from just todays strike and it's Labour back bench support, I think the way the MSM will play this will pretty much guarantee alienation from the strikers. I think Labour and their poll lead is about to get battered. I hope I'm wrong !
Who says standing up for the 24% means bashing on the rest?
I missed that part where benefits that unions won, like weekends off, 40 hour weeks, etc. Don't apply to non union workers
It's not about that though is it. It's about apealing to the majority of voters in order to win an election and in the workforce, the majority are not union members.
Maybe they just don't see will paid rail workers striking for 11% pay rise something worth throwing an election away for? I'd much rather they support other strikes than this one, personally.
Amen. Unfortunately for many involved in the left of Labour, the most important thing is not to win, but to be seen to performatively "do a Socialism" - actual impact on people's lives be dammed.
Because it’s trying to win the votes of a country of 60 million people, many of whom see the strike action as selfish given the huge amount of covid support train workers got and that passenger levels have still not returned to pre covid levels. They’re not after the votes of 50,000 rail workers.
>the huge amount of covid support train workers got What support support did train workers get? They continued to work throughout lockdown as they are essential workers, they didn't recieve furlough. Train _companies_ received support from the government but that was mainly used to pay existing wages rather than paid out as any sort of bonus. The support that rail workers are actually going to recieve is a cut to their real term wages via a below inflation payrise and mandatory redundancies. Doesn't sound like support to me.
Because how DARE people want good working conditions, and to not have to worry about falling into poverty. Its so greedy! If people don't want to be miserable, they should have just been born rich! /s
There are better groups to support. The railways receives huge public subsidies and still has ridiculous costs. This was was exacerbated by covid when the industry received even more public money for no return. Sir Keir is right to have a muted response here, the public aren’t overjoyed at the thought of railway workers getting even more money. But when the nurses or teachers start protesting, that’s when the mood will shift and Labour can be far more supportive
You're joking - I see people shit-talking teachers all the time. A lot of people are under the impression we didn't actually do any work during the lockdowns! Nurses, I'm with you though.
Nah people are quick to turn on nurses if they threaten to strike
What does any of that have to do with the workers? They don't set the prices. What the workers did was continue to work throughout lockdown, (they were essential workers, they're weren't furloughed) and in exchange they're facing redundancies and real term cuts to their wages.
The labour party is a party of governance not student union debating society
>student union debating society Yet the Tories are exactly that. And they have power.
It's a former socialist party taken over by liberal entryists, but it certainly isn't a party of governance.
There is no point to them anymore. Labour supporters are (59%) [broadly in favour](https://www.newstatesman.com/chart-of-the-day/2022/06/where-does-public-opinion-stand-on-rail-strikes) of the strikes. Yet once again the leadership does the opposite of something the majority agree with out of fear of being attacked. Yet they're being attacked anyway. It's just another Starmer cowardly stance.
Why would they? Lose the little votes they have for what?
Little votes as in 8% lead?
This is why I left the Labour party.
This pre-supposes that post-Corbyn Labour has a heart and is being politically shrewd. This is belied by everything we’ve seen of Starmer and co. When people show you who they are, believe them. Solidarity, forever.
>What is the point of the Labour Party if it isn't going to loudly support the rail strikes? To get into power so they can quietly support the rail workers
If they won't support rail workers now, why would they when in government?
Let's flip this round. Why do you think they aren't making a big show of support for rail workers right now? Do you think endorsing the rail strikes is a vote winner? Rightly or wrongly, Joe Public fucking hates train drivers (I know it's support staff striking, not just drivers. Doesn't matter to Joe.) They're perceived as overpaid, over-entitled, prima donnas who retire at 45 with giant benefits and make other people's lives a misery. You will find scant sympathy amongst the general population for them. Yes, this is perception is entirely down to relentless right wing propaganda. Yes, Labour in a perfect world would combat that propaganda. But it isn't a perfect world. The right control the press and the BBC. Labour's tools are limited. What are you going to do? are you going to **withold your vote for Labour out of purity**? what do you think will happen as a result?
Last time Labour were in power they failed to rip up Thatchers anti union legislation, why would they now?
What evidence do you have to support this, i want to believe you, I really do. It's less about " gotcha" more about "educate me on what I missed".
Judging by people on this subreddit Labour's job is to "not be the Tories" enough to get into power and then they will supposedly help workers. Despite not helping workers while trying to get into power. Blair had the chance to rip up Thatchers anti worker anti union legislation and he didnt. The modern Labour party stands for nothing
>The modern Labour party stands for nothing This, other than allowing me to vote for a slightly better brand of Tory......basically same shit sandwich but with sprinkles
Anything to keep the 1970 consensus going and not rock the boat for the elderly
Supporting the strikes is precisely what the Tories would love. My question for the left is, whats the point of opposing the Tory party if you behave exactly as they'd like you too? Was Corbyn standing up and saying he wasnt anti semetic he just wants to criticise Israel a great plan? Are we seeing the fruits of this now? Or did it play into the rights hands? Because where in sitting Israel is worse not better, and completely supported by the west.
There has not been a point to the Labour Party, since Brexit.
Labour are under no obligation to automatically support all strike action, all of the time.
Trouble is the Government want strikes where those striking can be dismissed and replaced without any hassle. They want subservience and slavish obedience, the same as early 19th century mill owners or workhouse employers. Amazon may be a terrible environment to work in, but it is a model. If they didn't want that model of 'do it or you're out' then they would have stopped it. The idea is to have a powerless workforce who will be grateful for any crumbs they can get. And those sick and disabled people? They'll be f\*cked. Either make them money or die. That's the endgame. Labour should be shouting this from the rooftops. Instead, they are straightening their ties and coughing loudly to show support, before going to a sumptuous lunch.
The Labour party has to support a lot of people including the self employed and private sector.
> What is the point of the Labour Party if it isn't going to loudly support the rail strikes? . Getting in to power so there needn’t be any strikes for people to be treated fairly?
It's a "labour party" in name only.
Liberal entryists killed it decades ago. Forget about it.
>Liberal entryists killed it decades ago. Forget about it. The liberals won three generally elections in a row - the only Labour GE victories in the 48 years since 1974. Remember, to win you *need* not just the support of the left, but much of the centre too. It's not an easy balance to get right, but demonising the liberals and centerists doesn't seem the right way to go about it.
It's was founded explicitly as a socialist party. Liberals had no right to commandeer it. They could have taken their ideas to the Lib Dems and lost elections with them, but ther took over a *socialist* party...
See, I find this interesting; you talk about the Labour Party as if it should be seen as private property, "stolen" from its rightful owners. MPs should act in their interests of, and are accountable to, their constituents, and the nation as a whole. EDIT: I know one shouldn't complain about downvotes but I do find these interesting. Would anyone like to explain what in my post they disagree with?
What is the point of the Labour Party if it can never get into power? It has to be practical.
Power without principles is just more of the same with a red tie not blue
I just don’t think that is reasonable equivalence. This is most corrupt government I’ve seen in my lifetime. Lies about Brexit, policy on the fly, Covid parties, ministerial code breaches, defence of the indefensible, culture war obsessed etc. The two parties are not the same.
Maybe not but I pretty much have to hold my nose and vote Labour - this party is power with the standard Tory principles, protect the rich and wealthy and ensure the system works for top 5 -10% maybe Yes this is the worst in my lifetime but it's what you expect, vote Tory got Tory....but hey it kept them lefty commies out huh, nice media man tells me we did good But if Labour get into power and arn't there to do good but just to not be as bad is that a good thing? Are we just happy it's not as bad as 'them' and that will do? We're talking like that, and that yeh power without principles is fine, we don't so much WANT Labour as don't want Tory - Labour are not appealing they're just better then them, and have shot at getting them out, so locally my options are, protest vote or spoiled vote....meh, libs and split that 'not Tory' vote a little more, or vote Labour and hope I'd much rather have a party that's got something diffrent that's really 'for the many not the few' to steal the old phrase, not just 'not as bad as the others' Tory-lite
Because they have become Tory imitators, you didn’t think Starmer and Co are Socialists? the ‘Socialist’ Labour Party has become a ‘Socialist’ party with no ‘Socialists’ as Tony Benn warned…
After 12 years of Tory rule, the Labour Party have obviously shifted towards the right. They have to if they’re going to appeal to those floaters who clearly want those conservative benefits. Sating the working class who are bewitched by the tabloids putting them beyond reach, is futile.
Winning an election and improving workers rights (amongst so many other things that need to be done).
They’ve got to appeal to the non labour voters.. labour in the 80’s suffered for years and Blair made labour palatable to swing voters (disregard the fact he made labour unpalatable for me) and they’ve got to pull off the same trick..
Winning elections?
Because it’s being run by a closet conservative
Because I think keir starmer is not really a unionist if he was he would have tell his frontbench to join the picket line I people think it is a leftwing thing but I am not a l don't have a leftwing view but do believe in the strike
It's a numbers thing. There are far more UK employees (76%) who are not members of a union than there are who are members of a union (26%). To win elections, you have to court the majority.
Which Trade Union is he supported by? By Party rule, elected officials can’t stand unless supported by a Trades Union….
They’re standing with working people. They’ve got my vote that’s for sure.
Ok.but 'working people' include many millions of small business owners and self employed entrepreneurs and tradesmen who are capitalists and don't strike or belong to a union. Do you mean them too?
To stand up for the public good? Not the narrow interest of a few.
You're thinking of Corbyn.
apart from the fact they’re joining in in the strikes tbh
Fascism never sweeps in suddenly it creeps insidiously into society, with it's weasel words and mealy mouthed cliches. Get Brexit Done, Stay Home Save the NHS, Oven Ready Deal...We see you...we hear you...NO PASARAN!!
Starving the Right-wing press of Fodder and Sound bites, is getting fun! 2 years to the next election, i'll bet the hands of newspaper Editors are going to be getting very sweaty, contemplating having to report on Johnson and his cohorts until the election cycle begins.