Snapshot of _Opinion: Mick Lynch has done more in two days than Starmer has in two years_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mick-lynch-keir-starmer-rail-strikes-rmt-b2107543.html?amp)
*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.*
What this Mick Lynch story has also shown in the last two days is the terrible standard of journalism, it’s like trying to ape the worst of American reporting, Kay Burley going around in circles trying to allude to violence on a picket line, Richard Madeley and his ‘some people say’, and Piers Morgan wasting time on an avatar pic, on the BBC Mick Lynch called a member of parliament a liar to his face and the presenter (I’m not sure of her name) ignored it, an MP being called a liar and she couldn’t push it and tackle the MP on whether what he was saying was in fact lies (I believe Mr Lynch), I mean maybe we have lost total respect for MPs but to let that slide was terrible
Lynch doesn't give a shit about access, which is *all* these 'journalists' care about.
He has a reason to be on TV, he's explaining it and he doesn't give a shit if he's not going to be called back for another interview, invited to the country clubs, the events, the dinners, the drinks and the afterparties with the celebrities and the 'powerful elite'.
Which scares the everloving shit out of these journalists because they have to interview someone that doesn't care about the only thing they've spent their whole life doing; Arselicking for access.
Mick Lynch isn't worrying about being seen in an interview with 'powerful, prominent people' to advance his career, he isn't looking for a TV show or a book deal to take him 'to the next level'. He's advocating for something and that's it, there is no game being played.
These creepy weirdo's inside their strange little political & media bubble cannot understand that. Someone from the real world turned up and picked apart their strange social norms, weird little customs and ran rings around their games by just being a normal person pointing out the obvious.
Scargill was also an absolute moron who handed Thatcher the opportunity to shatter unions in this country by forcing an unpopular strike at a bad time of year, was sued by his own union for financial misconduct, and spent decades drawing union funds to pay the rent on his 1.5m flat, without the NUM's senior officials being informed.
Maybe don't look to him as an example. I certainly hope Mick Lynch is a man of much better character than Scargill.
>Which scares the everloving shit out of these journalists because they have to interview someone that doesn't care about the only thing they've spent their whole life doing; Arselicking for access.
Oh most hacks are just so pathetic.
>as he fits the archetype of the culture they try to appeal to, who depend on talking points like modernization
This is the key reason they are shitting bricks about him. Whenever he brings up class and his cause they instantly start looking really uncomfortable.
[actually right wing media are playing Victim^^^TORY](https://m.thepaperboy.com/frontpages_archive/Daily_Express_22_6_2022_400.jpg)
>Hatred of Boris - is this what it's all about? Union Boss couldn't resist Class War rant
and other deflections, strawmen and repetitive biased propaganda (....probably)
There's nothing in who he is that can really be turned against him.
I'm pro-EU, but this is an instance I'm more than willing to set it aside. For one, if we can make things better outside the EU I'm all for it, for two in this case it's incredibly useful. The media can't use that to drive a wedge.
It’s very useful he was pro-Brexit at the time, if only because it gives him greater legitimacy amongst the constituency of former-Labour voting leavers that the Tories took advantage off.
>pro brexit
>out there specifically for best conditions for workers
Shame those two aren't really compatible particularly with a Tory government actively working to *remove* the rights of workers that were protected in the EU. Tories won't need to debate him, just use the strikes as a fear tactic against Labour and restrict rights to strike
I don't agree with his view of being pro-brexit but with what he's doing it seems to be working in his favour.
It's one less thing for 'the establishment' to grab onto and create a smear campaign around.
It's as though someone is pro-brexit and then actually pulling through for the workers, something the rest are all talk about.
More power to him. Or rather, more worker backed and in their interests power.
But again, brexit is anti worker power, a lot of rights are enshrined in EU law. Leaving the EU, I am well aware unions e.g. RMT took the position of it being a bonus for workers and probably hoped Corbyn would come to power and restore the rights lost since 1979 but it was obvious that a Tory government (as we'd have had, in theory to 2020) would exploit it. Better the devil you know and all that.
As for the establishment, his views on a single vote 6 years ago is neither here nor there, he'll be used as an attack pad for the next election of the "crippling strikes" we'd get if Labour came to power, all the usual fear tactics, I doubt his stance even if he'd been a remain supporter would have made much difference to their attacks
Yes, he's a socialist, isn't he? So he'd see the EU as anti worker, which it is from a left leaning perspective. His version of Brexit would probably be something like Corbyn's version in the 1980s: large Brit firms made to offer mandatory "ownership shares" to workers, and a bevy of other worker rights.
This is all a far cry from a Tory Brexit.
No sorry you're not allowed to have nuanced takes on different people's opinion on Brexit here, if you've ever been infavour of it in anyway shape or form, that means you're evil.
Sure and what the Tories might (and did) do is an aside. Campaigning for leaving the EU, with all the workers rights (like 48 hour week) it brought with the inevitable Tory attempts to get rid of said rights if leave won, is not a great move for preserving worker's rights. Even Corbyn, as much as he viewed the EU as a centre right capitalist club saw benefit of remaining to reform it working with other left and centre left EU parties.
I'm still anti-brexit in the main, as a matter of realpolitik - but what's compelling about Lynch is that if he were in charge, Brexit COULD have represented an improvement in worker power. That is a very alarming prospect: he is what Boris has been pretending to be, in some ways.
We really are at some point going to have to get over the Brexit dividing line.
Myself included, I'm still quite bitter about it. But we can't rewind, and nor can we demonise every single person who voted in the other direction 7 years ago. People's stances on Brexit were complicated, and often based on half truths or worse.
I'm fully behind this guy regardless of our disagreeing over one (admittedly quite big) issue. Fighting for a 7%, ***below inflation***, pay rise is absolutely the right thing to be doing, regardless of how we got here.
Why would any supporter of remaining in the EU (which, statistically, [likely became the majority in 2019](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html) \- not sure if you can find a free version of that but it gives the idea based on the yougov study) want to accept leave as the end result? We voted to remain in the precursor, we voted to leave, we can vote to rejoin if the majority agree. All this "will of the people" stuff that leave banged on about, if the majority want to join or at least become part of the single market again, why shouldn't we? We are not trying to rewind, any more than Kier Starmer shouldn't be expected to stay silent in the Commons for the next 2 years and vote for everything the Tories want just because they won in 2019.
>We really are at some point going to have to get over the Brexit dividing line.
Until those that supported it are prepared to accept observable reality I don't see how we can; if you wanted to go and see Star Wars and I wanted to see ET then we could debate the relative merits of each film and whether or not the final decision to see Star Wars was the right one, but the discussions are subjective and mostly based on opinions. If, on the other hand, you wanted to drive my car off a cliff and I didn't want you to the fact that you still refuse to admit that you lost a leg in the crash, my car is totally fubar and I am bleeding to death from a very serious head wound is a serious barrier to us doing anything about it, particularly when you knock the phone out of my hand every time I try to call for help.
In an ideal world those who voted for Brexit would apologise for the damage that they've done, but when they refuse to accept that the damage is even real how can we possibly work with them? Apart from anything else there's the fear of what utter stupidity they'll do next since they've faced no consequences last time.
They are *completely* compatible. There's a reason the Labour Party actively resisted joining the European Communities until 1974 and advocated for a Brexit-before-it-was-known-as-Brexit until 1992, and why trade unionists advocated for Brexit in 2016.
The European Union allows low-skill workers from Eastern Europe, who will accept lower pay and poorer working conditions, to flood the British market. This drives wages down. When those European workers leave the economy we get situations like the [HGV driver shortage](https://business.senedd.wales/documents/s119986/HGV05%20Logistics%20UK.pdf) and the ensuing pay improvements and incentives to work, as well as the increased effectiveness of striking.
There is nothing in European law to prevent things like the [Trade Union Act 2016](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Union_Act_2016) or the planned part of the law (later dropped to get it through parliament) that would have required picket supervisors to give their names to the police. In 2007, European law [failed to prevent the Finnish company Viking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Transport_Workers_Federation_v_Viking_Line_ABP) from employing Estonian workers to circumvent local trade union laws. The International Transport Workers Federation challenged this behaviour in the ECJ and the ECJ *in fact* ruled that the right to strike could infringe a business's freedom of establishment under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1958); that ruling was used by British Airways to set up a subsidiary with worse working terms and conditions and prevent the British Airline Pilots' Association from striking against it. And that's to make *no mention* of the fact that the European Union requires companies to give women fourteen weeks of maternity leave and to give all workers four weeks of holiday leave, yet the UK gives parents *fifty* weeks of shared leave (thirty-seven of which are paid) and gives all workers over five weeks of holiday leave.
Under EU law, national governments cannot nationalise entire industries. Subsidies and national regulations can be challenged by the European Commission for violating European state aid rules. The NHS, for example, is not allowed to have what the European Commission would deem a 'monopoly' on the healthcare industry and it must have private competitors. What passes the threshold of a 'monopoly' is not decided by *our* elected parliament, but by the Commission (which is elected by the European Parliament), and the idea of state aid being banned and restricted is not one rooted in any kind of socialist or worker-friendly value.
I beg you to go to Greece and tell them that the European Union protects worker's rights. Less than a decade ago the fucking International Monetary Fund told the EU and the European Central Bank to scale back the brutality of their imposed austerity plan on Greece as it **favoured the banks** *too much* and fucked over Greek workers. The EU was not a friend of the workers in 2015 (a year before the Brexit vote) and it hasn't changed much, if at all, on that front since.
Realistically speaking, save for a complete collapse of the EU, Brexit was probably the last chance for Britain to drop out of the EU. The issue of a Tory government is a normal one that has been a problem since before we were in the EU, and can be solved later - hence why certain trade unions, trade unionists, Labour and socialist politicians, and swathes of working people who aren't Tory-inclined voted to leave.
The case about Viking Line was about a boat operating specifically between Finland and Estonia, so to use that as a broader example is a bit disingenuous since most workers do not work in international waters.
Incidentally there was another EU court case in Finland about Polish companies sending/renting workes to Finnish power plant (olkiluoto 3) construction, and the result was that it doesn't matter who their employer is, they get Finnish benefits and salaries because they work in Finland. So that case actually proved that it is 100% on national hands what kind of salaries foreign workers enjoy. So if you feel foreign workers drove salaries and conditions down it is because of UK legislation not EU.
great post.
although i favoured remain , there was, as you very well explained, a compelling and sincere Exit Left argument that got completely drowned out at the time.
the Right wing argument was based on a lie and used xenophobia: the capitalists knew well they relied on lots of cheap migrant labour, which is why business was so pro remain.
of course, those on the left who believed the wages of british workers should be protected and not be undermined by the exploitation of economic migrants were quickly labelled marxist loons and dismissed from the debate.
I'd argue the left wing argument was drowned out in part because it isn't mutually exclusive with the right wing, xenophobia argument.
When Farage starts ranting about the foreigners taking British jobs, that appeals to those on the left and the right, albeit in the former case more due to worker standards and in the latter case due to racism. On the other hand, when someone tries to make the argument for worker standards and rights, it falls flat on those who don't really care about that in the first place.
They are incompatible because leaving the EU allows the government of the day to remove worker protections that the EU had implemented. The EU brought numerous rights to Britain that the Tories would never have introduced e.g. 48 hour week, the right for equal treatment in work. Plus of course, Human Rights Act (finally enshrining a right to free speech in UK law)
There is a lot of misinterpretation and deliberately disingenuous silliness.
You're quoting Farage's lie about EU nations not being allowed to nationalise industries [which is completely false](https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/). The TFEU doesn't touch a lot of parts of EU law, and indeed, EU law explicitly protects the right of nations to nationalise industries, Indeed, article 345 of the TFEU states “The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States (MS) governing the system of property ownership.” Germany has nationalised utilities for example. The commonly quoted article 106 doesn't ban nationalised industries, rather it regulates how they can behave in relation to other enterprises, in particular, by ensuring those with a dominant position due to the state cannot behave unreasonably
The austerity plans in Greece due to Greece's economic fraud, endemic tax evasion etc and their lying to join the Euro don't change the worker's rights like a 48 hour week, they are completely separate to the cuts etc.
>Brexit was probably the last chance for Britain to drop out of the EU
What change in treaty or EU law would have prevented it in the future?
Yep this, Mick hasn't put a foot wrong so far it seems but even some of the most staunch pro Brexit labour members I know would either agree that A: the promised version of Brexit has not and now cannot be delivered or B: realise that Brexit was a mistake and an unrealistic eutopian idea inflicted in no small part by media moguls and foreign governments. I'm hoping even hardliners like him will be backpedalling once the Ukraine crisis and resulting fallout leaves the UK as the only one not recovering, if that isn't plainly visible already.
> Working class, **pro brexit, out there specifically for best conditions for workers**, very engaged and involved in current and historical handling of rail negotiations and modernization.
Pick one.
Funny how the media isn't calling out our questioning his Brexit views because then it would imply that Brexit is bad for workers. Looking forward to see how this plays out
Unpopular opinion but Brexit COULD have been good for lowest of the low.
My old neighbor (50+) worked in construction but was priced out by chapter Eastern European labourers coming in. His age and lower educational attainment couldn't compete with the endless supply of younger and cheaper labourers coming in.
He obviously voted for Brexit since he was hoping he could go back to having a job in the construction industry. Not sure what happened to him now since I have long moved out of that flat.
Oh it’s quite obvious, how anyone could watch them and not think they were all plonkers is beyond me, I don’t know which of them was the most galling it’s embarrassing to watch them
> They fear the likes of Lynch
I dunno about that to be honest, I think they love him. When's the last time anyone talked about these journalists so much? For example, Piers is lapping up his clip getting millions of views. That's all they live for, the attention and views. It doesn't seem to bother them in the slightest that they look foolish because they're still making bank from the whole thing and the people who agreed with them in the first place aren't going to change their minds on strikes, so there's no risk.
The way Lynch talks is great but yeah I don't think any journalist is losing sleep over it. Their standards are so low that they have no integrity or respect to lose from being absolute clowns during an interview. It's all about those views ands they're flooding in.
Plus they'll think they 'won' the interview anyway, I doubt they have enough self-awareness to think otherwise.
I think this is correct. All the interviews you see are those with bizarre gotcha questions, because a dispassionate review of the issue wouldn't get anyone bothered.
> Thats why they are in full smear mode.
"I don't think you're personally antisemitic, but what about the rampant antisemitism in the RMT?"
They'll find something. Whether the shit will stick or not is a different matter.
They will find something to tar him with. Maybe he was in a shop somewhere where there had been a shoplifter caught. Maybe he went to a funeral where someone with doggy political beliefs has been buried, Maybe he boycotted Barclays bank when they supported apartheid...
He doesn't have to say anything. The right wing press will find something groundless to smear him with. If they don't I'm sure they will just make something up like he colluded with terrorists or eats babies or something.
I was thinking about this - he's not actually doing anything complex - when he gets asked stupid questions rather than just answer them, he pops out "This is a stupid question isn't it?" and the whole thing then collapses under it's own weight.
Trouble is a most of the electorate don't vote for the angriest, least polite party.
Whilst Lynch has done some amazing press over the last few days it's a single issue he's fighting for. Convincing a very broad range of demographics and interests to allow you to run the country is a far more complicated and nuanced thing.
Its certainly shown how immensely biased the news is and despite that it is pretty out of touch with the public. Their audience that agrees with them is a definite minority.
I can't understand why anyone would sit down voluntarily and watch Piers Morgan, Richard Madeley or Kay Burley. I mean they've obviously got no clue about what they're talking about, so what's the point? Sure they're polished presenters but they're just polishing a load of arse burgers most of the time.
They don’t know what they are talking about, but that’s not the point to them. The point of them is to stir the pot and fan outrage. I think Lynch being totally calm and unflappable is really disarming to them. I also think that Lynch has more licence and freedom to do his thing because his focus is on the negotiations and the rail workers, so in turn he’s not worried about optics or worried about how he’s going to appeal to a specific voter demographic.
Actively seeking out and watching known biased news that isn't even trying to be balanced strikes me as a very odd behaviour generally! But then it does seem modern news is less about the content and more about convincing you what your opinion on it should be.
It's interesting these points about seeking out known bias. I sometimes feel myself (Central/Left) seeking out and watching a lot of LBC Snippits / James O'brien whilst also keeping an ear to the ground of all the craziness from the likes of those mentioned already. And whilst I don't actively engage or want to watch Piers/Kat/Richard/Kuensberg, I can't help but feel a "want" of keeping up to date on the latest Talent at Global / LBC (Marr / O'brien).
Perhaps because it's a conversation (LBConverstation), and that most of the snippits are back and fourth between viewers and journalists. I would be facinated to hear radio involving MPs, broadcasters and a phone-in; but that unfiltered conversation is more likely to be found in Question Time than a news piece.
Mick Lynch however has been a figure of awe to witness over the last few days.
I think it’s debatable whether question time is unfiltered. Last weeks show was clearly full of Tory voters and pro Brexiteers and there was a young Labour activist. Put the format of the show doesn’t really lend itself to lengthy and meaningful discourse either.
> Mick Lynch called a member of parliament a liar to his face and the presenter (I’m not sure of her name) ignored it, an MP being called a liar and she couldn’t push it and tackle the MP on whether what he was saying was in fact lies (I believe Mr Lynch), I mean maybe we have lost total respect for MPs but to let that slide was terrible
Basically what it shows is the power of someone who is willing to call things as they see them and not worry about whether they might get repeat invites.
Too many interviewees on TV news coverage get along to get on.
> I was angry with the presenter, she had the accuser and the accused (a sitting MP) and wouldn’t delve in to the accusation he was ‘lying’
Yeah I get you, but this goes back to the structure of incentives. Ultimately in the UK the media and political class are one big group and you can't afford to fall out with people who may be future colleagues / bosses and so on.
For avoidance of doubt, this is not a good thing, it is in fact VERY BAD, but the problem is a systemic one, and not restricted to a single presenter.
Unfortunately, this works on a not insignificant number of people who, like my mum, think that all the scandals, strikes and everything else is a "liberal socialist conspiracy" (this is what she has actually said, not paraphrasing) and insist that everything would be working perfectly if it weren't for those traitors.
Most people are sensible even if we disagree, but the conspiracy-obsessed nutters will be more than happy to tear everyone else down if they don't get their way.
>liberal socialist conspiracy
Couldn't be any clearer that the toxic sludge of American politics is already deeply embedded in the right wing over here.
Absolutely, I heard this sort of stuff from my peers and others 10-15 years ago, including the occasional hyper religious nonsense, so I'm not at all surprised and I expect it to get so much worse.
>!At least I no longer have to hear people say that they're a race realist, not a racist, or that they'd stick the gays in gas chambers, but that's probably more due to moving out of a place where everyone has their shoulders up their own arses.!<
Well Boris [does have a relationship](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/22/video-reveals-steve-bannon-links-to-boris-johnson) with Steve Bannon, who was Trump's campaign manager during the 2016 US election.
I'm guessing Sophy Ridge but I'm pretty sure she interviewed the MP before Mick Lynch so there wasn't any chance to ask the MP about the quote. I may be wrong tho
I was Kirsty Wark. It was also one of those interviews where the government had agreed to send a MP onto Newsnight but they weren’t going to speak to the other side. Happens frequently.
I think Wark was stumped because the interview kinda broke those rules of engagement.
The BBC are already walking an ‘impartiality tightrope’ and are clearly worried about getting reigned in by the government. You only have to look at the fact that Lewis Goodall, a Newsnight journalist/reporter said that he was jumping ship this week.
The BBC, worrying about being reigned in, instead reign themselves in. This has nothing to do with BBC news managers being ex Tory hq employees, or the head of the BBC having donated £400,000 to them.
Nope.
The only good one I've seen was Dan Walker. Asked him probing questions but in a respectful way that actually prompted an informative response from Mick Lynch.
He seems to be too cute for that (a compliment), it just looks like he is playing with them, kind of reminds me of something I took from ‘Meditations by Marcus Aurelius’, the idea that you are expecting to meet idiots in your day so when he does these interviews he knows what their game plan is
Madeley's performance was honestly one of the most embarrassing things I've seen in a long time. Hiding behind a vague "people are saying" line then when told he's talking complete shit trying to pull a "to be clear I'M not accusing you of that" as though it matters at all who the supposed "accuser" is when he's the one that's saying it on national TV.
The whole thing made him look absolutely pathetic.
Whether or not you agree with the article. What is clear as day is the impact of being an effective public speaker on public opinion. Kier Starmer desperately needs to up his game, he is percieved as boring and dispassionate. He needs to find a key issue to push (there's plenty lying around right now) and lead the charge. He should be hammering every interview with visions for a brighter future, he needs to show that he is the only one who can bring it. He needs some populism! If he just quietly tiptoes around the big issues trying to hold an inoffensive moderate line then he will just blend into the background as another "metropolitan elite out-of-touch politician" lost to the annals of history, rather than the next prime minister.
> Kier Starmer desperately needs to up his game, he is percieved as boring and dispassionate.
I don't mind boring and dispassionate, although it's clear that these are disqualifying characteristics when it comes to British politics. I do not see the majority of UK voters championing a candidate like that, the way Germans did with Merkel.
That being said, he would not be seen as such, if he took a more proactive role in shaping the narratives on issues that become political. He did that with partygate, for example, and suddenly everyone was impressed with his leadership skills during that time. But on other topics, like this one, he prefers to sit it out, wait for a majoritarian consensus to emerge, and only *then* make his own position clear. Which might be fine on issues where he is genuinely ambivalent about, but labour strikes are a topic that one would hope he already has a position that is based on his personal principles. Presumably, that's how one becomes a member of the *Labour* party to begin with, let alone the leader.
>. He did that with partygate, for example, and suddenly everyone was impressed with his leadership skills during that time.
It's bizarre. Every time Kier gets shouty, every time he's passionate, there's this buzz around him. Favourable press, favourable vox pops. It's been shown time and time again that a loud Starmer who is being proactive is received very favourably.
But then they keep reverting back. As is they're terrified that Kier might accidentally be perceived as having a personality.
The problem is he needs something to be loud and shouty about, but he's petrified that, by taking a strong political stance on something, he risks alienating anyone who doesn't already agree with him. It's why Partygate was such a boon for him, he can be angry and strident all he wants without having to risk having a position on anything other than 'Torys bad'
The press are more sympathetic about politicians calling out obvious corruption than they are about politicians talking honestly about issues of ideology - at any rate when the ideology being put forward is left wing. In other words, the alternative interpretation is not that Starmer should just get more passionate, but that *he is picking the right things to be passionate about*.
The reason Lynch's performance doesn't translate is because the media and the public doesn't necessarily treat everyone the same as long as they say the same thing.
It’s because Keir knows that fundamentally the Red Wall he needs back are socially right wing. He either goes against them, or against the young left wing metropolitan vote.
This is why, Brexit, What is a woman, Rwanda, deporting criminals, etc are like Kryptonite. He will always shy away from them because the truth is labour is a big tent around two groups of people who despise each other.
Agreed but in a way the tories have a similar problem...socially conservative but economically left wing red wallers v southern m/c and w/c tory types who are quite happy for benefits to be cut, public services to be slashed...
The tories do have a mirror problem, but they can avoid it by being as socially right as they like, and marginally less economically left than labour.
Labour can’t because their two groups are both focused on the social aspect.
I agree with your assessment, but Starmer hasn't taken the correct positions. In fact, he has done the very opposite. Economic interventionist policies, which are popular in the Red Wall, have all been scrapped, while the unpopular social policies are repeatedly touted by the shadow cabinet. If Starmer wants to win the next election, he must recapture the Red Wall. And the only guaranteed way of doing that is by switching course.
Can confirm, I live in a Labour heartland safe seat and I am economically left and socially right.
Starmer isn’t winning anyone over but he’s better than the Tory’s.
> I do not see the majority of UK voters championing a candidate like that, the way Germans did with Merkel.
Of course there are different dynamics involved, but a large part of the difference was that Merkel was still able to come across as both comfortable in her own skin and sympathetic when the need arose:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vtLhq157kE
This was the same time when Starmer was still running on the 'kids need to go back to school, no ifs, no buts' culminating in a moment where the Labour front bench were still campaigning for schools to be re-opened after the Tories had actually pivoted on the policy (resulting in the ludicrous scenario where children had one day on the school premises and then went back to remote learning).
The mad thing is, he’s not even from the right wing of the party. He’s got no real base of support anywhere.
Don’t get me wrong he’s better than Johnson by a country mile but it’s worrying that he’s gone this long like this.
Perhaps the above poster was commenting on him cosying up with the right of the party, seeing that as his route to electoral success. But at the moment his Labour party is nothing more than 'not the Tory party'. It's simply not good enough, he stands for nothing.
The Labour party itself barely stands for anything, as half of it and a lot of the members want it to actually pull to the left, whereas the rest of the party including most of the PLP just want to be neo-Blairite red Tories for the sake of getting elected with no further thought beyond that. If it wasn't for FPTP they probably wouldn't even still all be in the same party, and any leader who attempts to stand for anything discernible in one direction or the other is going to get dragged down by infighting while the Tories just sit back laughing among themselves safe in the knowledge that they've tied up the entire right-of-centre vote.
This conversation happens so often in this sub. It was Starmer versus Corbyns spiritual successors and he got demolished by Boris. The Labour Party needed someone for the people who wasn’t so obviously far left. No matter who’s running the party they’re going to take a fat hit from the far left and right wing media so give the guy a break. He does stand for things he just never gets credit, he was for the windfall tax which is coming and never got credited for it. Articles like this seek to divide Labour voters and it’s clearly working
I'm not a Labour or Tory voter so articles like this aren't influencing my decision whatsoever.
In 2 years what has he really put forward/taken a strong stance on?
What's his environmental plan? Plan for the growing number of being relying on food banks? For saving our failing NHS? What about police reform/crime reform? Decriminalisation of drugs? International policies?
The man is standing in the next election as a referendum on whether or not to vote Tories back into power. Exact same situation with Biden v Trump. Biden wasn't inspiring, he didn't have to make any promises. Rather, he was voted in out of a deep dislike for Trump throughout a significant portion of Americans.
Ask yourself, what does this man stand for? If the windfall tax is about all you can come up with then I think you can understand my point.
Edit: Also, can you point out any 'far left' media organisations that have any sort of influence over the publics view of Starmer?
> The mad thing is, he’s not even from the right wing of the party. He’s got no real base of support anywhere.
Other than a plurality of the electorate going by opinion polls lol
>He’s got no real base of support anywhere.
Maybe that's a good thing. Johnson's and Corbyns "base" were pretty extreme. Johnson managed to rally people up to some extent but his vote share was hardly revolutionary.
I wonder if Starmer is blanf enough that politically apathetic people will vote for him because he is so non offensive? He's like magnolia, no one loves it but it's a safe bet for the masses.
I think the most charitable guess is that being bland will stop Tory voters going to go and vote against him.
But even then, there are plenty of generic unifying things he could be using to get some support. I don’t even think it’s a policy issue, it’s just a messaging one.
I keep hearing this criticism and I'm struggling to connect to it. I feel like Starmer does well at PMQs. Admittedly this is an artificial environment, but he consistently shows up Johnson.
I'm not going to get sucked into a Corbyn vs Starmer debate, but I don't really see what Corbyn has/does in terms of charisma that Starmer doesn't. Same with Miliband. We're going all the way back to Blair before I can name Labour leader who was more charismatic than Starmer.
Most people don't watch PMQs and the clips on the news don't often show a clear "winner".
Corbyn hosted/attended many rallies and constantly immersed himself in public crowds. People were singing "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn" at Glastonbury. Compared to Corbyn, the boring adjective describes Starmer perfectly. Outside of PMQ clips, you almost never hear about him.
I mean that's not really relevant to the comparison between Corbyn and Starmer though, is it?
Corbyn was a bad leader in many ways, but I see the same mistakes being made by Starmer with not many redeeming qualities beyond being able to argue better inside the house of commons.
Oh, I'm not a fan of all of Starmer's choices either, but if you think he is making the same mistakes as Corbyn then I don't know what to say - the strategies they are using are so vastly different, and their potential errors similarly so.
And it is relevant - being noisy and interesting outside of a general election did Corbyn absolutely no good. He lost one election, and then majorly lost another. So while I may not agree with everything Starmer does, I can actually see a benefit of presenting as small a target as possible; there will be plenty of time to make noise when people are actually listening.
Let me ask you this: how much better do you think Starmer would have done in those elections? You'd be hard-pressed to be convinced he would have fared any better in either.
Corbyn also tried to present a small target over Brexit, and the media crucified him for fence-sitting. Despite trying to control the narrative he was ultimately ineffectual. I see Starmer facing these same issues and not doing any better. The only difference is that Brexit was a much bigger issue for the nation, so Starmer is getting off a little easier.
And it's not relevant to what we were discussing. The person I replied to said they couldn't understand why Starmer is considered more boring than Corbyn. My reply merely offered an explanation for that.
No two general elections are the same. If Corbyn had won his first GE we would have said it was due to his popularity. If Starmer wins his we will be saying it's in spite of his unpopularity.
What Corbyn lacked in charisma, he made up for with (consistent) principle, but I also think the lack of charisma undermined him properly communicating his principles and getting people on side.
I'm reminded of this clip: https://metro.co.uk/video/jeremy-corbyn-naughtiest-thing-s-done-1479829/
Even in a vacuum of everything else, I found him pretty likeable. I think charismatic is a reasonable description, as far as MPs go.
Charisma is a two way street, you need to ***want*** to be charmed for it to work. Like being hypnotised.
Some one others call charismatic, you might find repulsive.
He's definitely getting better at PMQs, and has started making more off the cuff quips in response to the other side. But his main points always sound painfully rehearsed, and he consults his notes a lot while speaking. He needs to make everything sound more natural and unrehearsed.
>He needs to find a key issue to push (there's plenty lying around right now) and lead the charge.
I mean, even if he stuck to 'look at how corrupt the Tories are' like a broken record I think he'd gain traction on that alone. That's quite likely to win over Tory voters (who generally believe in the rule of law, justice, etc) if not to Labour, at least put them off the Tories enough to vote Lib Dem which has got to be almost as good for Labour as if they voted Labour instead (I'm sure they'd rather the Libs split the Tory vote than their own).
Right and Mick Lynch isn't running for election. While he is doing a great job actually pointing out a lot of the problems that mainstream journalism doesn't seem interested in, he would likely not do that great of a job as PM because he's got one issue and one job.
Lynch is acting a bit like Nigel Farage as a demagogue who is able to take on ministers and show them up. He doesn't have to beat up scab workers as Kay Burley was trying to suggest, he was smart enough to know that if you can pique people's interest then you can get exposure in the media quite freely.
Persuade 20% and the rest will get dragged along.
You see it all the time.
Lynch is in fact elected. He's looking after those people and by not caring what anyone outside of that group think, ironically, makes him appealing to a wider audience.
Except Mick Lynch would get destroyed in a general election.
Thats why he can act like this - he doesn't need to win any votes of anyone who doesn't like him. He doesn't give a flying fuck what pensioners think.
To me its clear that kier starmers plan is to never do anything his enemy would want him to do. He has played it perfectly by not engaging in the strikes and allowing it to remain as union vs conservatives. Tories desperately want him to step into the middle of it, so he wont.
We lefties need to accept some pragmatism. We live in a conservative country, which an ultra conservative media. Just saying what you believe as a left winger loses elections. Thats just a fact. It sucks but its true.
100% he can do what he does because he doesn't need to worry about political impact past next 3 weeks. Kier has more things to consider. While I enjoy what Mick is doing and support him 100% his job is different to job of leader of opposition. On the other hand Kier could pick up few tricks when it comes to making press look like the morons they are
>Thats why he can act like this - he doesn't need to win any votes of anyone who doesn't like him. He doesn't give a flying fuck what pensioners think.
He's also not subject to the ridiculous rules of Parliament which allow ministers to lie with impunity at the despatch box but will censure opposition MPs who point out that the minister in question is lying.
Starmer can say that people are lying when on TV. It is only in the chamber that he can't. He can also contradict liars and point out the information which proves that they're not telling the truth, even in the chamber.
Doesn't need to win over votes and also it's a single issue.
Always easier to set out your stall when it's one issue and you have a clear position. Starmers job is much much harder
We live in a country where the Tories consistently get more votes than any other party. There have only been 3/11 elections in the last 40 years where they haven't had the highest proportion of the popular vote. Clearly this country is more conservative than any other identity.
No government has had the majority of the popular vote since 1935. Using that as a measure of how the country skews is all but meaningless.
30% is not a true majority, it's only so under FPTP. Fundamentally the majority of the country hold stances that aren't conservative, instead a plethora of other ideologies and perspectives.
To be fair even in PR systems high 30% can lead to 50% of seats in Parliament, depending on the distribution rule and thresholds, e.g. in Poland in 2015 PiS got 37% or all votes and won 51% of seats
I'm confused at how you read my whole comment about how no ruling party has had a majority and thought I was saying it was a majority.
All I'm saying is that conservatives make up the largest single voting block, almost always. Britain is unfortunately (imo) quite conservative. It's very easy to forget that here on Reddit which leans so left.
I wouldn't say them being the dominant group statistically but not overall counts as Britain as a whole being conservative; the centre and the left have their votes split instead of voting as a block.
>We lefties need to accept some pragmatism.
Agreed.
>We live in a conservative country,
Uh, no, we live in a country where FPTP makes it appear to be a conservative country. More people voted for progressive parties than for the Conservative Party. With PR you would see that the right are actually quite a small percentage of the population.
>which an ultra conservative media.
An ultra capitalist media heavily invested in the protection of the tax system, not a conservative media. Conservative media would be decrying the attempts to dismantle the standards in public life and the judiciary.
My biggest frustration with Starmer is that we spent the last two years hearing all about how he is the person to move the Labour Party from *fringe, leftist ideas* such as trans rights and focus on “real issues” that are supposed to be affecting the working class and Labour voters. And what does he do when an opportunity to focus on that presents itself? Forbidding frontbenchers from getting involved in an attempt to distance both himself and the party from the issue.
I don’t care if it’s a “tactical” decision to avoid being blamed for instigating strikes or whatever. Starmer should make his position clear. The only clear message since this issue emerged was that he doesn’t want frontbenchers to be involved. A message that was then ignored, and in my opinion rightly so. If the *Labour* Party is neither about labour, nor about *fringe leftist ideas*, then what are they about? Why should I vote for them, other than the despicable alternatives?
For the record, I like Starmer as a person and as a politician. But I’m not convinced that he knows where he wants to lead the party ideologically, beyond “somewhere else than Corbyn would have”.
Labour is falling into the trap that the Democrats fell into in the US. They're struggling to find a unifying message, making multiple portions of their base disappointed in different ways at the same time, and ultimately telling their supporters to trust them because the alternative is so much worse.
It's a series of tactical, reactionary decisions with the promise that it's 4D chess and we can't just see how far ahead they're thinking of strategy. But let me make this clear as an American transplant to the UK, there is not grand strategy, and this does not end well for liberal ideals.
I think Biden being president instead of trump does make a big difference to Liberal ideals. Because of first past the post it ends up as a choice between the least bad option.
What do you expect them to do? The difference between Conservative extremists and Labour extremists is that Cons will always back the party regardless and take 20% of what they want rather than hand the keys to someone else and get 0.
Labour extremists would rather live under
Boris than compromise.
Look what happened in America.
‘iM nOt vOtInG fOr sHiLaRY bErNiE oR bUsT’
5 years later: ‘omg why are the Supreme Court overturning roe vs Wade and removing abortion rights’
The comparison to "bernie or bust" is not only inaccurate, but also nonsensical. Hillary did not lose because of "bernie bros", she lost because she ran an awful campaign, didn't defend Michigan or Washington properly, The Comey Letter, the list goes on. The supreme court issue happened because of a combination of Obama lacking the political capital to nominate anyone to the supreme court, for and Ginsburg not retiring during his term to make way for a left-leaning nominee.
Expecting anyone to the left of Hillary/Biden to always be the ones who compromise when those candidates would not look out of place as Centrist Republicans is just baffling. The issue with the Democrat party in America is that they're uninspiring and the most successful Democratic candidates are just LGBT-friendly centrists, hardly inspiring for most.
You're on the mark with regards to the same issue being present here, but your analysis of the *cause and* *effects* of said issue way way, way off. Nobody is inspired by someone who stands for nothing. Wanting Starmer at the moment feels no different than the "better than Trump" vibe that was in the US in 2020. What does he actually stand for? Could he actually get anything done? The thing that defines conservatives is their drive to maintain the status-quo, while progressives are looking for change. What change has Labour pushed for in the last decade? What unifying, driving change, have they rallied behind in order to persuade people that change is needed? Fuck all.
I'm a member of the labour party, but it's clear that Labour is floundering and directionless, and has been for ages now.
Wrong on all counts.
Hilary lost because she was terrible. More hilary voters in 08 went to mccain than beanie to trump. More Obama voters went to trump than beanie to trump. She lost in states she didn't hold any rallies in. You're just wrong.
And on this point about compromise, why is it expected only of the left? Just to remind people of the facts.
The tories did 1.2% better in 2019 than 2017. They barely did better under Boris and his big successful campaign than weak and wobbly may did in 2017. So what happened? 0.8% of people went to SNP, they increased their % of the vote almost by as much as the tories. Lib democracy went up by 4.2. How different would the election result if those in the centre voted for Jeremy over Jo Swindon? Look at France and melechon. Macron voters stayed home rather than vote for melenchon to keep out le pen.
Centrist love saying we should be courting them but never make efforts to court the left. It's childish and complete projection.
>I don’t care if it’s a “tactical” decision to avoid being blamed for instigating strikes or whatever.
The ironic thing is that Tory MPs and ministers have been in the media blaming the strikes on Labour anyway!
But from what I can tell, because Starmer isn't vocally supporting it, its making conservative attempts to blame him a joke to most people (or maybe I'm just too sheltered)
Exactly. The right-wing media will blame it on Labour regardless, which is all the more reason to get ahead of this messaging - something that will not be achieved by burring head in the sand and hoping your MPs are on board with that "plan" as well.
But what does it then achieve? Labour appears on the picket line, saying it backs the right for TU to go on strike (which they have, but have said they prefer that strikes didn't go ahead, ergo it's a failure of govt).
The right wing press are already itching to make this a "Labour Strike", which has already been mentioned in PMQs, so we know where the thinking is at at no.10.
At the political level it is about ownership of the issue and who can deliver a solution. An oppositional party cannot fix this, other than by saying 'we'd negotiate around the table'. The Tories will gleefully pass the buck elsewhere and say it's Labour's fault. So why on earth would you give them that stick to beat Labour with?
Let Boris hang himself with his own rope.
That's not what I want from the labour party, and I say that as a member.
Labour should not be afraid to stand with workers and use their platform of various media outlets to tell the general public why there are strikes.
As it stands Labour are a party that wants power so it can appease the working man, whereas they should be a party that stands with the working man, for the working man.
>The right wing press are already itching to make this a “Labour Strike”
You could argue this either way: the right wing press are already conflating the party with the strikes, regardless of what Starmer does. So he may as well have some principles and political courage for once in his leadership.
The government line is that Starmer “failed to condemn” the strikes. Well, he’s obviously not going to go that far, so whatever he does isn’t going to appease their attack dogs
> You could argue this either way: the right wing press are already conflating the party with the strikes, regardless of what Starmer does. So he may as well have some principles and political courage for once in his leadership.
>
> The government line is that Starmer “failed to condemn” the strikes. Well, he’s obviously not going to go that far, so whatever he does isn’t going to appease their attack dogs
It's not a binary.
Labour are working in the margins to try to flip seats. All the people who buy the argument that it's Labour behind the strikes are not necessarily the same people as those who'd only believe this to be the case if Labour's officially rowed in behind them.
It's not a case of in for a penny, in for a pound. There are costs and benefits to either choice and really, nobody knows which would yield more votes, or even if it would have any tangible effect at all.
Trans rights aren't fringe leftist ideas, it's literally people seeking the same rights as everyone else. People being free to live life as themselves is neither left nor right, and it's as important as women's rights, men's rights, human rights and so forth.
Of course. This is why I italicised them - I'm completely on board and believe it should be an issue the Labour Party should explicitly represent. But for the past two years, we have been hearing that "working class people don't care about that" as an argument that Starmer should focus on other issues, so I was pointing out that he isn't doing that when he has the opportunity to do so.
"Trans rights" aren't well defined though. My assumption is that most trans people are pretty level-headed and just want to be treated with the dignity and kindness a fair society should strive for.
Unfortunately, as is common with almost any emerging push for rights, the voices of the majority are largely unheard as the media love to swell their viewership by amplifying the fringe. Unfortunately there are MtF trans activists who are, for example, describing lesbians as bigots for not wanting to sleep with them and defining any criticism of their ideology as equivocal to murder. The right-wing media **loves** this rhetoric as they can portray it as the norm rather than the extreme. The left wing media, keen to be seen as progressive, gives the fringe a loudspeaker and lets them speak on behalf of everyone who is trans.
I think it’s dangerous to criticise Keir Starmer for being cautious when he’s already ahead in the polls. The tories are doing a terrible job and Keir is letting their failures speak for themselves.
I cannot see any strategic reason to try create a new vision or overhaul his image when the current approach is working.
Truth is he can’t do much until the next GE
Could we just take a good news day and without the self-harm?
If a Tory-associated person gives a couple of good interviews the right-wing press doesn't turn that into an series of articles on how rubbish Johnson is.
Part of what has to be understood (and OP/and the author clearly doesn't), is that it's easier being an industry specific union negotiator than being on the other side (As a government/state).
Why? Because Lynch only has to care about his members (at best), he doesn't have to care about what is good or bad for the country, what is good or bad for other workers or unions.
As an example, Lynch would reject the following, RMT getting 3%, because the money is being spend to give NHS nurses, doctors, and teachers 10% (with some pay grades getting above inflation jumps). He'd have to, as he doesn't have to care about nurses, doctors, teachers.
However, a government and the wider country, might think such a deal is a better thing, and more aligned with their priorities (and issues around nurse/teacher/doctor vacancies...)
A pay rise for RMT workers would come out of the coffers of private rail companies, who can pay huge salaries and bonuses to bosses and have made hundreds of millions in profits. It has no affect on other sectors.
So you agree with the conservatives, that this whole RMT strike buissnes is nothing to do with the government?
And that RMT is lying when they attack the government on this ?
>So you agree with the conservatives, that this whole RMT strike buissnes is nothing to do with the government?
>
>And that RMT is lying when they attack the government on this ?
"The Department for Transport has insisted the rail industry is leading the negotiations. However, a contract seen by the BBC said train operating companies' handling of strike action was "subject to the secretary of state's direction", a reference to Grant Shapps, the transport secretary."
Yep... was my point, and OP is talking nonsense when he pretends it has nothing to do with the government.
Precisely because gov has oversight and also tax subsidies
This is overlooking all the basic ground work Starmer has had to do to fix Labour's brand. Mick Lynch is great, we need more like him, and perhaps we need Starmer to step up the performance aspect, but there's a lot more to being a leader.
Once you embrace populism even a little, it’s very hard to walk back. If we look at history, populism usually escalates to the absolute extreme, causes a massive (usually negative) change, and that’s what pushes people away from it.
It’s funny how power makes you a more effective operator. Leader of the opposition has no power. He can’t actually do anything.
Leader of one of the biggest unions? Well he has enough power to grind the country to a stand still if he wants to.
Until we have a Labour Party supporting organised labour we are fucked.
I realise FPTP encourages it but im sick of the "lets try to be bland and pick of disaffected right wingers" strategy.
It might work but then what happens when theyre in power. Blair had the chance to rip up Thatchers anti union legislation and did absolutely fuck all
Labour is obviously watching all of this and I think they'll cautiously change their tune.
But like it or not, they need to claim some of the centre ground to win.
It's a tightrope.
If Labour decides that, actually, they are the party of the workers, then they need to also realise that they need to build a coalition and not pretend that they can win a parliamentary majority on their own. Right now they are trying to cling to the dream of gaining a majority while avoiding taking any discernible policy positions.
Starmer is thinking of getting a party into government. He has to worry about students who are struggling with exams and making it to exam halls on time.
Lynch only has to worry about 40k workers.
While it would be great if we had a Labour leader like Lynch, let's be honest: a massive campaign would be swiftly arranged to destroy him, the press, MI5, MI6, the Labour right, the wealthy and the political establishment, rallying to promptly take him down.
In two years Starmer has taken Labour from languishing in the aftermath of their worst defeat for decades to consistently being 4+ points ahead.
I'm all for praising Mick Lynch but honestly if your take on this crisis is about the opposition rather than the government, the unions, or the crisis itself, you are just an unserious clown person.
Honestly, I suspect the left-wingers on this sub consist mainly of the lunatic Corbynites, still pissy that their Commie grandpa wasn't a great leader like their cult led them to believe.
"working people, who are currently being subjected to spiralling inflation, exploding energy bills and real-term wage cuts"
Are these not all basically the same thing?
Inflation is when consumer prices go up. The biggest driver of this IS the 'exploding energy costs' and 'real-term wage cuts' are because those same prices are going up and wages aren't. Why are the media so weird and confusing in their rhetoric around 'inflation'? I honestly think we'd be better off ditching the term and causing is 'price rises'. You could even call it a 'pricis'!
Inflation and energy bills are similar except there's not really an alternative to energy usage. But if an individual's wage was rising with or outpacing inflation then they would still be better off.
RMT isn't even affiliated with Labour. Mick Lynch isn't leader of the second largest party.
And if it's true that the author contributes to Novara as one of the repliers says below, then that's all we need to know about this article really.
Opinion: This article is a microcosm of the other side of the same problem of journalism in this nation.
As an elector under FPTP I don't think it matters what the leader of the opposition does vis-a-vis what the leader of the government does outside of a manifesto. Articles like this and all the Corbyn bashing over the course of the last decade is just the other side of the coin of these Piers Morgans and Richard Medeleys.
[I mean just look at the quality of article this journo puts out](https://www.independent.co.uk/author/harriet-williamson), she's just as shitty as any of them and is farming clicks as opposed to informing her readership which is the same game that Medeley and Morgan are playing.
This is some impressive mental gymnastics to use this as a smear given Labour have intentionally been keeping their heads out of the mud to let the Tories rot in their own mess.
Fucking hell left wing people are hilarious, if they weren't eating their closest political friends they might actually be able to get things done.
Hilarious to watch.
Opinion: we are dealing with a crisis created by Boris and Conservative good idea would be to focus attacks on Boris and Conservatives not start another round of infighting. It's such an easy win to have here.
One has to bring unity to a fractured party on a whole range of issues, one had to campaign for better conditions for rail staff.
Can't think what one is easy in comparison to the other
What I'm seeing is blatant agitprop accounts pretending to be left wing, while attacking Labour for problems they have had no hand in for the last 12 years.
Being foolish is not getting elected and letting the far right run roughshod over the country for another decade.
Your political system is a sack of shite, and until that's rectified you don't get to have politics that adheres to some semblance of principle.
He's made a perfectly reasonable statement. But the statement was basically "It's not up to me, don't ask me, they should negotiate something" and then told his MPs to sit on the fence as best they can by not going to pickets.
It feels like a very 'lawyer' thing to do. Best not to say too much at risk of incriminating yourself or saying the wrong thing.
But while it's very reasonable and 'prudent', it's not without risk.
I like Starmer for his being someone who falls into the 'competent' end of politics. He strikes me as someone who will do the work and not fall into bullshit crisis and scandals.
But at a certain point competence is not enough. Not having a bunch of scandals about racism or infidelity are not enough. Not being Boris Johnson is not enough.
He needs to give people a reason to vote FOR Labour. Tony Blair (for all his faults) had a rallying cry, and a vision. Starmer's is a rallying polite talk, and a well written, legally sound document about what a vision could be, perhaps.
Let's hope he can find a bit of extra punch going forward.
Are we forgetting that Labour under Starmer effectively cornered the government into applying the windfall tax on energy companies? Mick is great but what’s the point of pitting left wing leaders against each other
Mick Lynch's media performances play incredibly well with the middle class journalism Corbynites who will tell us that these are the voices we need to hear more from. They don't quite go as far as saying we need to hear less from them: Middle class left wing journalists with their columns and podcasts and twitter activism, perhaps best expressed by Novara, full of people whose interest in left politics is based on ideology instead of material conditions.
And they also don't understand that being an effective representative and negotiator for rail workers isn't the same thing as leading a party to victory in a general election.
Snapshot of _Opinion: Mick Lynch has done more in two days than Starmer has in two years_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mick-lynch-keir-starmer-rail-strikes-rmt-b2107543.html?amp) *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.*
What this Mick Lynch story has also shown in the last two days is the terrible standard of journalism, it’s like trying to ape the worst of American reporting, Kay Burley going around in circles trying to allude to violence on a picket line, Richard Madeley and his ‘some people say’, and Piers Morgan wasting time on an avatar pic, on the BBC Mick Lynch called a member of parliament a liar to his face and the presenter (I’m not sure of her name) ignored it, an MP being called a liar and she couldn’t push it and tackle the MP on whether what he was saying was in fact lies (I believe Mr Lynch), I mean maybe we have lost total respect for MPs but to let that slide was terrible
They fear the likes of Lynch. Thats why they are in full smear mode. The funny thing is it isn't working as he's as straightalking as they come.
Lynch doesn't give a shit about access, which is *all* these 'journalists' care about. He has a reason to be on TV, he's explaining it and he doesn't give a shit if he's not going to be called back for another interview, invited to the country clubs, the events, the dinners, the drinks and the afterparties with the celebrities and the 'powerful elite'. Which scares the everloving shit out of these journalists because they have to interview someone that doesn't care about the only thing they've spent their whole life doing; Arselicking for access. Mick Lynch isn't worrying about being seen in an interview with 'powerful, prominent people' to advance his career, he isn't looking for a TV show or a book deal to take him 'to the next level'. He's advocating for something and that's it, there is no game being played. These creepy weirdo's inside their strange little political & media bubble cannot understand that. Someone from the real world turned up and picked apart their strange social norms, weird little customs and ran rings around their games by just being a normal person pointing out the obvious.
Reminds me of Scargill back in the day, loud & proud and didn't give a monkeys. Boy, the things they tried to do to that man were unreal
Scargill joined the picket line today, in case you missed it. Wearing the baseball cap he wore while getting arrested, apparently.
Scargill was also an absolute moron who handed Thatcher the opportunity to shatter unions in this country by forcing an unpopular strike at a bad time of year, was sued by his own union for financial misconduct, and spent decades drawing union funds to pay the rent on his 1.5m flat, without the NUM's senior officials being informed. Maybe don't look to him as an example. I certainly hope Mick Lynch is a man of much better character than Scargill.
>Which scares the everloving shit out of these journalists because they have to interview someone that doesn't care about the only thing they've spent their whole life doing; Arselicking for access. Oh most hacks are just so pathetic.
[удалено]
>as he fits the archetype of the culture they try to appeal to, who depend on talking points like modernization This is the key reason they are shitting bricks about him. Whenever he brings up class and his cause they instantly start looking really uncomfortable.
[actually right wing media are playing Victim^^^TORY](https://m.thepaperboy.com/frontpages_archive/Daily_Express_22_6_2022_400.jpg) >Hatred of Boris - is this what it's all about? Union Boss couldn't resist Class War rant and other deflections, strawmen and repetitive biased propaganda (....probably)
There's nothing in who he is that can really be turned against him. I'm pro-EU, but this is an instance I'm more than willing to set it aside. For one, if we can make things better outside the EU I'm all for it, for two in this case it's incredibly useful. The media can't use that to drive a wedge.
Speaking as a dedicated Remainer, Mick Lynch is the first Brexit supporter I’ve heard who makes any sense.
It’s very useful he was pro-Brexit at the time, if only because it gives him greater legitimacy amongst the constituency of former-Labour voting leavers that the Tories took advantage off.
>pro brexit >out there specifically for best conditions for workers Shame those two aren't really compatible particularly with a Tory government actively working to *remove* the rights of workers that were protected in the EU. Tories won't need to debate him, just use the strikes as a fear tactic against Labour and restrict rights to strike
I don't agree with his view of being pro-brexit but with what he's doing it seems to be working in his favour. It's one less thing for 'the establishment' to grab onto and create a smear campaign around. It's as though someone is pro-brexit and then actually pulling through for the workers, something the rest are all talk about. More power to him. Or rather, more worker backed and in their interests power.
But again, brexit is anti worker power, a lot of rights are enshrined in EU law. Leaving the EU, I am well aware unions e.g. RMT took the position of it being a bonus for workers and probably hoped Corbyn would come to power and restore the rights lost since 1979 but it was obvious that a Tory government (as we'd have had, in theory to 2020) would exploit it. Better the devil you know and all that. As for the establishment, his views on a single vote 6 years ago is neither here nor there, he'll be used as an attack pad for the next election of the "crippling strikes" we'd get if Labour came to power, all the usual fear tactics, I doubt his stance even if he'd been a remain supporter would have made much difference to their attacks
Yes, he's a socialist, isn't he? So he'd see the EU as anti worker, which it is from a left leaning perspective. His version of Brexit would probably be something like Corbyn's version in the 1980s: large Brit firms made to offer mandatory "ownership shares" to workers, and a bevy of other worker rights. This is all a far cry from a Tory Brexit.
No sorry you're not allowed to have nuanced takes on different people's opinion on Brexit here, if you've ever been infavour of it in anyway shape or form, that means you're evil.
Sure and what the Tories might (and did) do is an aside. Campaigning for leaving the EU, with all the workers rights (like 48 hour week) it brought with the inevitable Tory attempts to get rid of said rights if leave won, is not a great move for preserving worker's rights. Even Corbyn, as much as he viewed the EU as a centre right capitalist club saw benefit of remaining to reform it working with other left and centre left EU parties.
I'm still anti-brexit in the main, as a matter of realpolitik - but what's compelling about Lynch is that if he were in charge, Brexit COULD have represented an improvement in worker power. That is a very alarming prospect: he is what Boris has been pretending to be, in some ways.
We really are at some point going to have to get over the Brexit dividing line. Myself included, I'm still quite bitter about it. But we can't rewind, and nor can we demonise every single person who voted in the other direction 7 years ago. People's stances on Brexit were complicated, and often based on half truths or worse. I'm fully behind this guy regardless of our disagreeing over one (admittedly quite big) issue. Fighting for a 7%, ***below inflation***, pay rise is absolutely the right thing to be doing, regardless of how we got here.
Why would any supporter of remaining in the EU (which, statistically, [likely became the majority in 2019](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html) \- not sure if you can find a free version of that but it gives the idea based on the yougov study) want to accept leave as the end result? We voted to remain in the precursor, we voted to leave, we can vote to rejoin if the majority agree. All this "will of the people" stuff that leave banged on about, if the majority want to join or at least become part of the single market again, why shouldn't we? We are not trying to rewind, any more than Kier Starmer shouldn't be expected to stay silent in the Commons for the next 2 years and vote for everything the Tories want just because they won in 2019.
>But we can't rewind Why do people keep propagating this rubbish as if we can't mitigate the worst of the damage by rejoining the common market?
>We really are at some point going to have to get over the Brexit dividing line. Until those that supported it are prepared to accept observable reality I don't see how we can; if you wanted to go and see Star Wars and I wanted to see ET then we could debate the relative merits of each film and whether or not the final decision to see Star Wars was the right one, but the discussions are subjective and mostly based on opinions. If, on the other hand, you wanted to drive my car off a cliff and I didn't want you to the fact that you still refuse to admit that you lost a leg in the crash, my car is totally fubar and I am bleeding to death from a very serious head wound is a serious barrier to us doing anything about it, particularly when you knock the phone out of my hand every time I try to call for help. In an ideal world those who voted for Brexit would apologise for the damage that they've done, but when they refuse to accept that the damage is even real how can we possibly work with them? Apart from anything else there's the fear of what utter stupidity they'll do next since they've faced no consequences last time.
They are *completely* compatible. There's a reason the Labour Party actively resisted joining the European Communities until 1974 and advocated for a Brexit-before-it-was-known-as-Brexit until 1992, and why trade unionists advocated for Brexit in 2016. The European Union allows low-skill workers from Eastern Europe, who will accept lower pay and poorer working conditions, to flood the British market. This drives wages down. When those European workers leave the economy we get situations like the [HGV driver shortage](https://business.senedd.wales/documents/s119986/HGV05%20Logistics%20UK.pdf) and the ensuing pay improvements and incentives to work, as well as the increased effectiveness of striking. There is nothing in European law to prevent things like the [Trade Union Act 2016](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Union_Act_2016) or the planned part of the law (later dropped to get it through parliament) that would have required picket supervisors to give their names to the police. In 2007, European law [failed to prevent the Finnish company Viking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Transport_Workers_Federation_v_Viking_Line_ABP) from employing Estonian workers to circumvent local trade union laws. The International Transport Workers Federation challenged this behaviour in the ECJ and the ECJ *in fact* ruled that the right to strike could infringe a business's freedom of establishment under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1958); that ruling was used by British Airways to set up a subsidiary with worse working terms and conditions and prevent the British Airline Pilots' Association from striking against it. And that's to make *no mention* of the fact that the European Union requires companies to give women fourteen weeks of maternity leave and to give all workers four weeks of holiday leave, yet the UK gives parents *fifty* weeks of shared leave (thirty-seven of which are paid) and gives all workers over five weeks of holiday leave. Under EU law, national governments cannot nationalise entire industries. Subsidies and national regulations can be challenged by the European Commission for violating European state aid rules. The NHS, for example, is not allowed to have what the European Commission would deem a 'monopoly' on the healthcare industry and it must have private competitors. What passes the threshold of a 'monopoly' is not decided by *our* elected parliament, but by the Commission (which is elected by the European Parliament), and the idea of state aid being banned and restricted is not one rooted in any kind of socialist or worker-friendly value. I beg you to go to Greece and tell them that the European Union protects worker's rights. Less than a decade ago the fucking International Monetary Fund told the EU and the European Central Bank to scale back the brutality of their imposed austerity plan on Greece as it **favoured the banks** *too much* and fucked over Greek workers. The EU was not a friend of the workers in 2015 (a year before the Brexit vote) and it hasn't changed much, if at all, on that front since. Realistically speaking, save for a complete collapse of the EU, Brexit was probably the last chance for Britain to drop out of the EU. The issue of a Tory government is a normal one that has been a problem since before we were in the EU, and can be solved later - hence why certain trade unions, trade unionists, Labour and socialist politicians, and swathes of working people who aren't Tory-inclined voted to leave.
The case about Viking Line was about a boat operating specifically between Finland and Estonia, so to use that as a broader example is a bit disingenuous since most workers do not work in international waters. Incidentally there was another EU court case in Finland about Polish companies sending/renting workes to Finnish power plant (olkiluoto 3) construction, and the result was that it doesn't matter who their employer is, they get Finnish benefits and salaries because they work in Finland. So that case actually proved that it is 100% on national hands what kind of salaries foreign workers enjoy. So if you feel foreign workers drove salaries and conditions down it is because of UK legislation not EU.
great post. although i favoured remain , there was, as you very well explained, a compelling and sincere Exit Left argument that got completely drowned out at the time. the Right wing argument was based on a lie and used xenophobia: the capitalists knew well they relied on lots of cheap migrant labour, which is why business was so pro remain. of course, those on the left who believed the wages of british workers should be protected and not be undermined by the exploitation of economic migrants were quickly labelled marxist loons and dismissed from the debate.
I'd argue the left wing argument was drowned out in part because it isn't mutually exclusive with the right wing, xenophobia argument. When Farage starts ranting about the foreigners taking British jobs, that appeals to those on the left and the right, albeit in the former case more due to worker standards and in the latter case due to racism. On the other hand, when someone tries to make the argument for worker standards and rights, it falls flat on those who don't really care about that in the first place.
They are incompatible because leaving the EU allows the government of the day to remove worker protections that the EU had implemented. The EU brought numerous rights to Britain that the Tories would never have introduced e.g. 48 hour week, the right for equal treatment in work. Plus of course, Human Rights Act (finally enshrining a right to free speech in UK law) There is a lot of misinterpretation and deliberately disingenuous silliness. You're quoting Farage's lie about EU nations not being allowed to nationalise industries [which is completely false](https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/). The TFEU doesn't touch a lot of parts of EU law, and indeed, EU law explicitly protects the right of nations to nationalise industries, Indeed, article 345 of the TFEU states “The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States (MS) governing the system of property ownership.” Germany has nationalised utilities for example. The commonly quoted article 106 doesn't ban nationalised industries, rather it regulates how they can behave in relation to other enterprises, in particular, by ensuring those with a dominant position due to the state cannot behave unreasonably The austerity plans in Greece due to Greece's economic fraud, endemic tax evasion etc and their lying to join the Euro don't change the worker's rights like a 48 hour week, they are completely separate to the cuts etc. >Brexit was probably the last chance for Britain to drop out of the EU What change in treaty or EU law would have prevented it in the future?
Yep this, Mick hasn't put a foot wrong so far it seems but even some of the most staunch pro Brexit labour members I know would either agree that A: the promised version of Brexit has not and now cannot be delivered or B: realise that Brexit was a mistake and an unrealistic eutopian idea inflicted in no small part by media moguls and foreign governments. I'm hoping even hardliners like him will be backpedalling once the Ukraine crisis and resulting fallout leaves the UK as the only one not recovering, if that isn't plainly visible already.
> Working class, **pro brexit, out there specifically for best conditions for workers**, very engaged and involved in current and historical handling of rail negotiations and modernization. Pick one.
Funny how the media isn't calling out our questioning his Brexit views because then it would imply that Brexit is bad for workers. Looking forward to see how this plays out
There was a small but significant vote for Brexit from people on the left. https://www.theweek.co.uk/103550/what-is-lexit
Unpopular opinion but Brexit COULD have been good for lowest of the low. My old neighbor (50+) worked in construction but was priced out by chapter Eastern European labourers coming in. His age and lower educational attainment couldn't compete with the endless supply of younger and cheaper labourers coming in. He obviously voted for Brexit since he was hoping he could go back to having a job in the construction industry. Not sure what happened to him now since I have long moved out of that flat.
Who the fuck is going to hire a builder in his 50s? His back and knees will be gone.
[удалено]
Who did you pay more? Hopefully the one who did the best job.
Oh it’s quite obvious, how anyone could watch them and not think they were all plonkers is beyond me, I don’t know which of them was the most galling it’s embarrassing to watch them
> They fear the likes of Lynch I dunno about that to be honest, I think they love him. When's the last time anyone talked about these journalists so much? For example, Piers is lapping up his clip getting millions of views. That's all they live for, the attention and views. It doesn't seem to bother them in the slightest that they look foolish because they're still making bank from the whole thing and the people who agreed with them in the first place aren't going to change their minds on strikes, so there's no risk. The way Lynch talks is great but yeah I don't think any journalist is losing sleep over it. Their standards are so low that they have no integrity or respect to lose from being absolute clowns during an interview. It's all about those views ands they're flooding in. Plus they'll think they 'won' the interview anyway, I doubt they have enough self-awareness to think otherwise.
I think this is correct. All the interviews you see are those with bizarre gotcha questions, because a dispassionate review of the issue wouldn't get anyone bothered.
> Thats why they are in full smear mode. "I don't think you're personally antisemitic, but what about the rampant antisemitism in the RMT?" They'll find something. Whether the shit will stick or not is a different matter.
They will find something to tar him with. Maybe he was in a shop somewhere where there had been a shoplifter caught. Maybe he went to a funeral where someone with doggy political beliefs has been buried, Maybe he boycotted Barclays bank when they supported apartheid... He doesn't have to say anything. The right wing press will find something groundless to smear him with. If they don't I'm sure they will just make something up like he colluded with terrorists or eats babies or something.
I was thinking about this - he's not actually doing anything complex - when he gets asked stupid questions rather than just answer them, he pops out "This is a stupid question isn't it?" and the whole thing then collapses under it's own weight.
This is what the lesson should be for Labour. Stop fucking about and call them out on this shit without trying to be so polite
Trouble is a most of the electorate don't vote for the angriest, least polite party. Whilst Lynch has done some amazing press over the last few days it's a single issue he's fighting for. Convincing a very broad range of demographics and interests to allow you to run the country is a far more complicated and nuanced thing.
Its certainly shown how immensely biased the news is and despite that it is pretty out of touch with the public. Their audience that agrees with them is a definite minority.
I can't understand why anyone would sit down voluntarily and watch Piers Morgan, Richard Madeley or Kay Burley. I mean they've obviously got no clue about what they're talking about, so what's the point? Sure they're polished presenters but they're just polishing a load of arse burgers most of the time.
They don’t know what they are talking about, but that’s not the point to them. The point of them is to stir the pot and fan outrage. I think Lynch being totally calm and unflappable is really disarming to them. I also think that Lynch has more licence and freedom to do his thing because his focus is on the negotiations and the rail workers, so in turn he’s not worried about optics or worried about how he’s going to appeal to a specific voter demographic.
Actively seeking out and watching known biased news that isn't even trying to be balanced strikes me as a very odd behaviour generally! But then it does seem modern news is less about the content and more about convincing you what your opinion on it should be.
It's interesting these points about seeking out known bias. I sometimes feel myself (Central/Left) seeking out and watching a lot of LBC Snippits / James O'brien whilst also keeping an ear to the ground of all the craziness from the likes of those mentioned already. And whilst I don't actively engage or want to watch Piers/Kat/Richard/Kuensberg, I can't help but feel a "want" of keeping up to date on the latest Talent at Global / LBC (Marr / O'brien). Perhaps because it's a conversation (LBConverstation), and that most of the snippits are back and fourth between viewers and journalists. I would be facinated to hear radio involving MPs, broadcasters and a phone-in; but that unfiltered conversation is more likely to be found in Question Time than a news piece. Mick Lynch however has been a figure of awe to witness over the last few days.
I think it’s debatable whether question time is unfiltered. Last weeks show was clearly full of Tory voters and pro Brexiteers and there was a young Labour activist. Put the format of the show doesn’t really lend itself to lengthy and meaningful discourse either.
He's on qt tonight
> Mick Lynch called a member of parliament a liar to his face and the presenter (I’m not sure of her name) ignored it, an MP being called a liar and she couldn’t push it and tackle the MP on whether what he was saying was in fact lies (I believe Mr Lynch), I mean maybe we have lost total respect for MPs but to let that slide was terrible Basically what it shows is the power of someone who is willing to call things as they see them and not worry about whether they might get repeat invites. Too many interviewees on TV news coverage get along to get on.
I was angry with the presenter, she had the accuser and the accused (a sitting MP) and wouldn’t delve in to the accusation he was ‘lying’
> I was angry with the presenter, she had the accuser and the accused (a sitting MP) and wouldn’t delve in to the accusation he was ‘lying’ Yeah I get you, but this goes back to the structure of incentives. Ultimately in the UK the media and political class are one big group and you can't afford to fall out with people who may be future colleagues / bosses and so on. For avoidance of doubt, this is not a good thing, it is in fact VERY BAD, but the problem is a systemic one, and not restricted to a single presenter.
Thanks, yes a dirty system
So much for funding the BBC to have a news network that can criticize the government and not worry about being defunded by the government.
Unfortunately, this works on a not insignificant number of people who, like my mum, think that all the scandals, strikes and everything else is a "liberal socialist conspiracy" (this is what she has actually said, not paraphrasing) and insist that everything would be working perfectly if it weren't for those traitors. Most people are sensible even if we disagree, but the conspiracy-obsessed nutters will be more than happy to tear everyone else down if they don't get their way.
>liberal socialist conspiracy Couldn't be any clearer that the toxic sludge of American politics is already deeply embedded in the right wing over here.
Absolutely, I heard this sort of stuff from my peers and others 10-15 years ago, including the occasional hyper religious nonsense, so I'm not at all surprised and I expect it to get so much worse. >!At least I no longer have to hear people say that they're a race realist, not a racist, or that they'd stick the gays in gas chambers, but that's probably more due to moving out of a place where everyone has their shoulders up their own arses.!<
Well Boris [does have a relationship](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/22/video-reveals-steve-bannon-links-to-boris-johnson) with Steve Bannon, who was Trump's campaign manager during the 2016 US election.
They will be campaigning against 'socialized healthcare ' next.
The UK voting away its own universal healthcare is so repulsively plausible. I think that's when I'll check out
I'm guessing Sophy Ridge but I'm pretty sure she interviewed the MP before Mick Lynch so there wasn't any chance to ask the MP about the quote. I may be wrong tho
Think it was Kirsty Wark
I was Kirsty Wark. It was also one of those interviews where the government had agreed to send a MP onto Newsnight but they weren’t going to speak to the other side. Happens frequently. I think Wark was stumped because the interview kinda broke those rules of engagement. The BBC are already walking an ‘impartiality tightrope’ and are clearly worried about getting reigned in by the government. You only have to look at the fact that Lewis Goodall, a Newsnight journalist/reporter said that he was jumping ship this week.
The BBC, worrying about being reigned in, instead reign themselves in. This has nothing to do with BBC news managers being ex Tory hq employees, or the head of the BBC having donated £400,000 to them. Nope.
The only good one I've seen was Dan Walker. Asked him probing questions but in a respectful way that actually prompted an informative response from Mick Lynch.
She was dishing for the ‘Mick Lynch / Union denies strikes will become violent’ sound bite
Very well said. Our journalists are little more that pumped up celebrities. Journalism is utterly dead.
The Day Today nailed that nearly 30 years ago... ..Chris
Surprised he didn’t walk away given the standard of questioning in the interviews.
He seems to be too cute for that (a compliment), it just looks like he is playing with them, kind of reminds me of something I took from ‘Meditations by Marcus Aurelius’, the idea that you are expecting to meet idiots in your day so when he does these interviews he knows what their game plan is
It was amazing how quickly Madeley tried to roll back when it was clear Lynch was winning all the opinion polls after his interview on GMB.
Madeley's performance was honestly one of the most embarrassing things I've seen in a long time. Hiding behind a vague "people are saying" line then when told he's talking complete shit trying to pull a "to be clear I'M not accusing you of that" as though it matters at all who the supposed "accuser" is when he's the one that's saying it on national TV. The whole thing made him look absolutely pathetic.
Whether or not you agree with the article. What is clear as day is the impact of being an effective public speaker on public opinion. Kier Starmer desperately needs to up his game, he is percieved as boring and dispassionate. He needs to find a key issue to push (there's plenty lying around right now) and lead the charge. He should be hammering every interview with visions for a brighter future, he needs to show that he is the only one who can bring it. He needs some populism! If he just quietly tiptoes around the big issues trying to hold an inoffensive moderate line then he will just blend into the background as another "metropolitan elite out-of-touch politician" lost to the annals of history, rather than the next prime minister.
> Kier Starmer desperately needs to up his game, he is percieved as boring and dispassionate. I don't mind boring and dispassionate, although it's clear that these are disqualifying characteristics when it comes to British politics. I do not see the majority of UK voters championing a candidate like that, the way Germans did with Merkel. That being said, he would not be seen as such, if he took a more proactive role in shaping the narratives on issues that become political. He did that with partygate, for example, and suddenly everyone was impressed with his leadership skills during that time. But on other topics, like this one, he prefers to sit it out, wait for a majoritarian consensus to emerge, and only *then* make his own position clear. Which might be fine on issues where he is genuinely ambivalent about, but labour strikes are a topic that one would hope he already has a position that is based on his personal principles. Presumably, that's how one becomes a member of the *Labour* party to begin with, let alone the leader.
>. He did that with partygate, for example, and suddenly everyone was impressed with his leadership skills during that time. It's bizarre. Every time Kier gets shouty, every time he's passionate, there's this buzz around him. Favourable press, favourable vox pops. It's been shown time and time again that a loud Starmer who is being proactive is received very favourably. But then they keep reverting back. As is they're terrified that Kier might accidentally be perceived as having a personality.
The problem is he needs something to be loud and shouty about, but he's petrified that, by taking a strong political stance on something, he risks alienating anyone who doesn't already agree with him. It's why Partygate was such a boon for him, he can be angry and strident all he wants without having to risk having a position on anything other than 'Torys bad'
I feel like this has been a problem for a while. I'm sure that I was saying Starmer needs a flagship policy to hammer like... A year ago. Two?
[удалено]
The press are more sympathetic about politicians calling out obvious corruption than they are about politicians talking honestly about issues of ideology - at any rate when the ideology being put forward is left wing. In other words, the alternative interpretation is not that Starmer should just get more passionate, but that *he is picking the right things to be passionate about*. The reason Lynch's performance doesn't translate is because the media and the public doesn't necessarily treat everyone the same as long as they say the same thing.
It’s because Keir knows that fundamentally the Red Wall he needs back are socially right wing. He either goes against them, or against the young left wing metropolitan vote. This is why, Brexit, What is a woman, Rwanda, deporting criminals, etc are like Kryptonite. He will always shy away from them because the truth is labour is a big tent around two groups of people who despise each other.
Agreed but in a way the tories have a similar problem...socially conservative but economically left wing red wallers v southern m/c and w/c tory types who are quite happy for benefits to be cut, public services to be slashed...
The tories do have a mirror problem, but they can avoid it by being as socially right as they like, and marginally less economically left than labour. Labour can’t because their two groups are both focused on the social aspect.
I agree with your assessment, but Starmer hasn't taken the correct positions. In fact, he has done the very opposite. Economic interventionist policies, which are popular in the Red Wall, have all been scrapped, while the unpopular social policies are repeatedly touted by the shadow cabinet. If Starmer wants to win the next election, he must recapture the Red Wall. And the only guaranteed way of doing that is by switching course.
Spot on. The Red Wall is economically left and socially right.
Can confirm, I live in a Labour heartland safe seat and I am economically left and socially right. Starmer isn’t winning anyone over but he’s better than the Tory’s.
> I do not see the majority of UK voters championing a candidate like that, the way Germans did with Merkel. Of course there are different dynamics involved, but a large part of the difference was that Merkel was still able to come across as both comfortable in her own skin and sympathetic when the need arose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vtLhq157kE This was the same time when Starmer was still running on the 'kids need to go back to school, no ifs, no buts' culminating in a moment where the Labour front bench were still campaigning for schools to be re-opened after the Tories had actually pivoted on the policy (resulting in the ludicrous scenario where children had one day on the school premises and then went back to remote learning).
He’s from the right wing of labour mate. He ain’t for the working masses.
The mad thing is, he’s not even from the right wing of the party. He’s got no real base of support anywhere. Don’t get me wrong he’s better than Johnson by a country mile but it’s worrying that he’s gone this long like this.
Perhaps the above poster was commenting on him cosying up with the right of the party, seeing that as his route to electoral success. But at the moment his Labour party is nothing more than 'not the Tory party'. It's simply not good enough, he stands for nothing.
The Labour party itself barely stands for anything, as half of it and a lot of the members want it to actually pull to the left, whereas the rest of the party including most of the PLP just want to be neo-Blairite red Tories for the sake of getting elected with no further thought beyond that. If it wasn't for FPTP they probably wouldn't even still all be in the same party, and any leader who attempts to stand for anything discernible in one direction or the other is going to get dragged down by infighting while the Tories just sit back laughing among themselves safe in the knowledge that they've tied up the entire right-of-centre vote.
This conversation happens so often in this sub. It was Starmer versus Corbyns spiritual successors and he got demolished by Boris. The Labour Party needed someone for the people who wasn’t so obviously far left. No matter who’s running the party they’re going to take a fat hit from the far left and right wing media so give the guy a break. He does stand for things he just never gets credit, he was for the windfall tax which is coming and never got credited for it. Articles like this seek to divide Labour voters and it’s clearly working
I'm not a Labour or Tory voter so articles like this aren't influencing my decision whatsoever. In 2 years what has he really put forward/taken a strong stance on? What's his environmental plan? Plan for the growing number of being relying on food banks? For saving our failing NHS? What about police reform/crime reform? Decriminalisation of drugs? International policies? The man is standing in the next election as a referendum on whether or not to vote Tories back into power. Exact same situation with Biden v Trump. Biden wasn't inspiring, he didn't have to make any promises. Rather, he was voted in out of a deep dislike for Trump throughout a significant portion of Americans. Ask yourself, what does this man stand for? If the windfall tax is about all you can come up with then I think you can understand my point. Edit: Also, can you point out any 'far left' media organisations that have any sort of influence over the publics view of Starmer?
> The mad thing is, he’s not even from the right wing of the party. He’s got no real base of support anywhere. Other than a plurality of the electorate going by opinion polls lol
>He’s got no real base of support anywhere. Maybe that's a good thing. Johnson's and Corbyns "base" were pretty extreme. Johnson managed to rally people up to some extent but his vote share was hardly revolutionary. I wonder if Starmer is blanf enough that politically apathetic people will vote for him because he is so non offensive? He's like magnolia, no one loves it but it's a safe bet for the masses.
I think the most charitable guess is that being bland will stop Tory voters going to go and vote against him. But even then, there are plenty of generic unifying things he could be using to get some support. I don’t even think it’s a policy issue, it’s just a messaging one.
Politically apathetic people won't vote for a boring man, they just won't vote.
I keep hearing this criticism and I'm struggling to connect to it. I feel like Starmer does well at PMQs. Admittedly this is an artificial environment, but he consistently shows up Johnson. I'm not going to get sucked into a Corbyn vs Starmer debate, but I don't really see what Corbyn has/does in terms of charisma that Starmer doesn't. Same with Miliband. We're going all the way back to Blair before I can name Labour leader who was more charismatic than Starmer.
Most people don't watch PMQs and the clips on the news don't often show a clear "winner". Corbyn hosted/attended many rallies and constantly immersed himself in public crowds. People were singing "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn" at Glastonbury. Compared to Corbyn, the boring adjective describes Starmer perfectly. Outside of PMQ clips, you almost never hear about him.
Corbyn also lost. Badly. Most of those people chanting his name didn't actually turn up to vote, unfortunately.
I mean that's not really relevant to the comparison between Corbyn and Starmer though, is it? Corbyn was a bad leader in many ways, but I see the same mistakes being made by Starmer with not many redeeming qualities beyond being able to argue better inside the house of commons.
Oh, I'm not a fan of all of Starmer's choices either, but if you think he is making the same mistakes as Corbyn then I don't know what to say - the strategies they are using are so vastly different, and their potential errors similarly so. And it is relevant - being noisy and interesting outside of a general election did Corbyn absolutely no good. He lost one election, and then majorly lost another. So while I may not agree with everything Starmer does, I can actually see a benefit of presenting as small a target as possible; there will be plenty of time to make noise when people are actually listening.
Let me ask you this: how much better do you think Starmer would have done in those elections? You'd be hard-pressed to be convinced he would have fared any better in either. Corbyn also tried to present a small target over Brexit, and the media crucified him for fence-sitting. Despite trying to control the narrative he was ultimately ineffectual. I see Starmer facing these same issues and not doing any better. The only difference is that Brexit was a much bigger issue for the nation, so Starmer is getting off a little easier. And it's not relevant to what we were discussing. The person I replied to said they couldn't understand why Starmer is considered more boring than Corbyn. My reply merely offered an explanation for that. No two general elections are the same. If Corbyn had won his first GE we would have said it was due to his popularity. If Starmer wins his we will be saying it's in spite of his unpopularity.
I still struggle to see how JC was charismatic. I voted for him as he wasn't Con but I never found him charismatic or particularly likeable.
What Corbyn lacked in charisma, he made up for with (consistent) principle, but I also think the lack of charisma undermined him properly communicating his principles and getting people on side.
I'm reminded of this clip: https://metro.co.uk/video/jeremy-corbyn-naughtiest-thing-s-done-1479829/ Even in a vacuum of everything else, I found him pretty likeable. I think charismatic is a reasonable description, as far as MPs go.
I'll admit that made me smile. But also I know he could also have answered "I was arrested once. For protesting against neonazis."
Charisma is a two way street, you need to ***want*** to be charmed for it to work. Like being hypnotised. Some one others call charismatic, you might find repulsive.
He's definitely getting better at PMQs, and has started making more off the cuff quips in response to the other side. But his main points always sound painfully rehearsed, and he consults his notes a lot while speaking. He needs to make everything sound more natural and unrehearsed.
>He needs to find a key issue to push (there's plenty lying around right now) and lead the charge. I mean, even if he stuck to 'look at how corrupt the Tories are' like a broken record I think he'd gain traction on that alone. That's quite likely to win over Tory voters (who generally believe in the rule of law, justice, etc) if not to Labour, at least put them off the Tories enough to vote Lib Dem which has got to be almost as good for Labour as if they voted Labour instead (I'm sure they'd rather the Libs split the Tory vote than their own).
Right and Mick Lynch isn't running for election. While he is doing a great job actually pointing out a lot of the problems that mainstream journalism doesn't seem interested in, he would likely not do that great of a job as PM because he's got one issue and one job. Lynch is acting a bit like Nigel Farage as a demagogue who is able to take on ministers and show them up. He doesn't have to beat up scab workers as Kay Burley was trying to suggest, he was smart enough to know that if you can pique people's interest then you can get exposure in the media quite freely.
Persuade 20% and the rest will get dragged along. You see it all the time. Lynch is in fact elected. He's looking after those people and by not caring what anyone outside of that group think, ironically, makes him appealing to a wider audience.
That's a very fair point.
Except Mick Lynch would get destroyed in a general election. Thats why he can act like this - he doesn't need to win any votes of anyone who doesn't like him. He doesn't give a flying fuck what pensioners think. To me its clear that kier starmers plan is to never do anything his enemy would want him to do. He has played it perfectly by not engaging in the strikes and allowing it to remain as union vs conservatives. Tories desperately want him to step into the middle of it, so he wont. We lefties need to accept some pragmatism. We live in a conservative country, which an ultra conservative media. Just saying what you believe as a left winger loses elections. Thats just a fact. It sucks but its true.
100% he can do what he does because he doesn't need to worry about political impact past next 3 weeks. Kier has more things to consider. While I enjoy what Mick is doing and support him 100% his job is different to job of leader of opposition. On the other hand Kier could pick up few tricks when it comes to making press look like the morons they are
>Thats why he can act like this - he doesn't need to win any votes of anyone who doesn't like him. He doesn't give a flying fuck what pensioners think. He's also not subject to the ridiculous rules of Parliament which allow ministers to lie with impunity at the despatch box but will censure opposition MPs who point out that the minister in question is lying.
Starmer can say that people are lying when on TV. It is only in the chamber that he can't. He can also contradict liars and point out the information which proves that they're not telling the truth, even in the chamber.
Doesn't need to win over votes and also it's a single issue. Always easier to set out your stall when it's one issue and you have a clear position. Starmers job is much much harder
Exactly well diagnosed. I suppose if we ever have a proportional representation system in this country we’d get genuine Labour politicians like this
> We live in a conservative country To be clear, you don't. Your political system just gives them minority rule on a regular basis.
We live in a country where the Tories consistently get more votes than any other party. There have only been 3/11 elections in the last 40 years where they haven't had the highest proportion of the popular vote. Clearly this country is more conservative than any other identity. No government has had the majority of the popular vote since 1935. Using that as a measure of how the country skews is all but meaningless.
30% is not a true majority, it's only so under FPTP. Fundamentally the majority of the country hold stances that aren't conservative, instead a plethora of other ideologies and perspectives.
To be fair even in PR systems high 30% can lead to 50% of seats in Parliament, depending on the distribution rule and thresholds, e.g. in Poland in 2015 PiS got 37% or all votes and won 51% of seats
I'm confused at how you read my whole comment about how no ruling party has had a majority and thought I was saying it was a majority. All I'm saying is that conservatives make up the largest single voting block, almost always. Britain is unfortunately (imo) quite conservative. It's very easy to forget that here on Reddit which leans so left.
I wouldn't say them being the dominant group statistically but not overall counts as Britain as a whole being conservative; the centre and the left have their votes split instead of voting as a block.
which is defacto the same thing as long as fptp stands
>We lefties need to accept some pragmatism. Agreed. >We live in a conservative country, Uh, no, we live in a country where FPTP makes it appear to be a conservative country. More people voted for progressive parties than for the Conservative Party. With PR you would see that the right are actually quite a small percentage of the population. >which an ultra conservative media. An ultra capitalist media heavily invested in the protection of the tax system, not a conservative media. Conservative media would be decrying the attempts to dismantle the standards in public life and the judiciary.
100% on the money
My biggest frustration with Starmer is that we spent the last two years hearing all about how he is the person to move the Labour Party from *fringe, leftist ideas* such as trans rights and focus on “real issues” that are supposed to be affecting the working class and Labour voters. And what does he do when an opportunity to focus on that presents itself? Forbidding frontbenchers from getting involved in an attempt to distance both himself and the party from the issue. I don’t care if it’s a “tactical” decision to avoid being blamed for instigating strikes or whatever. Starmer should make his position clear. The only clear message since this issue emerged was that he doesn’t want frontbenchers to be involved. A message that was then ignored, and in my opinion rightly so. If the *Labour* Party is neither about labour, nor about *fringe leftist ideas*, then what are they about? Why should I vote for them, other than the despicable alternatives? For the record, I like Starmer as a person and as a politician. But I’m not convinced that he knows where he wants to lead the party ideologically, beyond “somewhere else than Corbyn would have”.
Labour is falling into the trap that the Democrats fell into in the US. They're struggling to find a unifying message, making multiple portions of their base disappointed in different ways at the same time, and ultimately telling their supporters to trust them because the alternative is so much worse. It's a series of tactical, reactionary decisions with the promise that it's 4D chess and we can't just see how far ahead they're thinking of strategy. But let me make this clear as an American transplant to the UK, there is not grand strategy, and this does not end well for liberal ideals.
I think Biden being president instead of trump does make a big difference to Liberal ideals. Because of first past the post it ends up as a choice between the least bad option.
What do you expect them to do? The difference between Conservative extremists and Labour extremists is that Cons will always back the party regardless and take 20% of what they want rather than hand the keys to someone else and get 0. Labour extremists would rather live under Boris than compromise. Look what happened in America. ‘iM nOt vOtInG fOr sHiLaRY bErNiE oR bUsT’ 5 years later: ‘omg why are the Supreme Court overturning roe vs Wade and removing abortion rights’
More Clinton primary voters switched to McCain in 2008 than Sanders primary voters switched away from Clinton in 2016
The comparison to "bernie or bust" is not only inaccurate, but also nonsensical. Hillary did not lose because of "bernie bros", she lost because she ran an awful campaign, didn't defend Michigan or Washington properly, The Comey Letter, the list goes on. The supreme court issue happened because of a combination of Obama lacking the political capital to nominate anyone to the supreme court, for and Ginsburg not retiring during his term to make way for a left-leaning nominee. Expecting anyone to the left of Hillary/Biden to always be the ones who compromise when those candidates would not look out of place as Centrist Republicans is just baffling. The issue with the Democrat party in America is that they're uninspiring and the most successful Democratic candidates are just LGBT-friendly centrists, hardly inspiring for most. You're on the mark with regards to the same issue being present here, but your analysis of the *cause and* *effects* of said issue way way, way off. Nobody is inspired by someone who stands for nothing. Wanting Starmer at the moment feels no different than the "better than Trump" vibe that was in the US in 2020. What does he actually stand for? Could he actually get anything done? The thing that defines conservatives is their drive to maintain the status-quo, while progressives are looking for change. What change has Labour pushed for in the last decade? What unifying, driving change, have they rallied behind in order to persuade people that change is needed? Fuck all. I'm a member of the labour party, but it's clear that Labour is floundering and directionless, and has been for ages now.
Wrong on all counts. Hilary lost because she was terrible. More hilary voters in 08 went to mccain than beanie to trump. More Obama voters went to trump than beanie to trump. She lost in states she didn't hold any rallies in. You're just wrong. And on this point about compromise, why is it expected only of the left? Just to remind people of the facts. The tories did 1.2% better in 2019 than 2017. They barely did better under Boris and his big successful campaign than weak and wobbly may did in 2017. So what happened? 0.8% of people went to SNP, they increased their % of the vote almost by as much as the tories. Lib democracy went up by 4.2. How different would the election result if those in the centre voted for Jeremy over Jo Swindon? Look at France and melechon. Macron voters stayed home rather than vote for melenchon to keep out le pen. Centrist love saying we should be courting them but never make efforts to court the left. It's childish and complete projection.
>I don’t care if it’s a “tactical” decision to avoid being blamed for instigating strikes or whatever. The ironic thing is that Tory MPs and ministers have been in the media blaming the strikes on Labour anyway!
But from what I can tell, because Starmer isn't vocally supporting it, its making conservative attempts to blame him a joke to most people (or maybe I'm just too sheltered)
Exactly. The right-wing media will blame it on Labour regardless, which is all the more reason to get ahead of this messaging - something that will not be achieved by burring head in the sand and hoping your MPs are on board with that "plan" as well.
But what does it then achieve? Labour appears on the picket line, saying it backs the right for TU to go on strike (which they have, but have said they prefer that strikes didn't go ahead, ergo it's a failure of govt). The right wing press are already itching to make this a "Labour Strike", which has already been mentioned in PMQs, so we know where the thinking is at at no.10. At the political level it is about ownership of the issue and who can deliver a solution. An oppositional party cannot fix this, other than by saying 'we'd negotiate around the table'. The Tories will gleefully pass the buck elsewhere and say it's Labour's fault. So why on earth would you give them that stick to beat Labour with? Let Boris hang himself with his own rope.
That's not what I want from the labour party, and I say that as a member. Labour should not be afraid to stand with workers and use their platform of various media outlets to tell the general public why there are strikes. As it stands Labour are a party that wants power so it can appease the working man, whereas they should be a party that stands with the working man, for the working man.
>The right wing press are already itching to make this a “Labour Strike” You could argue this either way: the right wing press are already conflating the party with the strikes, regardless of what Starmer does. So he may as well have some principles and political courage for once in his leadership. The government line is that Starmer “failed to condemn” the strikes. Well, he’s obviously not going to go that far, so whatever he does isn’t going to appease their attack dogs
> You could argue this either way: the right wing press are already conflating the party with the strikes, regardless of what Starmer does. So he may as well have some principles and political courage for once in his leadership. > > The government line is that Starmer “failed to condemn” the strikes. Well, he’s obviously not going to go that far, so whatever he does isn’t going to appease their attack dogs It's not a binary. Labour are working in the margins to try to flip seats. All the people who buy the argument that it's Labour behind the strikes are not necessarily the same people as those who'd only believe this to be the case if Labour's officially rowed in behind them. It's not a case of in for a penny, in for a pound. There are costs and benefits to either choice and really, nobody knows which would yield more votes, or even if it would have any tangible effect at all.
This.
Irony is, I've never seen the trans issue as hot in the UK as it is now. Trans rights are in the news far more now than in any year under corbyn.
Trans rights aren't fringe leftist ideas, it's literally people seeking the same rights as everyone else. People being free to live life as themselves is neither left nor right, and it's as important as women's rights, men's rights, human rights and so forth.
Of course. This is why I italicised them - I'm completely on board and believe it should be an issue the Labour Party should explicitly represent. But for the past two years, we have been hearing that "working class people don't care about that" as an argument that Starmer should focus on other issues, so I was pointing out that he isn't doing that when he has the opportunity to do so.
The oft touted "economically left, socially conservative" position apparently a significant portion of the populace holds.
Unfortunately to the majority it is fringe lefty nonsense and a vote loser.
"Trans rights" aren't well defined though. My assumption is that most trans people are pretty level-headed and just want to be treated with the dignity and kindness a fair society should strive for. Unfortunately, as is common with almost any emerging push for rights, the voices of the majority are largely unheard as the media love to swell their viewership by amplifying the fringe. Unfortunately there are MtF trans activists who are, for example, describing lesbians as bigots for not wanting to sleep with them and defining any criticism of their ideology as equivocal to murder. The right-wing media **loves** this rhetoric as they can portray it as the norm rather than the extreme. The left wing media, keen to be seen as progressive, gives the fringe a loudspeaker and lets them speak on behalf of everyone who is trans.
I think it’s dangerous to criticise Keir Starmer for being cautious when he’s already ahead in the polls. The tories are doing a terrible job and Keir is letting their failures speak for themselves. I cannot see any strategic reason to try create a new vision or overhaul his image when the current approach is working. Truth is he can’t do much until the next GE
Could we just take a good news day and without the self-harm? If a Tory-associated person gives a couple of good interviews the right-wing press doesn't turn that into an series of articles on how rubbish Johnson is.
Part of what has to be understood (and OP/and the author clearly doesn't), is that it's easier being an industry specific union negotiator than being on the other side (As a government/state). Why? Because Lynch only has to care about his members (at best), he doesn't have to care about what is good or bad for the country, what is good or bad for other workers or unions. As an example, Lynch would reject the following, RMT getting 3%, because the money is being spend to give NHS nurses, doctors, and teachers 10% (with some pay grades getting above inflation jumps). He'd have to, as he doesn't have to care about nurses, doctors, teachers. However, a government and the wider country, might think such a deal is a better thing, and more aligned with their priorities (and issues around nurse/teacher/doctor vacancies...)
A pay rise for RMT workers would come out of the coffers of private rail companies, who can pay huge salaries and bonuses to bosses and have made hundreds of millions in profits. It has no affect on other sectors.
So you agree with the conservatives, that this whole RMT strike buissnes is nothing to do with the government? And that RMT is lying when they attack the government on this ?
>So you agree with the conservatives, that this whole RMT strike buissnes is nothing to do with the government? > >And that RMT is lying when they attack the government on this ? "The Department for Transport has insisted the rail industry is leading the negotiations. However, a contract seen by the BBC said train operating companies' handling of strike action was "subject to the secretary of state's direction", a reference to Grant Shapps, the transport secretary."
But it is to do with the government because the government have to sign off on all and any spending decisions the rail companies make.
Yep... was my point, and OP is talking nonsense when he pretends it has nothing to do with the government. Precisely because gov has oversight and also tax subsidies
Well it does because the rail gets huge public subsidies. The fact they're not in the public sector is mind-boggling.
Yep... that was my point...
If it has nothing to do with the government, why are they even mentioning it?
You’ve got some proper idiots replying to you on this. No one able to follow a comment thread that’s only 2 comments long 😂
This is overlooking all the basic ground work Starmer has had to do to fix Labour's brand. Mick Lynch is great, we need more like him, and perhaps we need Starmer to step up the performance aspect, but there's a lot more to being a leader.
[удалено]
What's the Tory brand, "Boris"? Boris is becoming Labour's greatest asset so may as well lean in to it.
Can we get past populism?
Once you embrace populism even a little, it’s very hard to walk back. If we look at history, populism usually escalates to the absolute extreme, causes a massive (usually negative) change, and that’s what pushes people away from it.
Yeah coz starmer is the general secretary of a union alright
It’s funny how power makes you a more effective operator. Leader of the opposition has no power. He can’t actually do anything. Leader of one of the biggest unions? Well he has enough power to grind the country to a stand still if he wants to.
I like this Lynch guy. He's handling himself well.
Until we have a Labour Party supporting organised labour we are fucked. I realise FPTP encourages it but im sick of the "lets try to be bland and pick of disaffected right wingers" strategy. It might work but then what happens when theyre in power. Blair had the chance to rip up Thatchers anti union legislation and did absolutely fuck all
Labour is obviously watching all of this and I think they'll cautiously change their tune. But like it or not, they need to claim some of the centre ground to win. It's a tightrope.
They do support organised labour though? As long as they support the right to strike, which they do.
What's the alternative though? To win elections you need the centrist swing voter's on your side.
If Labour decides that, actually, they are the party of the workers, then they need to also realise that they need to build a coalition and not pretend that they can win a parliamentary majority on their own. Right now they are trying to cling to the dream of gaining a majority while avoiding taking any discernible policy positions.
Exactly theyre attempting the "stay quiet and hope the other party fuck up enough to let us in" approach
Starmer is thinking of getting a party into government. He has to worry about students who are struggling with exams and making it to exam halls on time. Lynch only has to worry about 40k workers.
While it would be great if we had a Labour leader like Lynch, let's be honest: a massive campaign would be swiftly arranged to destroy him, the press, MI5, MI6, the Labour right, the wealthy and the political establishment, rallying to promptly take him down.
In two years Starmer has taken Labour from languishing in the aftermath of their worst defeat for decades to consistently being 4+ points ahead. I'm all for praising Mick Lynch but honestly if your take on this crisis is about the opposition rather than the government, the unions, or the crisis itself, you are just an unserious clown person.
Honestly, I suspect the left-wingers on this sub consist mainly of the lunatic Corbynites, still pissy that their Commie grandpa wasn't a great leader like their cult led them to believe.
"working people, who are currently being subjected to spiralling inflation, exploding energy bills and real-term wage cuts" Are these not all basically the same thing? Inflation is when consumer prices go up. The biggest driver of this IS the 'exploding energy costs' and 'real-term wage cuts' are because those same prices are going up and wages aren't. Why are the media so weird and confusing in their rhetoric around 'inflation'? I honestly think we'd be better off ditching the term and causing is 'price rises'. You could even call it a 'pricis'!
Inflation and energy bills are similar except there's not really an alternative to energy usage. But if an individual's wage was rising with or outpacing inflation then they would still be better off.
RMT isn't even affiliated with Labour. Mick Lynch isn't leader of the second largest party. And if it's true that the author contributes to Novara as one of the repliers says below, then that's all we need to know about this article really.
Opinion: This article is a microcosm of the other side of the same problem of journalism in this nation. As an elector under FPTP I don't think it matters what the leader of the opposition does vis-a-vis what the leader of the government does outside of a manifesto. Articles like this and all the Corbyn bashing over the course of the last decade is just the other side of the coin of these Piers Morgans and Richard Medeleys. [I mean just look at the quality of article this journo puts out](https://www.independent.co.uk/author/harriet-williamson), she's just as shitty as any of them and is farming clicks as opposed to informing her readership which is the same game that Medeley and Morgan are playing.
Just watched him make Kay burley extremely uncomfortable, fucking loved it
This is some impressive mental gymnastics to use this as a smear given Labour have intentionally been keeping their heads out of the mud to let the Tories rot in their own mess.
Fucking hell left wing people are hilarious, if they weren't eating their closest political friends they might actually be able to get things done. Hilarious to watch.
Opinion: we are dealing with a crisis created by Boris and Conservative good idea would be to focus attacks on Boris and Conservatives not start another round of infighting. It's such an easy win to have here.
One has to bring unity to a fractured party on a whole range of issues, one had to campaign for better conditions for rail staff. Can't think what one is easy in comparison to the other
Cue the centrists on here complaining that Labour is being foolish by... standing in solidarity with the working class...
What I'm seeing is blatant agitprop accounts pretending to be left wing, while attacking Labour for problems they have had no hand in for the last 12 years.
Being foolish is not getting elected and letting the far right run roughshod over the country for another decade. Your political system is a sack of shite, and until that's rectified you don't get to have politics that adheres to some semblance of principle.
He's made a perfectly reasonable statement. But the statement was basically "It's not up to me, don't ask me, they should negotiate something" and then told his MPs to sit on the fence as best they can by not going to pickets. It feels like a very 'lawyer' thing to do. Best not to say too much at risk of incriminating yourself or saying the wrong thing. But while it's very reasonable and 'prudent', it's not without risk. I like Starmer for his being someone who falls into the 'competent' end of politics. He strikes me as someone who will do the work and not fall into bullshit crisis and scandals. But at a certain point competence is not enough. Not having a bunch of scandals about racism or infidelity are not enough. Not being Boris Johnson is not enough. He needs to give people a reason to vote FOR Labour. Tony Blair (for all his faults) had a rallying cry, and a vision. Starmer's is a rallying polite talk, and a well written, legally sound document about what a vision could be, perhaps. Let's hope he can find a bit of extra punch going forward.
Are we forgetting that Labour under Starmer effectively cornered the government into applying the windfall tax on energy companies? Mick is great but what’s the point of pitting left wing leaders against each other
Mick Lynch's media performances play incredibly well with the middle class journalism Corbynites who will tell us that these are the voices we need to hear more from. They don't quite go as far as saying we need to hear less from them: Middle class left wing journalists with their columns and podcasts and twitter activism, perhaps best expressed by Novara, full of people whose interest in left politics is based on ideology instead of material conditions. And they also don't understand that being an effective representative and negotiator for rail workers isn't the same thing as leading a party to victory in a general election.