Search results for:

Adonis is such a beg friend.

all of which you've glossed over because you're intent on telling us the man who is widely accepted as a bad Trade Unionist, is a bad Trade Unionist.

I'd find this argument much more convincing if you hadn't in the last page defended McCluskey's decision to waste coming up to two million quids worth of his members' fees on defending the indefensible re: Anna Turley, who you said 'deserved it' in a now-deleted post - despite her being utterly vindicated by the judges decision. There's literally no point arguing with people who have that kind of mentality. Goodbye Batt.

calling for undefined, large scale change of unions

Sorry, where did I do that?

I don't care about unions. They can reform or not, I don't care. What I DO care about is Labour's election chances. And those chances have been damaged by the last five or six years of allowing an openly corrupt Unite an outsize voice within Labour's funding model.

Most of what you've been saying comes across as "unions are bad and need changing"

On this last few pages, sure, but bear in mind this whole conversation came about because I suggested that Labour being too reliant on any single source of funding leads to bad outcomes for Labour (as we were tied to bad policy and reduce our chances of winning elections) and the unions themselves (through poor leadership, short-sighted decisions, and wasting of members money).

There was quite a bit of denial of this last point and I am a small and petty man, so on a day where Unite had fucked up as badly as they have, I am going to grasp the opportunity to flog that dead horse. I don't expect anyone to change their minds, that's not really what this thread is about, but I do hope I can show those who think there's no problem with the Labour<>Unite alliance that they should at least consider that I might have the tinest bit of a point.

I know what you mean, but I'm not really a fan of finding stuff in people's back catalogue of writing as a justification for ignoring everything they say.

No, I'm with you on that. It's not a 'gotcha' of her views though - it's a cornerstone of her beliefs (that people should be free to say things like 'trans women are men' without it being assumed they're being hostile). And that actually sounds very reasonable if she's talking about the right of academics to discuss such points without being accused of hate crimes / harassment under UK law. I agree with that right firmly. There does need to be a discussion about precisely where we draw the line when cis and trans rights clash, and we can't discuss that without academic freedom.

But while Stock doesn't say this in her piece (which is reasonable and well argued) she does actively defend people like Maya Forstater who not only want the right to discuss such statements academically, they want the right to say these things to trans people whether it causes hurt or harm or not. That's quite a different thing because - well - it's harassment.

That's where I get a bit more nervous, because the academic freedom argument (which I agree with) and the licence to harass trans people argument (which I am firmly against) should be really very far apart. And the fact that she mixes these two things up quite often makes me worry, and it's what reminds me of Peterson.

None of that means we should discount what either academic says - I never went to Uni and I've an absurd and outsize respect for academia - but I do think we're entitled to put it in context.

Turley's offer to Skwawkbox and the Union was to retract and apologise and she'd drop the legal case. Unite instead chose to waste their members money on fighting it - the same Unite who were in favour of Labour fighting the antisemitism whistleblowers in court, by the way.

Unite in the headlines again after Len's successor Howard Beckett made prima facie racist comments about Priti Patel - now suspended from Labour and almost certain to be kicked out (and off the Labour NEC to boot). https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/13/unite-leadership-nominee-apologises-for-tweeting-priti-patel-should-be-deported

Again I have no problem with the union model in general but those arguing that the current model works need to be able to justify this kind of thing, or accept that reform is needed.

A timely reminder of what happens when unions and labour get too close - unite wasting £1.3 million of its members money supporting a Corbyn-loyalist blog after it libelled Anna Turley.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/13/unite-blogger-must-pay-former-labour-mp-13m-legal-costs-libel-case

I think the thing to bear in mind about 2017 is that Corbyn - despite doing much better than expected - won 262 seats. That's four more seats than Gordon Brown got in 2010 - a result rightly considered to be a bit of a trumping and one which led to his immediate resignation.

I know for Corbyn loyalists 2017 was a great result, and he definitely performed better than expected. But by the morbid calculus of the FPTP UK voting system, it's winner take all, and we lost.

I'll be looking out for a rebuttal (since I'm unlikely to bother to go and read the book itself).

I don't know much about Kathleen Stock though I do recognise that she's not one of the most rabid anti-trans people, and I'm pretty sure her views are honestly held.

However she does defend transphobes - or at least, she defends the right of transphobes to say things like 'trans women are men' - which means to me that she's a bit like what Jordan Peterson is to the far right, kind of a gateway drug.

I'm doing my very best on this to recognise my trans pals but also recognise that there are a lot of scared women out there who've been fed a pack of lies about how the GRA changes would mean blokes could just walk into your changing room and leer at you. Again I don't agree with Blair on much but I do agree that patient persuasion changes more minds than hurling insults.

This is true.

So what you are saying is that you would suck off Tony Blair?

OK the multi quote was bad enough but DOUBLE multi quote replies? I don't have the time for that.

Ah, so when loads of young workers are getting fucked over on zero hours contracts to save more cash for shareholders, they should be pleased that their pensions are being looked after instead.
#massiveoversimplification

This is one of the left's three comforting myths and it does us damage on a daily basis. If someone disagrees with us we assume they are either:

• being paid
  
• evil
  
• ignorant
  
  

We can debate on the last one but I can assure you I'm not either of the first two. Look, I know it's not exactly par for the course when it comes to inter-factional discussions within Labour, but would you mind assuming good faith on my part for a few minutes? It'll really make the discussion pop.

I 100% care about people on zero-hours contracts. I have done those jobs. It is miserable. I also know that the vast majority of people on zero-hours contracts are not members of a union. It is therefore my belief that the union model does not work for people on zero-hours contracts.

You know what MIGHT work for people on zero-hours contracts? Labour being in power and ensuring that the conversation with businesses is two way, based on trust, and therefore having the credibility to remind businesses of the social contract they have with their employees. It's what Blair did when he introduced minimum wage. It's also literally Starmer's approach.

Businesses lobbying a political party on behalf of their shareholders interests is not comparable to unions lobbying on behalf of their (collectively, millions of) members interests.

As several people have tried to explain to you, if Unions ‘hold the whip hand’ (oh please) it’s entirely qualified by the weight of their collective membership.

If you don’t understand why it’s important to draw distinction between business and labour interests, TBH I’m not entirely sure you’re in the right party.

These days, the vast majority of businesses are publicly traded and passively owned by a wide range of funds. Very rarely are they owned by the dude with the top hat from the Monopoly box (a game which is is at best an incomplete guide to the modern economy).

So when you say 'shareholders' try to think beyond the Monopoly box, and think about investment funds. And what are the most widespread form of investment funds? Pensions. My pension. Your pension. Ordinary people - many of whom would not think of themselves as shareholders - are who we're talking about. The distinction you're referring to - between business interests and labour interests - was largely erased when pension funds started to become major shareholders in those businesses.

(And if we're talking numbers, I'd tentatively suggest that more people have a pension than belong to a union. Businesses - and their shareholders - have a right to a voice.)

This is important, because one of the key reasons that Labour aren't trusted with the economy (and therefore why we've been out of power for a decade) is that our most active and vocal parts of our base don't UNDERSTAND the economy.

It's the financial illiteracy stuff that fucks Labour every time.

The unions have a whip hand over Labour because they are those people - they are the members - its one of the reasons I pay my union dues - to have that influence.

I think the unions having a voice is absolutely fair. I also think the members having a voice is fair. I think business having a voice is fair. I think the PLP having a voice is fair. I think all stakeholders should have a voice.

However I fundamentally object to any one of those voices having the whip hand. That's how you end up in the mess we've been in for the last six years.

if you rely on big donors 'from business' for your funding then they are going to want something in return

That's precisely my argument against relying on the unions for funding - all you've done is shifted the target. (As it happens, I have as much of a problem with business donors dictating the direction of the Labour party as I do unions, it's just that the unions have been more of a problem in this way over the last five or six years.)

The whole point is that a divergent revenue stream - one which CAN include the unions and business and crowdfunding and member donations and the like but does not RELY on any one too much - is the only way Labour can be politically agile in the way it clearly needs to be to turn its fortunes around, AND fairly and accurately balance the requirements of different statekholders within a policy matrix.

No one group should have the whip hand over Labour policy. The unions have for the last four or five years. That's the point.

His piece in the New Stateman today is essential reading imo. I don't agree with Blair on much but his exhortation to revolutionise Labour is undeniable.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/05/tony-blair-without-total-change-labour-will-die

(If you don't have a New Statesman account, open it in an Incognito window)

Lol I never worked out how to multi-quote effectively so I'm going to back away slowly

Yes, but who is going to fund the party instead?

There are a tonne of options which do not require us to be in thrall to the unions.

• we could have a subscription model above and beyond the membership model which frankly I find a bit of an anachronism
  
• we could follow the Tory model of donations from the world of business
  
• we could continue with the union model - albeit with a modernised relationship which confers no veto for them on Labour policy
  
• we could argue for political parties to be funded by the state - would require legislative change but frankly I can see a good argument for it
  
• we could argue to expand the current funding model for opposition parties from the Lords and the Commons - again not my favourite but its a realistic possibility
  
• one off fundraising is an option too - wouldn't want to base your whole model on it, but crowdfunding works
  
• we could pursue a mix of multiple options above - which I like a lot, as the more diverse our revenue streams are, the less we 'owe' one particular faction, and the more independent we can be with policy
  
  

This idea that if we want to be funded we need to grant people like Len McClusky the whip hand over voters / members is just nonsense. It's proven nonsense because Blair's Labour didn't have this as a feature of its party.

Ah, the good old days.

The biggest danger to workers rights in the UK was Brexit, and the Unions tied Labour's hands to do anything reasonable about it.

You can take the piss as much as you want but it's a statement of fact that Labour does not need the unions for funding. It's also a statement of fact that Labour's affiliation the unions has been a fucking liability to our electoral chances. It's also a statement of fact to say that that cash for honours stuff was nonsense - the CPS found no case worth pursuing.

If you think union affiliation is good for Labour, make a positive case for it. I'm no Blair fan but I don't think his position on unions has yet been bettered.

Yes, Len McClusky is on the way out. But he's done damage to Labour's electoral chances already.

I'm not proposing an alternative to unions - I'm saying that unions are counterproductive to Labour's chances of getting into power and I want a model for collective action which doesn't damage our chances. If the unions decide not to damage our chances maybe they're the way forward. But at the moment, they're a liability.

If you don't think unions have done bad things I suspect I'm on a hiding to nothing listing out the problems, but just sticking to Len McCluskey for a moment:

• spunked potentially over a million quid of his members money in legal fees protecting Sqawakbox when they libelled Anna Turley
  
• funelling contracts to dodgy mates
  
• 'borrowing' £400k of members money to buy his flat
  
• telling jewish Labour ex MPs to 'count your gold'
  
• Unite were also instrumental in blocking Starmer's 'remain' brexit policy and instead forced a 'people's vote' policy instead - a pointless fig leaf that annoys me to this day
  
  

I could go on but probably best not to.

I've said this somewhere on this thread (or a similar one). I think, as nice as it is, the member democracy is a hurdle to being elected. Their concerns often don't seem to match the general electorate's and it sometimes pushes the party in difficult directions.

Agreed. I think the same argument applies to the question about who's going to door knock and volunteer and phone bank and the like - don't get me wrong, those things are important, but members tend to overestimate their input into a win. For the average voter, the leadership and policies are much more important. A large and active membership does not translate into election success, and sometimes actively harms it.

And that argument also applies to the unions. I am still in favour of collective action and I still think worker solidarity has a place in the world. I also recognise that people like Len McClusky are utterly toxic to the electorate, and that our association with people like him cost us votes. I also further recognise that union membership is at an all time low and excludes a significant number of precarious / zero hours workers.

I think unions have done some great things. I also think they have done some terrible things. I want a new model.

EDIT - Blair's Labour was not in hock to the unions. Other funding models are clearly possible.

Also, in spite of declaring that Blairism won't work, what you describe in terms of severing the ties with the unions, diminishing member democracy, talking about meritocracy, crime and antisocial behaviour is absolutely straight out of the Blairite textbook!

It is. And the commitment to social justice is straight out of Corbyn's. Zero tolerance for antisemitism (which I didn't put in but feel strongly about) would be out of Starmer's. There's zero point going backwards, any future Labour party is going to need to take elements of previous successful administrations and some original ideas to create something new.

Mandleson's point (that our last ten elections went lose lose lose lose blair blair blair lose lose lose) is crude but effective. Labour cannot win by going backwards but we'd be stupid to ignore history altogether.

Genuine question as I don't know the answer, are there enough constituencies in this bracket to win a majority?

Short answer, no. But there's also no majority in failing to appeal to anyone outside that bracket too. I think Labour's decline is terminal and they need to arrest it fast by changing the way the party is run. Bin off the member democracy. Bin off the unions. Bin off the Corbynites. Bin off the flag chat.

Start talking about meritocracy. Start talking about roads / crime / antisocial behaviour / housing / the damage of Brexit. Openly argue for social justice. Make electoral pacts with the Greens, Lib Dems, SNP. Create a progressive alliance.

I do appreciate that I'm speaking a bit fast and loose and from frustration but I do think this weekend's results show that a significant change in approach is required. Blairism won't work. Corbynism won't work. And the first attempt at Starmerism hasn't worked.

Great post. I've been happy to let Starmer try to wrap progressive policies in the flag to see how it'll land. We know how it'll land now. It won't. Retired ex-working class people with their own homes will vote for Tories instead. Why would they vote for a copy when they can vote for the original?

Starmer was the progressive/soft left/remain candidate. He needs to start dancing with the people who brought him. Labour's new heartlands are not Hartlepool and no amount of flag waving will bring them back. Labour's new heartlands are the cities. Represent us. Stop prevaricating and start talking about the damage this culture war is doing. Stop harking back to a working class that doesn't exist any more. Help the working class which does exist.

Going through a Hitchcock season atm, ended up watching The Birds. I really enjoyed how it felt like a template for Romero and Carpenter and all the rest, had a real 'small town in lockdown and everyone blaming everyone else, the real monster is man!' sort of vibe but I also thought compared to the his films from the same period (North by North West, Psycho, Vertigo, et al) it was a bit one-note. Amazing effects though.