The Unions Have Declared War On Keir Starmer

Those close to Starmer tried to portray his order to the front benches not to join the striking workers on the picket line as a sign of the leader’s courage and strength. If observers disagreed, there was a danger that an alternative interpretation would be given to this radical departure from Labor tradition, namely that Starmer had miscalculated. That being the case, the old, familiar criticism that he is something of a political naïve, that he spent too long as a lawyer and did not have enough time in the Commons before being elected leader, will be resurrected and debated. It’s a strange hill for any Labor leader to choose to die on. It is difficult to overstate the importance in the culture of the Labor movement of showing solidarity with striking workers. It is true that there have always been those disputes which have divided MPs and which have attracted less public, high-profile support from MPs than other disputes. But in this tradition of stepping up to a picket line, whether to share a quick word of support, or even to offer some much-appreciated hot drinks and snacks, lies the foundation of the bond that has sustained the Labor movement and the party for more. since a century. It is true that unions are neither as popular nor as influential as they once were. one could say that they have achieved a state of balance as far as audiences are concerned: they are neither overly powerful nor completely irrelevant. They now have more or less the level of influence in the country and in the workplace that our fellow citizens are comfortable with. More than that: recent disputes and the cost-of-living crisis that provides their context may arguably have increased the popularity of unions in the eyes of even non-union members. Polls show there is more sympathy for the strikers today than in many previous disputes staged in more economically prosperous times. Strange, then, that Starmer has now chosen to scrap his party’s long history of solidarity with the trade union movement. It was no doubt calculated to convince non-Labour voters who remain undecided about who to support at the next election that Labor is different from that of Starmer’s predecessor Jeremy Corbyn. And that is a laudable aim: the necessity of recruiting those who supported the government last time was never recognized by the previous regime, hence Labour’s dismal electoral performance. But the phrase “throwing the baby out with the bath water” has rarely been more correctly used. Even Tony Blair, Labour’s supreme election winner and keenest reader of voter mood, would not have got this far, and his own period of ascendancy was a quarter of a century closer to the ‘winter of discontent’ – when abusive unions took advantage of our own power to stop the country – from what we are today. Perhaps Starmer was seeking to trigger his own ‘clause IV’ that would define his leadership. He may well have done so, but not in a way that could preserve his relations with the unions. Rail unions have called another day of industrial action to support their pay dispute with Network Rail and rail companies. And they have deliberately timed it to coincide with Labour’s annual conference, which is due to be held in Liverpool next month. After declining an invitation from the TSSA union to join their picket line that day, Starmer told Channel 5’s Jeremy Vine Show: “When it comes to industrial action, I completely understand why people vote to strike, I understand how much.” . we are struggling – wages have been stagnant for the best part of ten years, we now have a cost of living crisis, so prices are going up.” It’s an artifice of words that, like most artifice in politics, doesn’t have much foundation. Does it support strikers or not? Yes and no. Yes, he supports the right to strike (almost a radical stance since that right is literally enshrined in conservative legislation that remains on the statute books) but he sees a direct conflict between the government and overt support for strikes. “You can’t sit around the cabinet table to sort out issues and then walk a picket line – they’re different jobs.” This is entirely and self-evidently true. What’s also true is that Keir Starmer doesn’t sit at the cabinet table to sort out issues or do anything else: he’s in the opposition, and just as the job of a minister and a striker are different roles, so is the job of its leader opposition and the prime minister is different. No one is suggesting that as prime minister, Starmer should be warming his hands on a brazier in front of locked factory gates every time a union calls out its members. Even the most left wing and militant general secretary of the union realizes this fact. But maintaining his edict that no frontbencher should appear on the picket line pushes the stakes of this controversy unduly high. At risk is not only the financial support of ordinary members who may feel abandoned by the politicians whose activities help fund their payments, but also the political support of non-union members who are likely to sympathize with the strikers and are confused. why the Labor Party seems so embarrassed by them. It need not have come to that. Starmer overreacted to the prospect of strikes. No one seriously believes that he is advocating a return to mass picketing or abandoning pre-strike ballots or other legislative restrictions put in place in the 1980s. Yes, he would have to come up with a strategy to deflect the inevitable criticism from Conservative politicians seeking to portray support from shadow cabinet members as complicity in the revolution. But any party that cannot counter such attacks can hardly claim to be ready for government. Starmer is in a no-win situation that he personally and purposelessly engineered. If he caved and was seen during the Labor conference on a picket line at a Liverpool train station, he would be gleefully mocked by our new Prime Minister next week. But it would also win the respect – and, crucially, the unity – of the wider labor movement. The most likely course of action is that he will stick to his guns and continue to insist on having his cake and eating it too. This will work as long as the unions are willing to pay for the cake. But Starmer will have to accept, in this case, the disappointment of both sides of the Labor coalition. And in the long run, the consequences for the Labour-union nexus could be fatal.

title: “The Unions Have Declared War On Keir Starmer Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-04” author: “Lettie Mcdermott”

Those close to Starmer tried to portray his order to the front benches not to join the striking workers on the picket line as a sign of the leader’s courage and strength. If observers disagreed, there was a danger that an alternative interpretation would be given to this radical departure from Labor tradition, namely that Starmer had miscalculated. That being the case, the old, familiar criticism that he is something of a political naïve, that he spent too long as a lawyer and did not have enough time in the Commons before being elected leader, will be resurrected and debated. It’s a strange hill for any Labor leader to choose to die on. It is difficult to overstate the importance in the culture of the Labor movement of showing solidarity with striking workers. It is true that there have always been those disputes which have divided MPs and which have attracted less public, high-profile support from MPs than other disputes. But in this tradition of stepping up to a picket line, whether to share a quick word of support, or even to offer some much-appreciated hot drinks and snacks, lies the foundation of the bond that has sustained the Labor movement and the party for more. since a century. It is true that unions are neither as popular nor as influential as they once were. one could say that they have achieved a state of balance as far as audiences are concerned: they are neither overly powerful nor completely irrelevant. They now have more or less the level of influence in the country and in the workplace that our fellow citizens are comfortable with. More than that: recent disputes and the cost-of-living crisis that provides their context may arguably have increased the popularity of unions in the eyes of even non-union members. Polls show there is more sympathy for the strikers today than in many previous disputes staged in more economically prosperous times. Strange, then, that Starmer has now chosen to scrap his party’s long history of solidarity with the trade union movement. It was no doubt calculated to convince non-Labour voters who remain undecided about who to support at the next election that Labor is different from that of Starmer’s predecessor Jeremy Corbyn. And that is a laudable aim: the necessity of recruiting those who supported the government last time was never recognized by the previous regime, hence Labour’s dismal electoral performance. But the phrase “throwing the baby out with the bath water” has rarely been more correctly used. Even Tony Blair, Labour’s supreme election winner and keenest reader of voter mood, would not have got this far, and his own period of ascendancy was a quarter of a century closer to the ‘winter of discontent’ – when abusive unions took advantage of our own power to stop the country – from what we are today. Perhaps Starmer was seeking to trigger his own ‘clause IV’ that would define his leadership. He may well have done so, but not in a way that could preserve his relations with the unions. Rail unions have called another day of industrial action to support their pay dispute with Network Rail and rail companies. And they have deliberately timed it to coincide with Labour’s annual conference, which is due to be held in Liverpool next month. After declining an invitation from the TSSA union to join their picket line that day, Starmer told Channel 5’s Jeremy Vine Show: “When it comes to industrial action, I completely understand why people vote to strike, I understand how much.” . we are struggling – wages have been stagnant for the best part of ten years, we now have a cost of living crisis, so prices are going up.” It’s an artifice of words that, like most artifice in politics, doesn’t have much foundation. Does it support strikers or not? Yes and no. Yes, he supports the right to strike (almost a radical stance since that right is literally enshrined in conservative legislation that remains on the statute books) but he sees a direct conflict between the government and overt support for strikes. “You can’t sit around the cabinet table to sort out issues and then walk a picket line – they’re different jobs.” This is entirely and self-evidently true. What’s also true is that Keir Starmer doesn’t sit at the cabinet table to sort out issues or do anything else: he’s in the opposition, and just as the job of a minister and a striker are different roles, so is the job of its leader opposition and the prime minister is different. No one is suggesting that as prime minister, Starmer should be warming his hands on a brazier in front of locked factory gates every time a union calls out its members. Even the most left wing and militant general secretary of the union realizes this fact. But maintaining his edict that no frontbencher should appear on the picket line pushes the stakes of this controversy unduly high. At risk is not only the financial support of ordinary members who may feel abandoned by the politicians whose activities help fund their payments, but also the political support of non-union members who are likely to sympathize with the strikers and are confused. why the Labor Party seems so embarrassed by them. It need not have come to that. Starmer overreacted to the prospect of strikes. No one seriously believes that he is advocating a return to mass picketing or abandoning pre-strike ballots or other legislative restrictions put in place in the 1980s. Yes, he would have to come up with a strategy to deflect the inevitable criticism from Conservative politicians seeking to portray support from shadow cabinet members as complicity in the revolution. But any party that cannot counter such attacks can hardly claim to be ready for government. Starmer is in a no-win situation that he personally and purposelessly engineered. If he caved and was seen during the Labor conference on a picket line at a Liverpool train station, he would be gleefully mocked by our new Prime Minister next week. But it would also win the respect – and, crucially, the unity – of the wider labor movement. The most likely course of action is that he will stick to his guns and continue to insist on having his cake and eating it too. This will work as long as the unions are willing to pay for the cake. But Starmer will have to accept, in this case, the disappointment of both sides of the Labor coalition. And in the long run, the consequences for the Labour-union nexus could be fatal.

title: “The Unions Have Declared War On Keir Starmer Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-10-22” author: “Christopher Brand”

Those close to Starmer tried to portray his order to the front benches not to join the striking workers on the picket line as a sign of the leader’s courage and strength. If observers disagreed, there was a danger that an alternative interpretation would be given to this radical departure from Labor tradition, namely that Starmer had miscalculated. That being the case, the old, familiar criticism that he is something of a political naïve, that he spent too long as a lawyer and did not have enough time in the Commons before being elected leader, will be resurrected and debated. It’s a strange hill for any Labor leader to choose to die on. It is difficult to overstate the importance in the culture of the Labor movement of showing solidarity with striking workers. It is true that there have always been those disputes which have divided MPs and which have attracted less public, high-profile support from MPs than other disputes. But in this tradition of stepping up to a picket line, whether to share a quick word of support, or even to offer some much-appreciated hot drinks and snacks, lies the foundation of the bond that has sustained the Labor movement and the party for more. since a century. It is true that unions are neither as popular nor as influential as they once were. one could say that they have achieved a state of balance as far as audiences are concerned: they are neither overly powerful nor completely irrelevant. They now have more or less the level of influence in the country and in the workplace that our fellow citizens are comfortable with. More than that: recent disputes and the cost-of-living crisis that provides their context may arguably have increased the popularity of unions in the eyes of even non-union members. Polls show there is more sympathy for the strikers today than in many previous disputes staged in more economically prosperous times. Strange, then, that Starmer has now chosen to scrap his party’s long history of solidarity with the trade union movement. It was no doubt calculated to convince non-Labour voters who remain undecided about who to support at the next election that Labor is different from that of Starmer’s predecessor Jeremy Corbyn. And that is a laudable aim: the necessity of recruiting those who supported the government last time was never recognized by the previous regime, hence Labour’s dismal electoral performance. But the phrase “throwing the baby out with the bath water” has rarely been more correctly used. Even Tony Blair, Labour’s supreme election winner and keenest reader of voter mood, would not have got this far, and his own period of ascendancy was a quarter of a century closer to the ‘winter of discontent’ – when abusive unions took advantage of our own power to stop the country – from what we are today. Perhaps Starmer was seeking to trigger his own ‘clause IV’ that would define his leadership. He may well have done so, but not in a way that could preserve his relations with the unions. Rail unions have called another day of industrial action to support their pay dispute with Network Rail and rail companies. And they have deliberately timed it to coincide with Labour’s annual conference, which is due to be held in Liverpool next month. After declining an invitation from the TSSA union to join their picket line that day, Starmer told Channel 5’s Jeremy Vine Show: “When it comes to industrial action, I completely understand why people vote to strike, I understand how much.” . we are struggling – wages have been stagnant for the best part of ten years, we now have a cost of living crisis, so prices are going up.” It’s an artifice of words that, like most artifice in politics, doesn’t have much foundation. Does it support strikers or not? Yes and no. Yes, he supports the right to strike (almost a radical stance since that right is literally enshrined in conservative legislation that remains on the statute books) but he sees a direct conflict between the government and overt support for strikes. “You can’t sit around the cabinet table to sort out issues and then walk a picket line – they’re different jobs.” This is entirely and self-evidently true. What’s also true is that Keir Starmer doesn’t sit at the cabinet table to sort out issues or do anything else: he’s in the opposition, and just as the job of a minister and a striker are different roles, so is the job of its leader opposition and the prime minister is different. No one is suggesting that as prime minister, Starmer should be warming his hands on a brazier in front of locked factory gates every time a union calls out its members. Even the most left wing and militant general secretary of the union realizes this fact. But maintaining his edict that no frontbencher should appear on the picket line pushes the stakes of this controversy unduly high. At risk is not only the financial support of ordinary members who may feel abandoned by the politicians whose activities help fund their payments, but also the political support of non-union members who are likely to sympathize with the strikers and are confused. why the Labor Party seems so embarrassed by them. It need not have come to that. Starmer overreacted to the prospect of strikes. No one seriously believes that he is advocating a return to mass picketing or abandoning pre-strike ballots or other legislative restrictions put in place in the 1980s. Yes, he would have to come up with a strategy to deflect the inevitable criticism from Conservative politicians seeking to portray support from shadow cabinet members as complicity in the revolution. But any party that cannot counter such attacks can hardly claim to be ready for government. Starmer is in a no-win situation that he personally and purposelessly engineered. If he caved and was seen during the Labor conference on a picket line at a Liverpool train station, he would be gleefully mocked by our new Prime Minister next week. But it would also win the respect – and, crucially, the unity – of the wider labor movement. The most likely course of action is that he will stick to his guns and continue to insist on having his cake and eating it too. This will work as long as the unions are willing to pay for the cake. But Starmer will have to accept, in this case, the disappointment of both sides of the Labor coalition. And in the long run, the consequences for the Labour-union nexus could be fatal.

title: “The Unions Have Declared War On Keir Starmer Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-04” author: “Catherine Inman”

Those close to Starmer tried to portray his order to the front benches not to join the striking workers on the picket line as a sign of the leader’s courage and strength. If observers disagreed, there was a danger that an alternative interpretation would be given to this radical departure from Labor tradition, namely that Starmer had miscalculated. That being the case, the old, familiar criticism that he is something of a political naïve, that he spent too long as a lawyer and did not have enough time in the Commons before being elected leader, will be resurrected and debated. It’s a strange hill for any Labor leader to choose to die on. It is difficult to overstate the importance in the culture of the Labor movement of showing solidarity with striking workers. It is true that there have always been those disputes which have divided MPs and which have attracted less public, high-profile support from MPs than other disputes. But in this tradition of stepping up to a picket line, whether to share a quick word of support, or even to offer some much-appreciated hot drinks and snacks, lies the foundation of the bond that has sustained the Labor movement and the party for more. since a century. It is true that unions are neither as popular nor as influential as they once were. one could say that they have achieved a state of balance as far as audiences are concerned: they are neither overly powerful nor completely irrelevant. They now have more or less the level of influence in the country and in the workplace that our fellow citizens are comfortable with. More than that: recent disputes and the cost-of-living crisis that provides their context may arguably have increased the popularity of unions in the eyes of even non-union members. Polls show there is more sympathy for the strikers today than in many previous disputes staged in more economically prosperous times. Strange, then, that Starmer has now chosen to scrap his party’s long history of solidarity with the trade union movement. It was no doubt calculated to convince non-Labour voters who remain undecided about who to support at the next election that Labor is different from that of Starmer’s predecessor Jeremy Corbyn. And that is a laudable aim: the necessity of recruiting those who supported the government last time was never recognized by the previous regime, hence Labour’s dismal electoral performance. But the phrase “throwing the baby out with the bath water” has rarely been more correctly used. Even Tony Blair, Labour’s supreme election winner and keenest reader of voter mood, would not have got this far, and his own period of ascendancy was a quarter of a century closer to the ‘winter of discontent’ – when abusive unions took advantage of our own power to stop the country – from what we are today. Perhaps Starmer was seeking to trigger his own ‘clause IV’ that would define his leadership. He may well have done so, but not in a way that could preserve his relations with the unions. Rail unions have called another day of industrial action to support their pay dispute with Network Rail and rail companies. And they have deliberately timed it to coincide with Labour’s annual conference, which is due to be held in Liverpool next month. After declining an invitation from the TSSA union to join their picket line that day, Starmer told Channel 5’s Jeremy Vine Show: “When it comes to industrial action, I completely understand why people vote to strike, I understand how much.” . we are struggling – wages have been stagnant for the best part of ten years, we now have a cost of living crisis, so prices are going up.” It’s an artifice of words that, like most artifice in politics, doesn’t have much foundation. Does it support strikers or not? Yes and no. Yes, he supports the right to strike (almost a radical stance since that right is literally enshrined in conservative legislation that remains on the statute books) but he sees a direct conflict between the government and overt support for strikes. “You can’t sit around the cabinet table to sort out issues and then walk a picket line – they’re different jobs.” This is entirely and self-evidently true. What’s also true is that Keir Starmer doesn’t sit at the cabinet table to sort out issues or do anything else: he’s in the opposition, and just as the job of a minister and a striker are different roles, so is the job of its leader opposition and the prime minister is different. No one is suggesting that as prime minister, Starmer should be warming his hands on a brazier in front of locked factory gates every time a union calls out its members. Even the most left wing and militant general secretary of the union realizes this fact. But maintaining his edict that no frontbencher should appear on the picket line pushes the stakes of this controversy unduly high. At risk is not only the financial support of ordinary members who may feel abandoned by the politicians whose activities help fund their payments, but also the political support of non-union members who are likely to sympathize with the strikers and are confused. why the Labor Party seems so embarrassed by them. It need not have come to that. Starmer overreacted to the prospect of strikes. No one seriously believes that he is advocating a return to mass picketing or abandoning pre-strike ballots or other legislative restrictions put in place in the 1980s. Yes, he would have to come up with a strategy to deflect the inevitable criticism from Conservative politicians seeking to portray support from shadow cabinet members as complicity in the revolution. But any party that cannot counter such attacks can hardly claim to be ready for government. Starmer is in a no-win situation that he personally and purposelessly engineered. If he caved and was seen during the Labor conference on a picket line at a Liverpool train station, he would be gleefully mocked by our new Prime Minister next week. But it would also win the respect – and, crucially, the unity – of the wider labor movement. The most likely course of action is that he will stick to his guns and continue to insist on having his cake and eating it too. This will work as long as the unions are willing to pay for the cake. But Starmer will have to accept, in this case, the disappointment of both sides of the Labor coalition. And in the long run, the consequences for the Labour-union nexus could be fatal.