That Starmer fella...

That bike must be frustrated, lost a wheel and can't find the remote...

Wow, a rare intervention!

Which specific thing did he say that you disagreed with? That the party has to show it is different to under Corbyn, I guess?

Edit: meant to reply to @cozey

Or that the biggest election defeats were when the far left got closest to party policy?

Yeah I guess that's more arguable isn't it, given it requires a judgement on when the 'far left' have been in / close to control of the party.

You can definitely say that '83 and '19 were elections with a more left-wing offer than previous ones. My knowledge of the 1935 policies is nil.

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)

Alistair Campbell interviewing Tony Blair?

[insert picture of dogs sniffing each other's arses here]

oops, meant to be a reply to @greentricky

The party's finances were in an absolutely woeful state by the end of the Blair years, and it looks like they are heading that way again now.

This is from a recent Guardian article:

We haven’t got the small donors that Corbyn brought and haven’t got the big donors that [Tony] Blair had. We’re trapped between the two worlds.”

That aside, this post is either pure fantasy ('crowdfunding for an election campaign') or just plain naïve: if you rely on big donors 'from business' for your funding then they are going to want something in return. And I guarantee that what they want is not going to be good for the people that Labour is supposed to represent (the clue's in the name). That's if you can even attract them in the first place: which fractions of capital do you propose to try and win over, and how, for instance? How do you ensure their long-term support for the party?

As to getting individual members to simply pay more (an updated subscription model, as you suggest), what is the incentive for them to do this, especially if you're eroding what little democratic purchase members currently have? Contrary to what this forum might suggest I don't think the country's full of people with cash burning holes in their pockets

Great piece in the NewStatesman, and again Blair shows his ability to see a political future that no active politician is able to describe, let alone enact.

.

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.

The whole point of the Labour party is to give a voice to people that aren't big businesses - so they have the collective power to counter those influences when they're shaping peoples lives for the benefit of their pockets.
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.

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.

You are right, the PLP caused a lot of damage over the last 6 years.

.

I bet there are car forums with Boris Johnson threads where they're all just patting each other on the backs despite their differences and wanking each other off about how great they are.

It would be much easier being on the right.

I'm not sure 'the right' is a homogeneous blob (much like this Labour discussion), the Brexit-deal period opened up divisions and a sliding scale of bat-shit insane inside the party: from Baker (often in tears) to May (willing to give the same robotic non-answer in the commons for 5hrs+). They even have the Ken Clarke-ite's who talk a good game, but are also willing to hold their nose when it comes to toeing the party line. The divisions are still there and the biggest threat to Boris currently is from his own benches.

I've just finished reading the 4th Industrial Revolution, sounds like Tony is ready

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/12/blair-and-corbyn-weigh-in-on-keir-starmers-election-troubles

business having a voice is fair.

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.

Lol, rep

Have you ever thought that this kind of reaction to a pretty middle of the road, balanced comment about funding could be part of the reason why labour don't win?

Suggest that funding could come from a wide variety of sources, and get shirty replies back about why that's nonsense which ends with suggesting they don't belong in the labour party.

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.

And entirely disqualified because it repeatedly destroys Labour's chances of ever getting into power and actually being able to do anything to support labour interests.

What a delicious paradox!

Tbf I'm pretty MoR but I do kind of get the "big business" =/= Labour thing. I briefly wondered whether there could be a threshold so donations could be accepted from small/medium businesses, however that's decided. Then remembered all the Tory chums with their crappy no-asset companies, which would no doubt fly under that.

I had some other thoughts about unions yesterday (not the big/trad ones) but too much work to do :/