Gardiner has to remind BBC interviewer how no-confidence motion works and what powers Labour has in opposition – did the same last December
Shadow Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner, Labour’s most consistent media performer, appeared on this morning’s edition of the BBC’s Marr programme.
Andrew Marr pressed the line that Labour supports a new referendum and can bring one about more easily than a general election – forcing Gardiner to educate him on how Parliament actually works.
And Gardiner went to the unusual length of pointing out to Marr and to BBC viewers that the BBC man was intentionally misleading them about the options – and in fact was telling them the exact opposite of reality:
Well, actually you’ve got it entirely the wrong way round – because you know very well that the entire mechanism of Parliament means that we as the Opposition have no power to deliver a second referendum.
Marr attempted to interrupt and claim that Labour had no power to force an election either – but Gardiner shut him down:
Gardiner knew Marr is perfectly well aware how the no-confidence process works – because he’d already had to publicly school Marr on his misleading claims in a broadcast last December.
In fact, as the SKWAWKBOX showed its readers two weeks ago, not only is a general election the only power that Labour has over the schedule of binding parliamentary debates and votes, but the parliamentary ‘mechanism’, as Gardiner described it, means that a general election is the only realistic means of blocking a no-deal Brexit.
SKWAWKBOX view:
Gardiner has owned numerous interviewers and anchors since the 2017 general election campaign revealed him to be as intolerant of media misrepresentation as he is polite.
He shone once again this morning on Marr, but the persistent and wilful misrepresentation of parliamentary facts for the sake of an Establishment narrative across a variety of outlets and platforms is a national scandal.
More than ever the independent left media and Labour’s supporters on social media are crucial to any hope of balanced political discussion and information for the wider public.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Which is all well and good but until Labour has a clear message and the electorate believe that Labour has finally got off the fence and stopped prevaricating it is all just more background noise.
“a general election the only power that Labour has”
… which is also an obfuscation. No good correcting Marr and then coming up with this misleading simplification. If it was true, we would already have a date for a GE.
One-eyed vision leads to tripping up.
But that’s not what Gardiner said – he said that we have the power to call for a vote of no confidence and that, in the event of no deal, some Tories have indicated they’ll support it.
Very different to claiming that Labour has the power to call a GE.
Marr’s the one spouting nonsense.
Precisely. I was quoting Sqwawkbox’s somewhat disingenuous gloss.
Labour Party policy is perfectly clear; Labour will not change policy to please a few tories and a load of pollsters.
If the public is as stupid and ignorant as you suggest, that certainly is not labour’s fault, and as this article illustrates.
And who on earth would suggest that ‘the public has it wrong, so we should change policy to match’?
That’s downright bloody stupid.
heenan73 09/06/2019 at 10:07 pm
To you maybe(???) but not to the voters. It doesn’t bode well if Labour is incapable of getting its message across to the ordinary person in the street.
I should have realised after reading the first few words that I was wasting my time and energy reading the rest of your comment .
Oh, and just to clarify I did not imply in any way whatsoever that the electorate is either stupid or ignorant. That was entirely your own doing. On the contrary my criticism was very firmly directed at the inadequacy of Labour’s ‘message’.
If you’d actually read the article, you’d know one of the major reasons for the public seeing the policy as ‘unclear’. A second one, of course, is dissident MPs – your favourites, I’ll bet – who consistently go ‘off message’ to peddle their own private policies.
Of course there’s a problem – but a loyal member would not be the tiniest bit ‘unclear’ where the blame lies. You, of course, are part of the problem. Worse, you’re proud of it.
Shame on you.
He was responding to a vexatious point by Marr that we are now backing a second referendum
My issue is compare response to smear of Lisa Forbes to very clear and straight forward response from Jewish Voice for Labour on their website, can any spokesmen for party follow this line please
So from now on just say NO
Not reading every post on social media makes you an anti semite,
Start calling out these attacks on JC, Party, Members and supporters
Celebrate our proud record, safest country in Europe for the Jewish community thanks to JC and Labour movement, compare our gold standard complaints procedure compared to what, have the others hot and what is their record
Enjoy
labour policy has been clear since day 1, idiots don’t understand it, due to BBC and sky continually repeating it’s not known or unclear! shysters like watson talk of a 2nd ref to muddy the waters more to harm Corbyn! labour want a soft brexit (refer to labours 6 tests to understand what a soft brexit is!) should a hard brexit be on the cards by a tory lunatic gvmnt, only in that case would labour want to involve another ref, it would not however involve an option to ignore the first ref. …. so what are you? an idiot or a shyster? it ain’t rock science!
The only problem is that whilst this may be what the leadership wants it is not what the vast majority of either the Labour Party’s membership or voters want.
Oh really? You speak for “most members/voters”.
Don’t talk wet.
wlbcarepants 09/06/2019 at 11:53 pm
This wouldn’t be my choice of words but on this occasion all the polls and academic studies consistently indicate that I do. Do you have any credible evidence to the contrary.
@SteveH “all the polls and academic studies consistently indicate that I do. Do you have any credible evidence to the contrary.”
Well Steve maybe it could be construed that the Peterborough vote is just that evidence . That despite as you see it Labour sitting on the fence and its policy not being clear , the vote ( not a poll but a real vote ) put Labour back in power and held the seat.
Thus perhaps the voters are not confused as to Labours position after all , it’s just that the MSM and elite would dearly like that to be the position ..
It’s not what the people want that counts. It’s what will pass through Parliament. I’m sure a PV has been voted down 3 times even after Jeremy whipped it.
southhay 10/06/2019 at 8:53 am
It’s not what the people want that counts. It’s what will pass through Parliament. I’m sure a PV has been voted down 3 times even after Jeremy whipped it.”
Actually it’s 4 not 3 if you count the indicative votes (only 2 if you don’t). Labour whipped to abstain on the only occasion a 2nd vote was proposed as a standalone motion
I don’t blame you for being mistaken because there is so much intentional misinformation flying around.
This is what actually happened.
29th Jan (tabled by Corbyn)
This was as part of a composite motion so any vote was influenced by the accompanying motion. This was the motion that Labour whipped on
14th Mar (tabled by TIG)
Labour whipped to abstain on this vote
27th Mar (indicative vote #1)
None of the options voted on achieved a majority but it is worth noting that the second referendum came second in popularity amongst all the options voted on.
1st Apr (indicative vote #2)
None of the options voted on achieved a majority but it is worth noting that the second referendum came a close second in popularity.
” a PV has been voted down 3 times even after Jeremy whipped it”
Indeed. And precious little fuss has been made about Labour MPs who broke the whip, and who sided with the government to gift a Tory victory.. Interesting double standards.
“all the polls and academic studies consistently indicate that I do” – the usual troll piffle. Polls and ‘academic research (code for amateur polls by remainer academics) are notoriously wrong much more often than they’re right.
Sad that akll the remainers do get their message across is to create small, unrepresentative polls asking rigged questions, mostly of London remainers.
It’s bollocks. He knows it’s bollocks, but he agrees with the message, so he doesn’t care.
If the polls were showing a pro-brexit bias, he’d be the first one picking academic holes in their suspect methodology.
And let me remind you that ‘academic’ is not a magic word meaning ‘honest, reliable and right. In this case it’s code for a small poorly controlled study asking loaded questions of poorly selected correspondents.
Sorry – but your plaiting of fog and flights of fancy don’t make an argument just because you don’t like reality.
It’s always possible to suss out foot-stamping in place of argument when you hear the vocabulary of Stalinism and sundrty dictators creeping in (“disloyal”, “traitor”, “will of the people” etc.).
… because, of course, in that simplistic cowboys and indians scenarioo, its the formation of policy that has been disloyal to members and supporters (let alone half the country being subjected to Tory policy without an opposition). But I wouldn’t use those terms.
“academic research (code for amateur polls by remainer academics) are notoriously wrong much more often than they’re right.”
What you mean is that they don’t say what you want them to, but you have no alternative convincing evidence to offer.
I know it’s tough when you have no back-up for your views, but denial isn’t credible.
SteveH
I want us to remain. I think a second referendum will be necessary to get there.
But I am passionately opposed to holding a second referendum at the moment, because, thanks to the hardcore remainers like you, who dismiss the leave-voting communities rather than reaching out and showing how we can address their needs while remaining within the EU, I strongly suspect that leave would win – and even if it didn’t, the lingering bitterness would turbocharge Farage’s appeal.
I support Labour’s policy.
Stop confusing what we personally want with our rather more nuanced understanding of the strategy and tactics needed to plot a safe way through this mess.
Ultraviolet at 3:16 pm
I’m sorry but the cunning Baldrick plan was way past its sell by date some time ago. Prevaricating is losing us far too many votes.
This poll was taken shortly before the EU elections. Just imagine for a moment how much of a bounce it would have given Labour if these polling results had been translated into votes in the EU elections.
What we could have had
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1130900865995485184
Election Maps UK @ElectionMapsUK
European Election Voting Intention IF Labour ‘Became Pro Remain and Promised an in/out 2nd Referendum’:
LAB: 36% (+12)
BXP: 30% (-2)
CON: 11% (=)
LDM: 9% (-6)
NAT: 4% (=)
CHUK: 3% (-1)
UKIP: 3% (+1)
GRN: 2% (-4)
Via @ComRes, 17 May. Changes w/ Regular poll.
11:19 AM – 21 May 2019
I’m doing my best to avoid joining the dots and making assumptions. 🙂
“labour policy has been clear since day 1”
That is not what the great British public feel. Right or wrong is irrelevant – the Labour Party is seen to have the least clear Brexit policy of all parties, and there is no communication other than perception.
And no – it’s not all the fault of the BBC and the half+ of the nation who disagree with the Brexit crap that has been peddled by the right.-wing MSM. It’s time to stop that weedy cop-out whenever reality intrudes.
Right.
It’s also the fault of dissident MPs, who continually and consistently trot out their off-policy briefings to gullible, pissed Labour-hating journalists.
And disloyal members who support such activities.
Shame on you.
.. and rob … as I’ve said before, Peterborough had nothing to say about Brexit or the third referendum option. All that was clear was that, in the context of the threat of the Farago crowd, potential LibDem and Green defectors (judged by the results of the local elections) in significant numbers chose to stay with Labour.
Peterborough has everything to say about polls, lies, MSM and arseholes who pretend to be Labour supporters.
Peterborough was a real election, not a raddled poll by raddled pollsters financed by Labour haters and promoted by arseholes.
Peterborough was an election where real human beings put their real Xs in real boxes and sai “Bollocks to you, I Support Labour”
Peterborough was a real Labour victory, you turd, and don’t you forget it.
Shame on you.
Sorry RH but you are quite wrong re Peterborough and Heenan73 has in essance covered the salient points, that when it comes to the crunch , Brexit and Labours position is low on the radar (imo).They’re more concerned with what Labour can do for them in their ordinary day to day lives , health,education, security, foodbanks etcetc.
rob – I would agree with you that, in terms of Peterborough, Brexit was not at the top of the agenda – I actually implied that. Flowing from that is the fact that one cannot deduce anything about underlying attitudes to Brexit or a referendum.
However, the tedious and emotionally overwrought response from heenan73 puts words into mouths that are wishful thinking – combined with incontinent hysteria – rather than analysis. It’s wise not to confuse politics with religion.
All that can be said, looking at the voting patterns, is that Brexit was *not* directly the key issue – the repulsiveness of the Brexit Party to many probably was, and the support of Remain voters was probably also crucial for Labour in achieving a majority, with a lot of Leave votes going to the Brexit Party. Some 10% (c. 4000) *less* votes went to the LibDems and Greens than in the local elections, and it’s pretty a clear supposition where they went.
Which is why , Richard, I chose my words carefully re ” salient points” and I am glad that we are in agreement over the benefits that a Labour Govt under Corbyn would bring to the majority of the UK .I may have missed your implication ( not sure that it is there ) . Perhaps if I can make a polite suggestion , would be less of the metaphors and quaint sayings which imo tends to sometimes obscure the points you are trying to convey but that is just my view and not meant as antagonism.
Perhaps ,if I may ( and I hope Heenan73 forgives me ) , but maybe a question to ask is , why you think Heenan73 is using such strong language in the first place ? 😉
I thought I’d replied to your last question, rob – but it isn’t there.
Anyway – I could only speculate. Why would anyone indulge in just shouting pure fantasy laced with scatology as a substitute for argument? Beats me.
I was delighted with Barry’s response to the complaints of anti semitism against our new MP Lisa Forbes. He said she had made a mistake, regretted it and apologised. He then made reference to admission of drug taking by Tory leadership contenders which they said they regretted and for which they apologised and carried on, highlighting a stark difference in response to unacceptable behaviour
This made me think about the mistakes others who have condemned Lisa have made over the years e.g. Margaret Hodge said she was “naive” about child sex abuse when it was disclosed that as leader of Islington Council in the 1980s she had failed to act to protect children in the care of the Council from sexual exploitation. She also paid £10,000 compensation to one of the victims who she had wrongly stated was mentally disturbed. Is liking an anti Semetic tweet really more unforgivable than failing to protect children in care from rape and prostitution, than libeling a victim?
Margaret clearly made mistakes and people accepted her apology and assurances that she was “naive ” and had not intentionally set out to hurt these children or the victim she libeled. Why then will she not extend the same trust and acceptance to Lisa?
smartboy 09/06/2019 at 11:17 pm
He said she had made a mistake, regretted it and apologised. …………… they said they regretted [their actions] and for which they apologised and carried on, highlighting a stark difference in response to unacceptable behaviour
I am struggling to see the difference?
Nobody is calling for the Tories who tool drugs to be suspended. It is accepted that they are sorry for what they did and they have been allowed to move on. In Lisa’s case although she admitted her mistake and apologised for it there have been calls for her to be suspended and/or have the whip withdrawn. This is the difference in treatment that Barry highlighted on the Marr programme this morning.
Also Correction to my post above – it appears from some contemporary that the sex abuse victim Margaret libeled received £30,000 compensation not £10,000 as stated above
smartboy 09/06/2019 at 11:52 pm
“Nobody is calling for the Tories who tool drugs to be suspended.”
How right you are, instead they are saying they are unfit for high office and calling for them to withdraw their candidacy for the Tory leadership.
Who? Certainly not the BBC. In any case do you think these calls are justified?
martboy 10/06/2019 at 1:00 am
To the best of my knowledge the BBC has not directly called for Lisa’s resignation. They have however reported on what others have said about both of these situations. If you have any evidence to the contrary then you won’t have any difficulty in providing a link to your evidence because all the recent BBC outlook is available online.
As to whether either of these witch hunts is justified – On the basis of the evidence currently available neither of them is justified.
BBC outlook is available online should read output.
Reply to Steve H.
You stated that the Tories concerned were said to be unfit for high office and were being urged to withdraw their candidacy for the Tory leadership. I asked by whom. You have not addressed that point. However I am glad we agree that calls for them to withdraw from the leadership contest are unjustified.
I’ve just read the coverage of this in three newspapers, including the original article in the Sunday Times last week, and not one of the articles mentions WHEN Lisa Forbes did what she did (and said what she said), and I have no doubt whatsoever that THAT was by design, precisely so that their readers would assume it happened recently. I just this minute checked out the Guardian to see if THEY mention any dates, and they don’t EITHER, but they DO have a link to the ‘freelance reporter’ who supposedly first came across the ‘like’ and her comment, and Lisa’s comment was from 2014, and the ‘like’ from April this year (I think).
Given all the trawling that the so-called Campaign Against Anti-semitism et al have been doing during the past few years, it is inconceivable that the saboteurs didn’t trawl through her social media accounts as soon as she was selected as Labour’s candidate. But we’re supposed to believe that this ‘freelance reporter’ just happened to think to trawl her social media accounts a few days before the by-election. Yeh sure, pull the other one!
The point is of course that IF these newspapers (and no doubt most, if now ALL, of the others) HAD mentioned any dates, it may very well have left a few of their readers wondering why they didn’t cover it before AND waited until just prior to the by-election to disseminate it:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/02/jewish-groups-labour-peterborough-byelection-lisa-forbes-antisemitism
I agree with you. Every single candidate for election to either parliament or internal committee must expect to have their lives and their social media activity put under the microscope. However I believe in giving people a second chance. I have mentioned Margaret Hodges mistakes above when she was leader of Islington Council and the fact that she did not willfully endanger children. She was naive and she apologised. She was given a second chance and actually became Minister forr Children in the Blair government.
Likewise with Stella Creasey MP who a year or so ago posted a truly vile racist cartoon – used to advertise an orange drink in the 1980s and withdrawn because of the outrage it caused even then- because she did not see how racially offensive it was. Stella took down the cartoon apologised and moved on. She has been very vocal on a number of issues and her mistake does not seem to have affected her career. I am sure she has learned her lesson and will never again publish a cartoon which degrades Black people.
None of us is perfect and we all make mistakes. As Jon Lansman said there has to be room for redemption and if a person shows genuine remorse for naivety, stupidity or bad behaviour I think we have to give them a second chance.
I just checked out the Daily Mail and they DO mention the date of her ‘like’ – ie in April – but they then go on to give their readers the impression that she made the comment she made at around the same time and, as such, DON’T mention that it’s from 2014. Here’s what it says:
Ms Forbes’ win will see her join Mr Corbyn’s party in Westminster at a time when it remains engulfed in an anti-Semitism crisis.
She said sorry for controversial actions on social media posts include one from April in which she ‘liked’ a claim that Prime Minister Theresa May had a ‘Zionist Slave Masters agenda’.
She also commented under a post whose author championed conspiracy theories that Islamic extremists were created by the CIA and Israel’s intelligence service Mossad writing: ‘I’ve enjoyed reading this so much.’
(Ends)
On a slightly different note, will the EHRC – which was established by Blair and Co – ever investigate Islamophobia in the Tory Party, as The Muslim Council of Britain has asked them to do? I doubt it somehow!:
https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/other/british-muslims-petition-ehrc-over-islamophobia-in-conservative-party/ar-AACjXGq
The following article in the Morning Star has a lot more information than the article I linked to above (and you can be absolutely certain that the 150 complaints/allegations of Islamophobia in the Tory Party are legitimate, unlike the vast majority of complaints/allegations of A/S made by the likes of the CAA et al). And DO check out the article by David Rosenberg that it links to:
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/muslim-council-britain-urges-investigation-islamophobia-tory-party
Thank you for the links and additional info Allan. I do hope that all allegations of Islamophobia in the Tory party are fully investigated.
Given the small number of Tory party members it is clear that proportionally there are a greater number of complaints about Islamophobia within their ranks than there are about Anti Semitism in ours.
However all forms of racism are equally vile are we must do all we can to ensure we eradicate them wherever we come across them.
Smallchange, I wonder if she pad off the £10,000 herself or was it the rate payers? Who forgave her behaviour. Asleep at the wheel is not an excuse. Regards..
The problem on this ‘antisemitism’ has always been knee-jerk ‘apology’. When you haven’t committed any offence. This goes way back to Naz Shah’s non-offence when she used an ironic image about the fact that Israel concerns a seizure of others’ territory (It had nothing to do with what she was accused of)
Now – that ‘apology’ went well in putting an end to pro-Israeli exploitation of the issue, didn’t it?
Since then, the main effect of bending the knee to the Lobby has been to increase the incidence of false accusations and get rid of left-wing jews with irreproachable anti-racist records – as well as denying history.
Marr is an absolute disgrace. Yet again, he fundamentally TWISTS THE TRUTH.
That’s your ‘unbiased’ BBC.
wlbcarepants 09/06/2019 at 11:54 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/09061903.pdf
Have you seen Noam Chomsky put him in his place?
https://youtu.be/lLcpcytUnWU
Marr’s only just intelligent enough to realise it!
I can’t bear to watch it all. It gets viler by the hour. They are so blatantly pro- establishment I wonder what any genuine Labour M.Ps are doing giving interviews, their answers are dismissed and they are lambasted by everyone in the halls. It’s going to get worse and I am not talking about the Tinters. Best wishes.
If the Government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public.
Wow.
I wonder why no-one ever thought of that.
Thank the Lord for one original thinker.
Except that the government – tories, you know? – doesn’t give a shit about what ‘the public’ think.
You do know what a tory is, right?
heenan73 at 10:24 am ·
As you are someone who professes to know what you are talking about I’m surprised you didn’t recognise it as a direct quote from the Labour Party’s Composite Brexit Motion that was agreed at the 2018 conference. 😏
Indeed , heenan73. The long hours , every day, the persistent trolls, SteveH and RH, (and a few more usually) put in to pump out the utterly bogus Mandelson/Campbell scripted PV/Remain codswallop . What a waste of their sad little daily lives . Tragic .
What is much more important, and sad also, is that Barry Gardiner (not even a Left Winger in his background politics) is one of very few Labour Shadow Cabinet members who are consistently “on message” in interviews, and can deal robustly but politely with the wilful misrepresentations of the Marrs and Pestons of the media circus. The always apologetic and easily bullied Chakrobarti , and quite a few others, should take lessons . And those like Thornberry and Starmer, who deliberately collaborate with the media misrepresentation, should be booted off the Shadow Cabinet.
“Mandelson/Campbell scripted PV/Remain codswallop”
Even if you aren’t too bright, and are a bit out of touch, Ha’penny, I reckon you could work a bit harder to connect with reality and the varied views of the wider Labour membership and voters.
jpenney 10/06/2019 at 11:01 am
This seems like an opportune time to remind you that you have yet to clear up the discrepancy between these 2 statements that you wrote.
Which of them is a lie?
“jpenney 31/05/2019 at 8:06 pm
Wrong again moron Troll . I left the Left Unity grouplet early in 2015 to join the Labour Party,”
OR
John Penney
September 18, 2015 at 4:26 pm
I have therefore regretfully resigned from Left Unity and its many, many, fine comrades , and joined the Labour Party (AGAIN – after a 20 year break) , as have many other previously fully committed Left Unity members over the last few weeks.
https://skwawkbox.org/2019/05/29/thousands-of-labour-members-sign-letter-of-no-confidence-in-shockingly-unfit-watson/#comment-108203
Often causes problems leaving a ‘buddy’ talking therapy group to rejoin real life in the form of a Party with a diversity of views..
Cognitive dissonance isn’t unusual 🙂
RH 10/06/2019 at 1:17 pm
The problem is that jpenney as a ‘seasoned activist’ knows exactly what he is doing. This is clearly illustrated by several more recent posts that he has made on other sites whilst a member of the Labour Party.
Well, I guess as a ‘seasoned activist’, he will be able to tell us about his encounters in Peterborough last week .
That would be more rooted and informative than fictions about ‘trolls’ and various other imaginings.
I’m afraid the quoted statement provides no evidence of when I personally left formal membership of the failed Left Unity project in 2015. There was a period of resignations by members throughout 2015, accelerating after Jeremy’s Leadership bid gained traction. The rest of the quoted statement though is as excellent and correct now as it was then . The endless sabotage of the Labour Right has proven to be just as I predicted. So tough luck Troll. Thanks though for providing a link to such an excellent analysis of the deep , longstanding, political schisms in the Labour Party, and the challenges facing the hundreds of thousands of Left wingers who joined , or as in my case, rejoined, during 2015 and onwards, to help transform a previously deeply corrupt and fast-declining neoliberal Party into a radical Left (social democratic )Party . I recommend the article to everyone to read.
jpenney
My apologies for my rather dismissively short reply on another thread. Your carefully crafted non-answer obviously deserves a more comprehensive and detailed reply. After all it did take you 10 days to craft it. Unfortunately I don’t have the time this evening to devote the attention that your comment warrants. I’ll try and find the time to get back to you tomorrow.
TSSA conference votes against Brexit, for public vote on any deal
Delegates at the annual conference of transport union TSSA yesterday overwhelmingly voted against Brexit, describing the project as a “victory for the xenophobic and nationalist right”.
Approving a statement from the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association executive committee, the union reiterated its support for “final say on any Brexit deal agreed by parliament”…………….
TSSA general secretary Manuel Cortes, who has been supportive of Jeremy Corbyn but critical of Labour’s Brexit position, said: “I’m delighted our union has again made it clear we stand strongly against Brexit. It is nothing more than a mad Tory creation, which poses a clear and present economic danger the working people of this country.
“The only people who would benefit from Brexit are those with money to burn and zealots like Nigel Farage. It would amount to a victory for the xenophobic and nationalist right and set the UK back many decades.”
Big surprise, a union composed of well-paid middle class professionals, is pro Remain . I think we’d all grasped that the middle classes generally still think the EU is wonderful. Sadly, as happened to the teaching profession over the last 15 years or so , and is happening ever more rapidly via the globalised of digital information transfer, to other middle class jobs, the middle classes are going to be very shocked by the impact of the neoliberalism which the EU enforces, on their previously privileged jobs as time goes by . First they came for the unskilled and semi-skilled, and the skilled manual working class . Next they come for the middle classes, and the reality of unlimited labour supply and global outsourcing, will make Manuel Cortes’ TSSA’s smug ignoring of the very rational reasons for so many working class people rejecting staying in the neoliberal Single Market and EU, by writing these off in best Guardianista fashion as purely due to “xenophobia and nationalism” , as the privileged professional labour aristocracy at its “I’m all right jack” worst.
Perhaps you should have bothered to read the article first. I’m not sure how much the members of the GMB and Unison will appreciate your above characterisation
“At its conference last year, TSSA became the first Labour-affiliated trade union to back another referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. It was soon joined in its support for a public vote by GMB and Community, and more recently by Unison.“
You have expressed contempt for affiliated unions, your fellow party and momentum members, you have written about Jeremy and his team with mocking derision and all whilst a member of the Labour party.
When is the penny going to drop, your views are only shared by a small minority of the party.
I’m afraid the descent into false 19th century class characterisations about workers and their unions totally undermines your argument, which isn’t so much an ‘argument’ as a caricature of what doesn’t fit your imagined faux-Marxist model. Not so much ‘false conciousness’ as ‘forced unconciousness’.
The threats to jobs in general don’t originate in the EU, and the divisive language is grist to the Tory mill – like the Brexit scam. This side of the fence is supposed to be about solidarity – not simply feeding resentment based on fictions about the nature of actual class divisions.. That’s essentially a Tory game.
In terms of fact, I would reckon that members of ASLEF are more highly paid than those of the TSSA. So what?