Plans – and track record already achieved – go against Starmer’s visionless drabness and would raise question: why can’t all Labour mayors do the same?
North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll has published the statement he sent to the Labour party about his candidacy for North-East Mayor – just before Starmer’s party barred him from standing:
Such is Driscoll’s confidence in his record and plans that he has also tweeted the statements of his rivals to show party members what they would be choosing from if Starmer’s regime were not so cowardly and contemptuous of democracy.
And his own statement shows exactly why the party really wants to bar him from standing – despite the endless smear campaign right-wing MPs and officials are now trying to mount against him. Driscoll not only has plans that make Keir Starmer’s ‘more of the same but draped in a union jack‘ look as pathetic as it is, but he has the track record to show it can actually be done – such as achieving half his 30-year jobs target for the region in just a few years.
Starmer and his leech-like hangers-on are terrified of actual vision and actual change. It’s why they sabotaged Corbyn and why they are now purging the left.
Meanwhile, several unions have reportedly refused to endorse any of the other candidates while Driscoll is barred from the contest – and as can be seen above in the image with Mick Lynch, many of them will clearly be backing only him if Labour backs down. However, the party’s cowardice and arrogance are such that doing the right thing seems a very distant prospect.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
It would be great, but somehow I don’t believe Starmer is going to back down. I have said many times already that Stamer would do his almost to:
– prevent Socialist for standing to be selected as Labour PPC.
– use the change of electoral boundaries to ensure right wing Labour MPs get the safe Labour seats and in the process get ride of members of the SCG
– nearing the call of a General Election, to suspend Labour’s whip from most members of the SCG.
Starmer isn’t returning the Labour’s whip to Abbott, Corbyn and Webbe anytime soon. He is using the new electoral boundaries to get ride of Mick Witley and Beth Winters.
I hope Jamie Driscoll if prevented from standing as Labour’s candidate stand as an independent.
Solidarity Jamie!!
Breaking News
“Left-leaning Welsh Labour MP [Beth Winter] says process ‘unfair’ after losing selection bid
A left-leaning Welsh Labour MP has said the democratic process has been undermined after losing the selection contest for a new seat.
Beth Winter claimed she will be “taking advice and soundings” on her next steps after Gerald Jones was announced as the candidate for Merthyr Tydfil and Upper Cynon.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/national/23573918.left-leaning-welsh-labour-mp-says-process-unfair-losing-selection-bid/
In other good news
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/06/sue-gray-cleared-to-take-up-labour-job-this-autumn-partygate
You think? I’m not so sure. But I suppose Starmer’s got to prove that he’s no Corbyn. (As if we didn’t know)
Sir Jake Berry ‘s giving even the dullest, dead-eyed MSM-journalists their line to keep Sir Entryist Starmer out of Downing Street.
It might even work.
qwertboi – You’re the one quoting a former chairman of the Tory Party.
“You’re the one quoting a former chairman of the Tory Party.”
The one who’s saying ‘the tories are being OUT-TORIED by Starmer?
True, but it only proves that 35+% of the electorate have “nowhere else to go”
SteveH in regard to Starmer and the Employment Rights Bill, I fear that Starmer is going to do a U turn if he gets to number 10.
PASS BEHAVIOUR IS THE BEST PREDICTION TO FUTURE BEHAVIOUR.
-Where are the pledges that Starmer made in 2020 when running for the leadership?
-Stamer, agreed to return the Labour whip to Corbyn if Corbyn apologised. Corbyn did so in terms agreed with Starmer. Only for Starmer to renegade on the deal. Since that day Len McCluskey refuse to meet with Starmer ever again.
-In 2020 while running for leader Corbyn was his friend
-while on the Shadow Cabinet he never brought up the issue of antisemitism within the Labour Party.
-Recently, Starmer told us that Corbyn was never his friend
-according to him the Labour Party is ride with antisemites.
Once elected, Starmer will no implement the Employment Rights Bill, making some excuse or another.
In my opinion Starmer is the most dishonest man in British politics. Boris Johnson looks like a choirboy in comparison.
I am afraid the Tories only have to bring up on the doorstep
-Stamer’s leadership pledges and the traditional Tory voters would be put off voting for him.
-The fact that Starmer was the DPP that failed to prosecute Savile.
I am sure that you are going to say that Starmer wasn’t directly responsible but Starmer was in charge. Hence, if Starmer wasn’t able to supervise what was going on withing the DPP how on earth is he PM’s material?
To Labour voters Greens and others only have to bring up on the doorstep
-Starmer’s taking donations from medical insurance companies
-No presenting a strong opposition to the Tories
-Starmer’s penchant to change his mind and renegade on deals.
You are forgetting one important recent political lesson: UKIP never managed to win a single seat but it make the Conservative Party to lose a lot of seats.
Socialist candidates standing against Labour in marginal Tory seats, would made very difficult for Labour to win those seats and Labour needs to win those seats in order to form government.
No all is about winning SteveH, sometimes is about insuring that Starmer loses.
I am glad the Unions are taking a stand over this but its time to put their money where their mouths are and review how they spend their members political fund subs.
Smartboy, the Unions political fund isn’t spend in financially supporting the Labour Party. The Political Fund is spend in campaigning. For example in supporting Public NHS, the Right to Food campaign, Enough is Enough etc.
The funding of the Labour Party comes from the general funds of the Unions. Somehow, I fear Starmer like Blair would ignore the Unions believing that distancing himself from the Trade Unions would be a vote winner.
As Blair famously said “if I could win from the left, I wouldn’t do it” The Unions need to stop funding the Labour Party and only offering financial support to candidates, independent of Party that agree to support the Trade Union movement’s Agenda.
Fingers crossed at Unite Conference we will vote to disaffiliate from the Labour Party following on the Bakers Union footsteps. Unite is one of the big 3 and it would encourage other Unions affiliated to Labour to follow. It would be very much like a house of cards.
If Unite disaffiliate it would be able to financially support, Driscoll, Corbyn, Abbott, Webbe and other socialist candidates.
Time to call time on Starmer’s Labour.
Maria
And under FPTP it would only take 70 Independents to hold balance of power
Reply to Maria V
Nearly all unions have a political fund. The fund is financed by an additional levy on subs- members can opt out of this additional contribution if they wish. The purpose of the political fund is to financially support a political party. The party is normally identified in the rules and is invariably the Labour party.
Some Unions may also be able to support political causes depending on what it says in the individual union’s rule book but this support would usually be out of general funds, not the political fund.
Like you I think it is time for the Unions to call time on Starmers Labour- they are being made fools of and are throwing good money after bad as Starmer and his PLP have no interest in improving workers rights, terms and conditions etc.
The Unions strongly support Labour’s Employment Rights Bill which the helped write.
It will substantially enhance the rights of every worker in the country.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/New-Deal-for-Working-People-Green-Paper.pdf
Have you read it?
Reply to Steve H
Yes I have but as Starmers word means absolutely nothing – remember his 10 pledges – I just took it with a pinch of salt.I would suggest you do the same.It will save you a lot of disappointment in the long run.
Smartboy – You might have a point if you and your comrades had anything remotely credible to offer the electorate, but you don’t and you don’t.
Numerous shadow ministers and TUC leaders have clearly stated that Labour will enact this bill within their first 100 days in office. You are more than welcome to come back and tell me ‘I told you so’ when Labour’s manifesto is published or if they fail to fulfil their promise on this.
Smartboy, you are wrong. The political fund is to fund campaigns that are important to the Unions. In that sense more than financing the Labour Party, the political fund is used to Lobby the Labour Party.
Reply to Steve H
You are avoiding the issue of Starmer’s failure to keep his word in relation to the 10 pledges – the man is clearly a liar and you can’t defend that.
Reply to Maria V
The purpose of a union’s political fund is set out in Legislation – the 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. This act enables Trade Unions to collect a political levy to be used to finance candidates seeking political office. Sometimes the union’s rules identify the party the union may support as being the Labour party In other cases Labour is not mentioned specifically in the rules but the EC took a decision in the dim and distant past to support Labour party candidates so it is the policy of the union to do so . Either way the Labour party is invariably the beneficiary of the political funds
Unions can of course support any campaign they like if their rules allow but this support has to come out of general funds as the political fund is ring fenced by the legislation.
Political parties should only be funded by suns from members (and with modest limits on what the sub should be). Bungs from unions, donations from business, leader’s dinner clubs – all that bollocks needs to stop.
Political parties should be state funded.
SteveH, I agree with you on this. It would somehow curtail the influence of the lobbies.
State funding of political parties could also curb the influence of ordinary voters.
You would hope so, in the sense that ‘ordinary voters’, which is what we all are, are rendered extraordinary by dint of having funding at their disposal (as a result of heading up an organisation or union, or having considerable wealth) which they often use to exercise influence disproportionate to their single vote. Membership subs (at a fixed and modest level) could be collected via government gateway for distribution to the party you elect to contribute toward (thereby diminishing the possibility of gaming the system) and easily stopped or redirected. I think the primary relationship is between constituent and MP and that parties, should MPs choose to come together under a collective position, are supplementary to this.
I think MPs should have an allowance they can call upon if they wish to form a party. This sum would be allocated on a monthly basis to the party the MP chooses to affiliate with. A party should not be a monolithic institution but in existence only as long as elected representatives find it useful as a means to combine and amplify agreed positions. Once a party is established it could then set up the option for members of the public to subscribe (again on a monthly basis). It may well be that such a system results in the emergence of blocs with hundreds of MPs but one would hope that the ability to disafilliate and regroup (by both MPs and members) would discourage the unwieldy, top-down behemoths that currently clog up the democratic system.