Starmer sacks shadow transport minister for appearing on picket line

[Andy_W]

Yes



March 2021. I'll await a reply from you referencing 2020 shall I?



Sounds like you've been using your imagination again.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1369307263144443908

Back when nurses pay was front page news Starmer refused, multiple times in interviews, to suggest any figure other than the tories pledged 2.1%. The tories ended up increasing their offer to 3%, easily outflanking Starmer.

It's similar to this week in a way. He's so scared of doing or saying anything that could be criticised he ends up making it easy for the tories to outflank him however they choose.

But the Tories offered 1%, and offered 3% eventually a year later?

Starmer said 2.5% and then negotiate up form there?

If you start a Tory government at 1% and end up with 3% a year later, and have a labour government starting at 2.5%, then it is probably going to end up with a lot more than 3% isn't it? Labour would have given more than 3% in March 21, never mind in Feb 22 and would probably put it up again now, with the inflation hike.

Getting the Tories up form 1% to 3% is probably a success (to some degree), when you're sat on the opposition bench, even if they only do it to try and score points.

https://twitter.com/gmb/status/1389468840266977285

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

I feel sorry for the rail lot, but there's a lot more people who I feel a lot more sorry for, being paid a lot less, with zero chance of any raise or strike power, and loads of them rely on our already expensive public transport.

I wonder how rail pay increases over the last decade compare to the average person, or other public sector workers like nurses etc.

The media always highlight how much train drivers earn because their wages are quite high, and rightly so. But these strikes are not just about drivers but rail workers across the board.

 

[dorivasmiddlefinger]

How so?

For wating people even worse off to also get a better pay rise, or one in line with inflation?

See post #244

 

[dorivasmiddlefinger]

Really?

Really

 

[bumface]

You can support workers rights without picketing with them. James obrien made a good point about starmer being unpolitical in as much as he is interested in the process' for improvement rather than the optics. Standing on a picket line does nothing for the rmt's problems. Starmer is more interested in how you fix the problem.

Firstly, I'll apologise to you for what I said yesterday. That was unfair and I shouldn't have said it. It just got to me a bit being told that I live in an ideal world. My world is far from ideal mate but that's enough about that.

This isn't just about one bloke getting fired for showing solidarity with the workers mate. There's a lot more to it than that. Starmer has ruined The Labour Party. He isn't interested in fixing problems. He is the problem. He needs to go. He's a saboteur who is only there to purge the left and to force people like me to leave the party in disgust.

 

[SuperStu]

Getting the Tories up form 1% to 3% is probably a success (to some degree), when you're sat on the opposition bench, even if they only do it to try and score points.

what a generous interpretation of events that is. He refused to give a figure above the government's 2.1%, refused to side with the unions and nurses, refuses to stick his neck out at all and somehow you credit him with forcing the tories to up their offer?

 

[The Ruthsayer]

How well is Keir Starmer doing as Labour leader?

Do you think Keir Starmer is doing well or badly as leader of the Labour party?

yougov.co.uk

 

[Andy_W]

The media always highlight how much train drivers earn because their wages are quite high, and rightly so. But these strikes are not just about drivers but rail workers across the board.

I was more on about the 37k median wage, excluding drivers, but including cleaners.

I’d rather raises be prioritised from the bottom up, someone on 20-25k needs it 10x more than someone on 40k, 50k etc.

 

[Andy_W]

See post #244

That wasn’t your reply, and see post #248.

 

[Andy_W]

what a generous interpretation of events that is. He refused to give a figure above the government's 2.1%, refused to side with the unions and nurses, refuses to stick his neck out at all and somehow you credit him with forcing the tories to up their offer?

Did you not watch the video, saying STARTING at 2.5%, which was a whole year earlier than the 3% the Tories ENDED with. The NHS hating Tories doubled their starting point, if Labour (who are better with the NHS) did the same the Labour raise would have been an extra 2%.

Anyway, starmer couldn’t give any raises, as he’s not in power, let’s see what raises they get if people unite and vote Labour in.

How many raises did Corbyn give the nurses? None. Why? Because he couldn’t/ didn’t win, twice. How did nurses pay increase between 2015 and 2019? How’s it done since 2010 when people have been voting for or enabling the Tories? Came down quite a bit since Blair and Brown where in (who I imagine you were digging at too?).

Just side with the current leader, or against the Tories, it’s not difficult FFS.

 

[Andy_W]

Starmer was asked directly about a 5% increase and he ruled it out

And there’s 1 reason why

When? 2020? 2021? Got any links to that, or anywhere written down where that would be policy?

Tories said they would give a 2.5% rise in early 2020, and only offered 1% in early 2021, saying it was the most they could give (when Starmer was saying they would start at LEAST 2.5%). The offer was later revised to 3% (but by then inflation had gone up massively to counteract that, so it's even more of a pay cut) and Starmer said it wasn't enough (he called it shameful).

Starmer's mum was a nurse, his sister is a nurse and his wife works for the NHS FFS. Do you seriously think the nurses are going to get better pay rises under Tories than under Starmer (or any Labour government that could possibly win an election)?

 

[SuperStu]

Did you not watch the video, saying STARTING at 2.5%,

Andy you've found the one media appearance when Starmer misspoke and said 2.5%. His position was 2.1%. It's well documented.

Keir Starmer demands at least 2.1% pay rise for nurses - but won't say how much

The Labour leader said frontline staff deserve 'a fair pay rise' rather than a real-terms cut in wages offered by Boris Johnson

www.mirror.co.uk

NHS pay offer ‘reprehensible’ says Labour

Shadow Secretary of State Lisa Nandy says current government proposal is a pay cut and not an uplift

www.independent.co.uk

Labour criticised over refusal to back 12% pay rise for NHS nurses - LabourList

Angela Rayner has been criticised by left activists over Labour’s refusal to back demands for a 12% pay…

labourlist.org

https://twitter.com/x/status/1369307263144443908

 

[Laughing]

Firstly, I'll apologise to you for what I said yesterday. That was unfair and I shouldn't have said it. It just got to me a bit being told that I live in an ideal world. My world is far from ideal mate but that's enough about that.

This isn't just about one bloke getting fired for showing solidarity with the workers mate. There's a lot more to it than that. Starmer has ruined The Labour Party. He isn't interested in fixing problems. He is the problem. He needs to go. He's a saboteur who is only there to purge the left and to force people like me to leave the party in disgust.

Thanks for the apology bumface, wasn't really required but I appreciate it.

You are right this is more than someone getting kicked out of the shadow cabinet. It's our best chance in sometime to get the tories out. For me that is the only thing this is about.

I understand people's frustration with starmer. I struggle to understand why they are not seeing the bigger picture. This country needs some serious triage.

 

[Andy_W]

Andy you've found the one media appearance when Starmer misspoke and said 2.5%. His position was 2.1%. It's well documented.

Keir Starmer demands at least 2.1% pay rise for nurses - but won't say how much

The Labour leader said frontline staff deserve 'a fair pay rise' rather than a real-terms cut in wages offered by Boris Johnson

www.mirror.co.uk

NHS pay offer ‘reprehensible’ says Labour

Shadow Secretary of State Lisa Nandy says current government proposal is a pay cut and not an uplift

www.independent.co.uk

Labour criticised over refusal to back 12% pay rise for NHS nurses - LabourList

Angela Rayner has been criticised by left activists over Labour’s refusal to back demands for a 12% pay…

labourlist.org

https://twitter.com/x/status/1369307263144443908

It was the first one I found, but ok, so he's allowed to mis-speak if it means you can go against him, but not if it means you can't.

Can you answer these questions please?

Anyway, even if it was STARTING at 2.1% (which was the figure mentioned by the tories in 2020), it's still better than reducing that starting point from 2.1% down to 1% a year later in 2021 isn't it?

Do you think Starmer would have dropped the opening offer to 1%?

Then when that 3% came in (Feb 22 backdated to Apr 21 I think), it was after inflation had started to massively increase (and predicted far worse), so effectively the 3% (in 2022) is much less of an increase than the 2.1% (in 2020/21) in real terms, you agree with that right?

Do you think the nurses would get paid more under Labour or Tories?

Do you think a Labour government which can't get elected (and thus allowing these far right Tory clowns) would be better for the NHS, than one which can?

 

[SuperStu]

Starmer's mum was a nurse, his sister is a nurse and his wife works for the NHS FFS.

And yet he still didn't have the cojones to actually put his name to any figure other than the one the tories had previously agreed to. Just like he won't go to bat for train and station staff now. It's pathetic isn't it? A pointless situation. A leader of the Labour party who is so scared of capital he always sides against labour.

 

[SuperStu]

so he's allowed to mis-speak if it means you can go against him, but not if it means you can't.

Eh?

Just side with the current leader, or against the Tories, it’s not difficult FFS.

I think that sums it up. No thoughts, just vibes. You've mentioned a few times you don't bother paying attention to what political parties or leaders are saying until election time. I don't get why you'd then get so rattled about other people who do pay close attention coming to different conclusions to you. Its like when you get people who are only football fans once every 4 years when there's a world cup on!

 

[Andy_W]

And yet he still didn't have the cojones to actually put his name to any figure other than the one the tories had previously agreed to. Just like he won't go to bat for train and station staff now. It's pathetic isn't it? A pointless situation. A leader of the Labour party who is so scared of capital he always sides against labour.

See post 266.

Have you ever negotiated anything? Normally the person negotiating with the higher base figure, is going to ultimately settle on a higher figure, you agree with that, right?

It's all hypothetical anyway, and always will be if Labour can't get into power, which is the point you conveniently keep ignoring. You also ignore the make up of the the UK voters, if you try for everything you end up with nothing. You're not going to pull the population to the left, I wish we could, but it's not going to happen, and will take decades. It's like the brexit lot, believing that will be good if they believe hard enough, it won't, we need to be realistic.

 

[SuperStu]

It's all hypothetical anyway, and always will be if Labour can't get into power, which is the point you conveniently keep ignoring. You also ignore the make up of the the UK voters, if you try for everything you end up with nothing.

Back at you. Miliband and Brown tried going to the polls offering nothing. How'd that turn out?

 

[Andy_W]

Eh?



I think that sums it up. No thoughts, just vibes. You've mentioned a few times you don't bother paying attention to what political parties or leaders are saying until election time. I don't get why you'd then get so rattled about other people who do pay close attention coming to different conclusions to you. Its like when you get people who are only football fans once every 4 years when there's a world cup on!

You highlight every word what it favours your argument, but don't want to highlight or hear the ones which don't.

Nah, it's called historical precedent, red will always be better than blue, and red is always going to be better when it has the keys, than when it doesn't.
Day to day words are less important, as they flow with time, and rightly so. The manifesto at the time of the election is most important, and then even that can change for the winner, if the situation dictates it. The manifesto for the loser is largely irrelevant.

You only pay attention to and highlight that which suits your anti-Starmer narrative.

I get your world cup analogy, but it doesn't apply here, as I'm arguing with you about it now, and have done since the Tories were polling high with the vaccine rollout But think about it this way, but if you pick players with broken legs, just because of what they were doing 2-3 years ago, then you're not going to win. You pick the squad from players who are fit, and hopefully on form.

When the Tory and Labour manifesto's come out, if you like the blue one better than the others, pick that (I'd rather you didn't though). Personally I'd nearly always pick the one which is opposition to the I fear most (and has the greatest chance of winning that seat).

 

[Andy_W]

Back at you. Miliband and Brown tried going to the polls offering nothing. How'd that turn out?

Right before the election you mean? We're still 2.5 years away.

Seems to be going ok up to now:


I don't really blame Brown, labour had a good stint in power before then and they got the blame for a world recession, which was largely a correction after a good stint of growth (and largely caused by dodgy lending, largely in the US).