Starmer sacks shadow transport minister for appearing on picket line

MolteniArcore said:
The evidence that Tarry has been disloyal and not supportive of Starmer is him joining the picket lines against the instruction of the Leader.
Click to expand...
Labours press statement this morning is saying that Tarry was NOT sacked for joining a picket line.

as 10s and 10s of labour MP's also joined RMT picket lines and they havnt been disciplined - a case could be made (and starmer would normally make it) that he (Tarry) has been unlawfully discriminated against - not really a good look for The Labour Party.

Tarry's response was polite and dignified.

i'll leave it at that - as i dont like to do the going round in circles with labour party decisions and policy - we are all on the one road and thats to remove the tories that are destroying our communities and country - debate is fine, but public bickering does none of us any good. we move on.
 
Johnny Vincents Motorbike said:
Labours press statement this morning is saying that Tarry was NOT sacked for joining a picket line.

as 10s and 10s of labour MP's also joined RMT picket lines and they havnt been disciplined - a case could be made (and starmer would normally make it) that he (Tarry) has been unlawfully discriminated against - not really a good look for The Labour Party.

Tarry's response was polite and dignified.

i'll leave it at that - as i dont like to do the going round in circles with labour party decisions and policy - we are all on the one road and thats to remove the tories that are destroying our communities and country - debate is fine, but public bickering does none of us any good. we move on.
Click to expand...
He was sacked for making an unauthorised media appearance, not for being on a picket line. Collective responsibility.
 
Surely this thread just encapsulates his lack of leadership, of a clear and coherent message and set of principles.

People spent years moaning about Jeremy Corbyn. He was replaced but now there’s a sense that lots of those who moaned about Corbyn and the “hard left” taking over the party - which is nonsense, Corbyn is not a hard left politician and a quick look at his actual record would tell you that - are complaining about a lack of unity. How those who express concern over the way the new leadership behaves and speaks, the decisions he takes, are somehow at fault for not getting behind the party as a whole I’m not sure.

You can’t expect people to just put up with the Labour leader saying and doing little or nothing when the country is on the brink of crisis, living under a brutal and ideological austerity, without a Prime Minister to speak of, when working people are being hammered left, right and centre while profits and private subsidies and tax avoidance and corporate theft is through the roof. Where are his policies and principles? What does he stand for? Why isn’t he standing up to the Conservatives? He seems to have little of substance to say about the important things because he’s frightened of Murdoch and the right-wing press. It’s not good enough.

Do you remember when people spent years saying “any other leader would be 20 points ahead”? Well, where is it? Where is the leadership? You can’t just ride it out. The Tories are openly talking about “finishing what Margaret Thatcher started” while Starmer is doing what, exactly? Nobody knows what he stands for. I’m not sure he even knows himself. Which is a massive problem when the country is in such a sorry state and there’s no Prime Minister to be seen.

All he’s done here is take the Tories off the front pages. Again. It’s not good enough. And I’m sure people will say we should all unite to get rid of this disgusting government and I would completely agree. But there has to be something to unite behind, surely. You can’t just say little or nothing and hope the Tories implode. People NEED a leader and a clear message.

There are huge swathes of the country that don’t even vote, huge numbers of disenfranchised people, yet he’d rather try and appease those who ‘float’ between the two main parties because ‘rocking the boat’ might upset Murdoch and Rothermere. This is the impression he gives, the only message he’s sending out. It’s just not good enough.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
Where are his policies and principles? What does he stand for?
Click to expand...
This is the biggest issue for me, Tories out at all costs isn't enough for me, you have to stand for something and he seemingly stands for nothing. As a Labour leader at the very least you have to stand up for workers and he can't even do that. It's not like this is a one off either, it has been like this since he took over, he's been in for well over 2 years now and still no one knows what the point of him is.

If he were a footballer he'd be Paul Okon, passing the ball side to side, afraid of making any sort of mistake instead of imposing himself.
 
It’s a strange world we live in:

Starmer and his top team agree not to support picket lines or do media interviews to support strikers. (Right or wrong debate until your hearts content)
One person decides to go native and gets sacked as a result.
He forced the decision really.

Starmer has broken all his election pledges. Mostly yes but the world has moved on.
We have almost 3 trillion debt ((up 64% since Starmer was elected leader) that’s a lot by the way). Absolutlely foolish to stick to dogma given the increase.

There are some who think his actions or lack of them mean Labour won’t in an election.
They wouldn’t win an election with Ant and Dec as leader and deputy. The numbers simply don’t work at the moment - this has been covered many times.

The only chance of any kind of change is a Lab/Lib Dem coalition.
Can he deliver that? Who knows
Probably not with Labour voters splitting because they don’t approve.

Worth looking a back a little through history - Labour voters are pretty good at dividing themselves.
Probably why they have only governed for 27 years out of the last 104 - and 9 of them were in my lifetime.
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with Starmer sacking him for disobeying a direct order. The problem is issuing that direct order in the first place. Who are Labour supposed to represent if not workers?

This is an example of extremely poor judgement from Starmer. I understand, even if I disagree with him, the attempt to distance himself from Corbyn but he's gone too far. A bit of pragmatism is fair enough but you can't, as a Labour leader, abandon the working classes altogether and expect to win. The whole centrist dogma of having to win a few Tories around in order to win doesn't mean abandoning all of the policies left of that. Keep all the things that people like and add some policies to specifically attract the swing voters. Labour are supposed to be opposing the Tories, not Labour's membership. Distancing himself from Corbyn the person was important, not all of Corbyn's policies/beliefs/ideologies.

The Tories don't become left wing when they want to attract swing voters. They go "one-nation" conservatism. They keep all of their right-wing stuff but add in some platitudes to appease the centrists that might otherwise vote Labour. Or they go even further right and try to win people over with populism. Since the Blair days Labour, other than under Corbyn, have basically been one-nation conservatives. Maintain the status quo but try to throw some scraps. It's getting tiring hearing about how terrible the Tories are but then not even suggesting anything that would be an improvement.

I do agree that if other people up and down the country are having this discussion then it is worrying times for Labour. Hopefully Starmer recognises that it is a wake-up call and does something about it before the next election comes around. I don't see that there is a problem with people criticising him. The most vociferous critics will always be the people that want to see an improvement from within. Just like how only Middlesbrough fans can passionately argue for/against the Middlesbrough manager. When people were saying last season they wanted Warnock out it wasn't because they hated Middlesbrough, it's because they wanted Boro to succeed and didn't think it would be possible under Warnock. The first step is always convincing your own supporters, you can't take them for granted and expect them to keep turning up for you if they don't agree with what you are doing/saying.
 
asredastheycome said:
Not me vote for the local politican and party policies. Not the guy who ends up PM. Thats what is wrong these days all the elections are only about the individuals sitting at the top of the tree.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you on that.
But the direction of the party and the policies it proposes are to a very large extent dictated by the guy at the top.
When the guy at the top of the tree is causing division and going against the traditional core values of the party, then we have a problem.
I still don’t know even know where he stands on most things that are important! How can it be that a couple of years on, somebody like me who tries to be politically engaged and informed, and who really wants to vote for Labour, doesn’t have a clue what they are actually about anymore?
I’ve definitely shifted much further towards the anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour side of things, which saddens me. I want something to get behind, somebody to represent a decent amount of my beliefs and desires for society and the country. I don’t want a party to vote for just because ‘at least they aren’t Tories’.
I keep hearing the term Politically homeless banded about, and I’m sure it’s an absolute dream for the Tories to hear that from traditional Labour voters, but Jesus, Labour have to get their act together and fast!
 
MolteniArcore said:
Interesting point.

In terms of capitalising on gains it's a bit early to see if the sacking of Tarry will have any direct impact in the polls. I am not certain myself if it will have any impact at all really but it will be interesting to see if it does.

I'm not sure Starmer needs to be unifying the membership. I would think the more important role with two years to go before a GE is to get the swing voters and former Labour voters who voted Tory at the last election.

This will all have blown over by tomorrow. The only people I see on here apart from the odd one who have stated they won't vote Labour after this are the usual suspects. That's fair enough. I don't think Starmer will be losing any sleep over this whatsoever.
Click to expand...

But it’s dangerous. The point is many of those who have forgiven him a lot and are prepared to see where things go, are now saying they’ve had enough. More and more MPs are voicing dissent too. Granted, it’s the ones on the left of the party but a quick look at social media would suggest it’s not just a few fmttm posters voicing their concerns.
Hopefully it will all blow over and he’ll be able to keep the people who will vote Labour despite him, onboard. In the meantime, there is an awful lot of anger towards him. Rightly so.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Starmer is the one doing the dividing in this case though.
Click to expand...
Not really, didn’t he go against an ‘instruction’?

Good shock horror sack Starmer headlines though for the msm to distract from the Tory economic shambles.

80 year old Alfie sat having his cup of tea reading that Labour and the unions bringing the country to its knees again.

It’s simple for the Tories.
 
HolgateCorner said:
Not really, didn’t he go against an ‘instruction’?

Good shock horror sack Starmer headlines though for the msm to distract from the Tory economic shambles.

80 year old Alfie sat having his cup of tea reading that Labour and the unions bringing the country to its knees again.

It’s simple for the Tories.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but he makes it simple for them, which is nuts considering he seems to be putting so much stock in trying hard not to give them any ammo.
He just shouldn’t have made the instruction in the first place, which is the point, for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top