Unite backs Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader

[Pickman's model]

No we're not. We'll start getting to a worse stage (in Britain) when Osborne implements the latest in tax credits. It's never the "worst" while it's only the fringes ((immigrants, disabled, sick, students, etc) taking the brunt.

compared to where we were five years or ten years ago, let alone under thatcher, we're in a far worse stage. i don't doubt things will get worse, but they're pretty bloody bad now.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why doesn't UNITE back Left Unity then?

Because backing Corbyn allows Unite to make a point, whether Corbyn wins or loses. Unite know he won't win, but they've decided that hitching their wagon in such a way that it says "we support leftward politics" makes more sense than either keeping schtumm, or backing any of the gibbering idiots who have eaten von Hayek's faeces.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

That's because Kendall et al are blairite's, of course theyr'e going to say that. At the end of the day it is up to the many thousands of members and union members to decide what went wrong and who is best placed to fix it.

If your entire project is to compete with the Tories for the chance to help administrate neo-liberalism then a vote for Corbyn would be insane - which is precisely why he isn't going to win.

The idea that Labour Party members and the unions have progressive pro working class politics which are constantly thwarted by 'the leadership' is absolutely risible. Where? When? On what issues? As for Corbyn his politics aren't even radical - they are a throwback to 80's social-democratic metropolitan identity politics.

As one of the key players in the formation of the Labour Party, Beatrice Webb, put it when the spectre of working class rule by the working class reared its head " The General Strike will fail ... We have always been against a General Strike ... The failure of the General Strike of 1926 will be one of the most significant landmarks in the history of the British working class. Future historians will, I think, regard it as the death gasp of that pernicious doctrine of ‘workers’ control’ of public affairs through the trade unions, and by the method of direct action ... On the whole, it was a proletarian distemper which had to run its course and like other distempers it is well to have it over and done with at the cost of a lengthy convalescence".

 

[8ball]

Well, the leadership of the country's biggest union thinks differently at least.

This is a statement of affiliation and political leanings - it's a lament for a world we don't live in.
They know he won't win.

 

[MochaSoul]

compared to where we were five years or ten years ago, let alone under thatcher, we're in a far worse stage. i don't doubt things will get worse, but they're pretty bloody bad now.

We could compare it to Victorian times, why don't we?
Okay, I'll rephrase. Rock bottom. What I mean is, while the right wing media is able still to reach a public willing to be fooled we can't really say we've reached rock bottom even if that's what we think it is.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I left in '94-95.
By 2001 about 90% of the local (Streatham) CLP's activists (mostly left-moderates) had left the party. Yes, that's an inner London CLP, so 90% might not be a valid figure to extrapolate nationally from, but even if you extrapolated a 50% loss nationally, it'd still leave the party less anchored to the left, and more amenable to the creeping rightism of neoliberally-inclined Labour.

Yes exactly. Obviously it's not a representative sample or anything but most people I know who were members left years ago. The only people I still know who are involved are a couple of ex-colleagues I still see on Facebook discussing it with their friends and none of them are left wing in any sense that I'd recognise.

 

[MochaSoul]

Because backing Corbyn allows Unite to make a point, whether Corbyn wins or loses. Unite know he won't win, but they've decided that hitching their wagon in such a way that it says "we support leftward politics" makes more sense than either keeping schtumm, or backing any of the gibbering idiots who have eaten von Hayek's faeces.

But that also assumes that the labour party can be steered back leftward. It's a waste of time, money and speeches. I really can't see the point in keeping an affiliation with labour.

 

[butchersapron]

I left in '94-95.
By 2001 about 90% of the local (Streatham) CLP's activists (mostly left-moderates) had left the party. Yes, that's an inner London CLP, so 90% might not be a valid figure to extrapolate nationally from, but even if you extrapolated a 50% loss nationally, it'd still leave the party less anchored to the left, and more amenable to the creeping rightism of neoliberally-inclined Labour.

In that same period i saw my CLP go from consisting mostly of long term members from areas such as railways, post office, bus drivers etc with the odd teacher to one dominated by lawyers, high up local council managers - and they squeezed out those long term members, including people who had been in the party since the 30s. That's not a point about their politics btw the older members tended to be from the old-right wing of the unions tradition, it's a point about whose interests are put forward.

I really can't understand why this conversation keeps happening.

 

[killer b]

I really can't understand why this conversation keeps happening.

I think many people struggle to see an alternative is all.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

In that same period i saw my CLP go from consisting mostly of long term members from areas such as railways, post office, bus drivers etc with the odd teacher to one dominated by lawyers, high up local council managers - and they squeezed out those long term members, including people who had been in the party since the 30s. That's not a point about their politics btw the older members tended to be from the old-right wing of the unions tradition, it's a point about whose interests are put forward.

I really can't understand why this conversation keeps happening.

Yeah, when I joined the LP my CLP was blue collar union members who were more radical on the economy than on identity politics. When I left the situation was reversed both in terms of the class composition and with the influx of middle classers not interested in the economic questions but obsessed with 'equality'.

I think the conversation keep happening because a drowning man will clutch at any straw.

 

[MochaSoul]

Gosh! Why am I feeling so young in this conversation?

 

[DotCommunist]

If your entire project is to compete with the Tories for the chance to help administrate neo-liberalism then a vote for Corbyn would be insane - which is precisely why he isn't going to win.

The idea that Labour Party members and the unions have progressive pro working class politics which are constantly thwarted by 'the leadership' is absolutely risible. Where? When? On what issues? As for Corbyn his politics aren't even radical - they are a throwback to 80's social-democratic metropolitan identity politics.

As one of the key players in the formation of the Labour Party, Beatrice Webb, put it when the spectre of working class rule by the working class reared its head " The General Strike will fail ... We have always been against a General Strike ... The failure of the General Strike of 1926 will be one of the most significant landmarks in the history of the British working class. Future historians will, I think, regard it as the death gasp of that pernicious doctrine of ‘workers’ control’ of public affairs through the trade unions, and by the method of direct action ... On the whole, it was a proletarian distemper which had to run its course and like other distempers it is well to have it over and done with at the cost of a lengthy convalescence".

jesus thats some quote. I can almost hear the accent

 

[the button]

Their recommendation to vote for Thunderbirds as second preference is probably as significant as them backing Corbyn, tbh. I can see Andy Burnham getting through as the "most people's second choice" candidate, as well as having significant support as a first preference.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That would be a bit obvious surely!

It's tried and tested, and oh so easy to do.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But that also assumes that the labour party can be steered back leftward. It's a waste of time, money and speeches. I really can't see the point in keeping an affiliation with labour.

it's not about steering Labour leftward. Unite know that won't happen. It's about putting down a marker for potential union members, and making a statement to their existing membership about where they are, politically (even if the statement is a lie, and Unite's actual pragmatic perspective is far from even Corbyn's quasi-leftism).

 

[ViolentPanda]

In that same period i saw my CLP go from consisting mostly of long term members from areas such as railways, post office, bus drivers etc with the odd teacher to one dominated by lawyers, high up local council managers - and they squeezed out those long term members, including people who had been in the party since the 30s. That's not a point about their politics btw the older members tended to be from the old-right wing of the unions tradition, it's a point about whose interests are put forward.

I really can't understand why this conversation keeps happening.

Purely because people want to believe in something better, but won't step outside the bounds of "parliamentary democracy" to look for it. If more did, we wouldn't see the "vote Labour with no illusions" trope in play quite so often, IMO.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is a statement of affiliation and political leanings - it's a lament for a world we don't live in.
They know he won't win.

You're probably right, of course. Burnham as 2nd pref is more an indication of something they think could happen. But sometimes a lament is worth hearing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Gosh! Why am I feeling so young in this conversation?

Because you weren't a member of the Labour Party in the early '90s?

 

[CNT36]

I'm not sure the membership is significantly left of the leadership anyway tbh. Maybe it was a few years ago but my impression is that that's long gone now.

Why don't you ask him? He posts here.

 

[MochaSoul]

(even if the statement is a lie, and Unite's actual pragmatic perspective is far from even Corbyn's quasi-leftism).

Yes, That does remind me of Jerry Hicks and how they sabotaged him.

 

[MochaSoul]

Because you weren't a member of the Labour Party in the early '90s?

That was sigh of reminiscence of my young and naive years. D'you know, I came to Britain all full of optimism the Monday after Tony Blair was elected? Hahaha "OMG!", I kept saying to myself, "It's the end of the Thatcher years." LOL
I know, I know... argh... and when they introduced tax credits. I have no words.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That was sigh of reminiscence of my young and naive years. D'you know, I came to Britain all full of optimism the Monday after Tony Blair was elected? Hahaha "OMG!", I kept saying to myself, "It's the end of the Thatcher years." LOL
I know, I know... argh... and when they introduced tax credits. I have no words.

Each of us has a moment stuck in our memories when we finally realised that Labour were no good.

 

[DotCommunist]

That was sigh of reminiscence of my young and naive years. D'you know, I came to Britain all full of optimism the Monday after Tony Blair was elected? Hahaha "OMG!", I kept saying to myself, "It's the end of the Thatcher years." LOL
I know, I know... argh... and when they introduced tax credits. I have no words.

canadian friend of the family came here in his teens wide eyed at the thought of moving to what he thought was a 'socialist country'. This was the year thatcher got in. Unlucky.

 

[MochaSoul]

canadian friend of the family came here in his teens wide eyed at the thought of moving to what he thought was a 'socialist country'. This was the year thatcher got in. Unlucky.

There is nothing, like a little perspective.

 

[BigTom]

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader

You can still get 12-1 on Corbyn. If you think he has a serious chance I'd get a few quid on him if I were you.

soo..

£3 to get a vote. For every vote also place £1 on Corbyn to win. Corbyn wins you get £12, minus £3 for the vote = £9 profit!! kerching!!!

 

[Pickman's model]

We could compare it to Victorian times, why don't we?
Okay, I'll rephrase. Rock bottom. What I mean is, while the right wing media is able still to reach a public willing to be fooled we can't really say we've reached rock bottom even if that's what we think it is.

who do you think has been fooled? the 1/4 who voted tory? do you think things would be any better under e.g. a labour govt? i don't think the media as central as you do, else there'dhave been a bigger tory vote.

 

[BigTom]

it's not about steering Labour leftward. Unite know that won't happen. It's about putting down a marker for potential union members, and making a statement to their existing membership about where they are, politically (even if the statement is a lie, and Unite's actual pragmatic perspective is far from even Corbyn's quasi-leftism).

Being more cynical about it, it's to help Andy Burnham to counter the whole "in the union's pockets" crap that the Tories come out with, so he can get away from that shitfest during and after the leadership campaign. Unite/Mcluskey are particular targets of that line so him being able to distance himself from Unite will be useful to him. Corbyn isn't going to win and everyone knows it, Unite will like backing him for all the reasons you've given and have made a nice deal with Burnham that works for both of them.

 

[gimesumtruf]

I wonder why Jeremy Corbyn stays in the party, what does he see that most don't ?

 

[DotCommunist]

constituency first for a decent mp I suppose

 

[MochaSoul]

who do you think has been fooled? the 1/4 who voted tory? do you think things would be any better under e.g. a labour govt? i don't think the media as central as you do, else there'dhave been a bigger tory vote.

And, no, I don't believe in Labour any more than I believe the tories neither am I fooled into thinking that a vote for Labour says anything other than a vote for a continuation of what is at the mo. But I don't forget that 30% of the vote DID go to Labour.