McCluskey tells Corbyn, defy calls for more free movement unless and until there are better controls on the market to protect pay and conditions:
theguardian.com/politics/20 … f-movement
Thank god we’ve got old-style union leaders back in charge.
Nothing concentrates minds like the thought of being massacred in an election.Now chuck Corbyn and Starmer under the bus bring back Hoey as leader and Skinner as no 2 and you’ve turned at least one UKIP voter Labour. 
Carryfast:
Nothing concentrates minds like the thought of being massacred in an election.Now chuck Corbyn and Starmer under the bus bring back Hoey as leader and Skinner as no 2 and you’ve turned at least one UKIP voter Labour.
Why would you want to throw Corbyn under the bus? He’s a Skinner ally. 
And when are you joining as a member to vote for Hoey?
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Nothing concentrates minds like the thought of being massacred in an election.Now chuck Corbyn and Starmer under the bus bring back Hoey as leader and Skinner as no 2 and you’ve turned at least one UKIP voter Labour.Why would you want to throw Corbyn under the bus? He’s a Skinner ally.
And when are you joining as a member to vote for Hoey?
How can he be both a Skinner and a Starmer ally it’s one or other and so far I don’t see Skinner in Starmer’s job let alone Watson’s.
As for Hoey if the present Labour membership want the Leave votes then it’s up to them to put her into Corbyn’s job.Not challenge the electorate to join the Party to push him out and put her in while they keep him and Starmer in place telling us all how good it is to be ruled by the German banker class.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Nothing concentrates minds like the thought of being massacred in an election.Now chuck Corbyn and Starmer under the bus bring back Hoey as leader and Skinner as no 2 and you’ve turned at least one UKIP voter Labour.Why would you want to throw Corbyn under the bus? He’s a Skinner ally.
And when are you joining as a member to vote for Hoey?
How can he be both a Skinner and a Starmer ally it’s one or other and so far I don’t see Skinner in Starmer’s job let alone Watson’s.
There’s no evidence that he is a “Starmer ally” in the sense that we mean.
If you’re wondering why Skinner isn’t in Starmer’s job, perhaps begin by considering that there are members (and voters) to whom Labour leaders are accountable.
If Skinner is to be given Starmer’s job then there must be millions of voters willing to switch to Labour at that moment and hundreds of thousands willing to enter the party as members to secure such a top team in place, and there must be millions who are convincing when they say that is their criteria for joining Labour.
I see little evidence that Brexiteers are in such a state of mind.
As for Hoey if the present Labour membership want the Leave votes then it’s up to them to put her into Corbyn’s job.Not challenge the electorate to join the Party to push him out and put her in while they keep him and Starmer in place telling us all how good it is to be ruled by the German banker class.
Why would hardline Remain members and voters want Leave votes? What makes you think they’ll ever compromise on their own initiative, if they win votes in the party, if they rarely face any challenge to their views, and if they want the Labour party machinery used as a Remain mouthpiece?
Rjan:
Carryfast:
As for Hoey if the present Labour membership want the Leave votes then it’s up to them to put her into Corbyn’s job.Not challenge the electorate to join the Party to push him out and put her in while they keep him and Starmer in place telling us all how good it is to be ruled by the German banker class.
Why would hardline Remain members and voters want Leave votes? What makes you think they’ll ever compromise on their own initiative, if they win votes in the party, if they rarely face any challenge to their views, and if they want the Labour party machinery used as a Remain mouthpiece?
Exactly Labour has a massive ideological struggle over Brexit, those on the remain side are more than likely to try and push those on Leave out to get their point of view as party policy, similar to what has already happened in the Conservative parliamentary party in the removal of so many on the remain side, they’d hardly want those on the left explaining to their faithful why there is an alternative narrative to leaving to the EU than the it’s a bunch of nasty nationalists portrayed by the remain campaign and the media that supports it.
As for the likes of Len McCluskey, Dennis Skinner, etc, their opinions on Brexit seems to have been pretty much silenced by the media, who want to portray the Remain/ Leave as a left /right thing where in truth it’s more a centerist/neoliberal view point against those who believe in nationalism or that continued globalisation and centralisation of power is taking democracy from ordinary people and meaning company owners are forcing pay and conditions down by having access to a global workforce.
muckles:
As for the likes of Len McCluskey, Dennis Skinner, etc, their opinions on Brexit seems to have been pretty much silenced by the media, who want to portray the Remain/ Leave as a left /right thing where in truth it’s more a centerist/neoliberal view point against those who believe in nationalism
Ironically this is generally the same lot who can’t get their heads around the fact that Hitler was a Socialist while Michael Collins and Ghandi were Nationalists.
muckles:
Rjan:
Carryfast:
As for Hoey if the present Labour membership want the Leave votes then it’s up to them to put her into Corbyn’s job.Not challenge the electorate to join the Party to push him out and put her in while they keep him and Starmer in place telling us all how good it is to be ruled by the German banker class.
Why would hardline Remain members and voters want Leave votes? What makes you think they’ll ever compromise on their own initiative, if they win votes in the party, if they rarely face any challenge to their views, and if they want the Labour party machinery used as a Remain mouthpiece?
Exactly Labour has a massive ideological struggle over Brexit, those on the remain side are more than likely to try and push those on Leave out to get their point of view as party policy, similar to what has already happened in the Conservative parliamentary party in the removal of so many on the remain side, they’d hardly want those on the left explaining to their faithful why there is an alternative narrative to leaving to the EU than the it’s a bunch of nasty nationalists portrayed by the remain campaign and the media that supports it.
As for the likes of Len McCluskey, Dennis Skinner, etc, their opinions on Brexit seems to have been pretty much silenced by the media, who want to portray the Remain/ Leave as a left /right thing where in truth it’s more a centerist/neoliberal view point against those who believe in nationalism or that continued globalisation and centralisation of power is taking democracy from ordinary people and meaning company owners are forcing pay and conditions down by having access to a global workforce.
I agree with you. The Blairites are obviously a problem as usual, but there are also a lot of left-wingers with muddled views about the single market.
I’ve only discovered this myself as I’ve shifted from challenging right-wing nonsense to examining left-wing views, and I’ve very quickly realised the scale of the problem on the left.
Carryfast:
muckles:
As for the likes of Len McCluskey, Dennis Skinner, etc, their opinions on Brexit seems to have been pretty much silenced by the media, who want to portray the Remain/ Leave as a left /right thing where in truth it’s more a centerist/neoliberal view point against those who believe in nationalismIronically this is generally the same lot who can’t get their heads around the fact that Hitler was a Socialist…
I’m surprised this cobblers still goes around. Hitler didn’t consider himself a socialist - he’s on record expressing distaste at the “socialist” tag in the party name, acknowledging it as a deceptive spin to appeal to the masses - nor did his bankrollers consider him socialist.
And most socialists and trade unionists actually ended up in the concentration camps: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_….
Rjan:
Carryfast:
muckles:
As for the likes of Len McCluskey, Dennis Skinner, etc, their opinions on Brexit seems to have been pretty much silenced by the media, who want to portray the Remain/ Leave as a left /right thing where in truth it’s more a centerist/neoliberal view point against those who believe in nationalismIronically this is generally the same lot who can’t get their heads around the fact that Hitler was a Socialist…
I’m surprised this cobblers still goes around. Hitler didn’t consider himself a socialist - he’s on record expressing distaste at the “socialist” tag in the party name, acknowledging it as a deceptive spin to appeal to the masses - nor did his bankrollers consider him socialist.
And most socialists and trade unionists actually ended up in the concentration camps: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_….
Yeah right he’s also on Corbyn’s record as not being in an alliance with Stalin.But he wasn’t a Socialist either and he’s on Corbyn’s record as expressing distaste at the Socialist tag in his Country’s name too.No such thing as ‘disappearances’ and workers sent to the Gulag for re eduaction for dissent against the Leadership there either.
No surprise you conveniently missed the bit that Michael Collins and Ghandi were Nationalists.
muckles:
and meaning company owners are forcing pay and conditions down by having access to a global workforce.
Depends on where you are standing though, doesnt it? For the majority of the planets population living standards are rising, it is only us in the wealthy west who are complaining I suspect. Are Indian, and Chinese workers worse off or better off today than ten years ago? Are East Europeans better off?
If we want fairer distribution of wealth, then we might want western millionaires to give we western workers some more; but wont others, less well off than us, wonder why wealth should move downstream to us.... but no further? . As a normal, self interested individual, I think those richer than me should pass their excessive wealth down in my direction, but Im not quite so keen to see it leave my account, although it be to harder working, even poorer people.
Franglais:
muckles:
and meaning company owners are forcing pay and conditions down by having access to a global workforce.Depends on where you are standing though, doesn
t it? For the majority of the planets population living standards are rising, it is only us in the wealthy west who are complaining I suspect. Are Indian, and Chinese workers worse off or better off today than ten years ago? Are East Europeans better off?
If we want fairer distribution of wealth, then we might want western millionaires to give we western workers some more; but won`t others, less well off than us, wonder why wealth should move downstream to us… but no further?
Do you think many in India or China are much better off, or is it a case of the gap between rich and poor getting bigger?
Which seems to be the case all round with the present neoliberal economic model adopted by so much of the World, both on a National and Global level.
Just had a little search round the interweb, India the gap between the rich and poor has increased from 45% in 1980 to 68% today, hardly an economic success story for those at the bottom. China yes it has it’s billionaires and the middle class getting wealthier, but the gap between those middle classes and those millions working in the fields as they’ve always done is massive, and to put that into scale, they say the middle class of china is around 430m, but its not to say they’re as wealthy as somebody considered Western middle class.
There is also many billions living on far less than India and China, I seem to recall a figure of over half the Worlds Population live on less than $5 a day, and while the official organisations like to pat themselves on the back for the decline of those that live in what’s called extreme poverty, that apparently is less than $1.90 a day, billions are still living on bugger all, although of course poverty can also be relative to the local economy.
As for the former communist states joining the EU, the whole thing was at very least poorly handled, but then it might have been handled exactly as those at the top wished, a nice influx of workers happy to work for the lowest wages and money available to “modenise” their countries in the form of new factories moving production from other countries.
Franglais:
As a normal, self interested individual, I think those richer than me should pass their excessive wealth down in my direction, but I`m not quite so keen to see it leave my account, although it be to harder working, even poorer people.
But money is leaving your account to pay for the Worlds poorest in the form of aid payments, usually given with many caveats, but really its pointless, because despite all the aid payments, from governments and NGO’s, far more money (figures range from every £1 of aid £2 to £10) is drained from the Worlds poorest countries by Multi Nationals, using various tricks to avoid paying tax, helping corruption to get deals and with the help of the IMF and World Bank, who insist in privatisation of public services in return for help, multi nationals then take over these services and the profits go back to the rich countries where they’re based.
Finally as the richest members of the Worlds population we consume a great deal, maybe for many reasons we need to learn to expect less, I’m sure for most of us keeping a TV, computer or mobile phone a year or 2 longer wouldn’t be such a great sacrifice, eating a bit less wouldn’t be the worst thing ever, and not having out of season food to be flown round the World so its available in the Supermarket the next day wouldn’t be a great loss.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
…Yeah right he’s also on Corbyn’s record as not being in an alliance with Stalin.But he wasn’t a Socialist either and he’s on Corbyn’s record as expressing distaste at the Socialist tag in his Country’s name too.No such thing as ‘disappearances’ and workers sent to the Gulag for re eduaction for dissent against the Leadership there either.
No surprise you conveniently missed the bit that Michael Collins and Ghandi were Nationalists.
I doubt that Corbyn has denied the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
I think the majority of left-wingers are willing to claim Stalin, when not being forced to defend themselves from accusations that calls for better working rights or public services, and for these to be delivered through the democratic process, amounts to a desire to send 10m to the gulags and for everyone to share their underpants with strangers.
As for Collins and Ghandi, I never denied the fact.
Franglais:
muckles:
and meaning company owners are forcing pay and conditions down by having access to a global workforce.Depends on where you are standing though, doesn
t it? For the majority of the planets population living standards are rising, it is only us in the wealthy west who are complaining I suspect. Are Indian, and Chinese workers worse off or better off today than ten years ago? Are East Europeans better off?
If we want fairer distribution of wealth, then we might want western millionaires to give we western workers some more; but wont others, less well off than us, wonder why wealth should move downstream to us.... but no further? . As a normal, self interested individual, I think those richer than me should pass their excessive wealth down in my direction, but Im not quite so keen to see it leave my account, although it be to harder working, even poorer people.
The underlying reason is because poorer societies also have facilities to live on less, and have typically made different investments in patterns of living.
The prime example is shanty towns. In poor societies, these can be common. In Western societies, the state won’t allow people to live like that, for communities to plonk down anywhere in tin shacks - they’ll send the bulldozers in, they’ll take away your children, and for persistent defiance they’d put you in jail, and that’s assuming the existence of unclaimed land.
So in the West, you need say £100 a week just to pay your rent, even though £100 a week in Calcutta would be a king’s ransom and almost entirely disposable income.
And there can thus exist a class conflict within a society, concerning the equality of incomes, that bears no relation to incomes in other societies where social and legal obligations and patterns of living may be very different.
muckles:
Franglais:
…Do you think many in India or China are much better off, or is it a case of the gap between rich and poor getting bigger?
Which seems to be the case all round with the present neoliberal economic model adopted by so much of the World, both on a National and Global level.Just had a little search round the interweb, India the gap between the rich and poor has increased from 45% in 1980 to 68% today, hardly an economic success story for those at the bottom. China yes it has it’s billionaires and the middle class getting wealthier, but the gap between those middle classes and those millions working in the fields as they’ve always done is massive, and to put that into scale, they say the middle class of china is around 430m, but its not to say they’re as wealthy as somebody considered Western middle class.
It’s worth remembering that China and India have very different politics and economic models.
India has gone along the free-market route, whereas China has practiced collectivisation and still exerts a lot of state control over the economy similar to the West in the post-war period (without the democracy).
As a result over the past few decades, China has seen soaring growth and only moderate increases in inequality, whereas India has seen pedestrian growth and soaring inequality.
The “middle class” in either case tends just to mean workers who aren’t living a daily hand-to-mouth existence in their society, a measure that is not really comparable across societies.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Rjan:
…Yeah right he’s also on Corbyn’s record as not being in an alliance with Stalin.But he wasn’t a Socialist either and he’s on Corbyn’s record as expressing distaste at the Socialist tag in his Country’s name too.No such thing as ‘disappearances’ and workers sent to the Gulag for re eduaction for dissent against the Leadership there either.
No surprise you conveniently missed the bit that Michael Collins and Ghandi were Nationalists.
I doubt that Corbyn has denied the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
I think the majority of left-wingers are willing to claim Stalin, when not being forced to defend themselves from accusations that calls for better working rights or public services, and for these to be delivered through the democratic process, amounts to a desire to send 10m to the gulags and for everyone to share their underpants with strangers.
As for Collins and Ghandi, I never denied the fact.
Right so Corbyn admits the fact that the US’S’R is exactly the same thing,in terms of its Socialist credentials,as the N’S’DAP .While Collins and Ghandi were Nationalists ?.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Rjan:
…Yeah right he’s also on Corbyn’s record as not being in an alliance with Stalin.But he wasn’t a Socialist either and he’s on Corbyn’s record as expressing distaste at the Socialist tag in his Country’s name too.No such thing as ‘disappearances’ and workers sent to the Gulag for re eduaction for dissent against the Leadership there either.
No surprise you conveniently missed the bit that Michael Collins and Ghandi were Nationalists.
I doubt that Corbyn has denied the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
I think the majority of left-wingers are willing to claim Stalin, when not being forced to defend themselves from accusations that calls for better working rights or public services, and for these to be delivered through the democratic process, amounts to a desire to send 10m to the gulags and for everyone to share their underpants with strangers.
As for Collins and Ghandi, I never denied the fact.
Right so Corbyn admits the fact that the US’S’R is exactly the same thing,in terms of its Socialist credentials,as the N’S’DAP .While Collins and Ghandi were Nationalists ?.
I honestly don’t follow what you’re rabbiting on about.
Irish Republicanism and Indian nationalism are, of course, nationalist movements.
Hitler and Stalin share an authoritarianism, but they are scarcely similar in ideology or circumstance. Their pact was one of mutual convenience (as showed by its rapid dissolution)
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Rjan:
I doubt that Corbyn has denied the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.I think the majority of left-wingers are willing to claim Stalin, when not being forced to defend themselves from accusations that calls for better working rights or public services, and for these to be delivered through the democratic process, amounts to a desire to send 10m to the gulags and for everyone to share their underpants with strangers.
As for Collins and Ghandi, I never denied the fact.
Right so Corbyn admits the fact that the US’S’R is exactly the same thing,in terms of its Socialist credentials,as the N’S’DAP .While Collins and Ghandi were Nationalists ?.
I honestly don’t follow what you’re rabbiting on about.
Irish Republicanism and Indian nationalism are, of course, nationalist movements.
Hitler and Stalin share an authoritarianism, but they are scarcely similar in ideology or circumstance. Their pact was one of mutual convenience (as showed by its rapid dissolution)
You ‘don’t follow’ the too much to be coincidence Socialist connotations within both USSR and NSDAP.When according to your excuse Hitler didn’t actually want or mean that within the title of his NSDAP.Also by implication nor did Lenin/Stalin within USSR.While a joint invasion of a recognised Sovereign state on the basis of expanding their respective Regime’s is obviously more than ‘convenience’.While anti self determination authoritarianism is the mark of the Socialist ideology.The only difference in the case of NSDAP’s version v Stalin’s being their methodolgy.Make no mistake both regimes being the logical conclusion of Socialism.
While you admit that Collins’ and Ghandi’s motivation was Nationalism.
All proving the non existent link between Nationalism v ■■■■.So often laughably used by Socialists to push their,by definition, ‘authoritarian’,anti nation state agenda.In this case allied to Conservative Unionism/Federalism.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Rjan:
I doubt that Corbyn has denied the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.I think the majority of left-wingers are willing to claim Stalin, when not being forced to defend themselves from accusations that calls for better working rights or public services, and for these to be delivered through the democratic process, amounts to a desire to send 10m to the gulags and for everyone to share their underpants with strangers.
As for Collins and Ghandi, I never denied the fact.
Right so Corbyn admits the fact that the US’S’R is exactly the same thing,in terms of its Socialist credentials,as the N’S’DAP .While Collins and Ghandi were Nationalists ?.
I honestly don’t follow what you’re rabbiting on about.
Irish Republicanism and Indian nationalism are, of course, nationalist movements.
Hitler and Stalin share an authoritarianism, but they are scarcely similar in ideology or circumstance. Their pact was one of mutual convenience (as showed by its rapid dissolution)
You ‘don’t follow’ the too much to be coincidence Socialist connotations within both USSR and NSDAP.When according to your excuse Hitler didn’t actually want or mean that within the title of his NSDAP.Also by implication nor did Lenin/Stalin within USSR.While a joint invasion of a recognised Sovereign state on the basis of expanding their respective Regime’s is obviously more than ‘convenience’.While anti self determination authoritarianism is the mark of the Socialist ideology.The only difference in the case of NSDAP’s version v Stalin’s being their methodolgy.Make no mistake both regimes being the logical conclusion of Socialism.
While you admit that Collins’ and Ghandi’s motivation was Nationalism.
All proving the non existent link between Nationalism v ■■■■.So often laughably used by Socialists to push their,by definition, ‘authoritarian’,anti nation state agenda.In this case allied to Conservative Unionism/Federalism.
I wasn’t pushing the “nationalist v ■■■■” link on you. Hitler’s nationalism was clearly of a colonial sort (where Germany would be the spider at the centre of the web), not the secessionist/anti-colonial nationalism of the likes of Collins or Ghandi.
Hitler’s ideology had no socialist basis. He was violently anti-Marxist, and in practice the German war economy was scarcely as collectivised as Britain under Churchill, let alone Stalin.
And a great deal of Stalin’s motivation was Soviet self-determination, and freedom from external capitalist predation and troublemaking, which was very different to the problem in Germany which was not ideological conflict with the other European powers.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Rjan:
I honestly don’t follow what you’re rabbiting on about.Irish Republicanism and Indian nationalism are, of course, nationalist movements.
Hitler and Stalin share an authoritarianism, but they are scarcely similar in ideology or circumstance. Their pact was one of mutual convenience (as showed by its rapid dissolution)
You ‘don’t follow’ the too much to be coincidence Socialist connotations within both USSR and NSDAP.When according to your excuse Hitler didn’t actually want or mean that within the title of his NSDAP.Also by implication nor did Lenin/Stalin within USSR.While a joint invasion of a recognised Sovereign state on the basis of expanding their respective Regime’s is obviously more than ‘convenience’.While anti self determination authoritarianism is the mark of the Socialist ideology.The only difference in the case of NSDAP’s version v Stalin’s being their methodolgy.Make no mistake both regimes being the logical conclusion of Socialism.
While you admit that Collins’ and Ghandi’s motivation was Nationalism.
All proving the non existent link between Nationalism v ■■■■.So often laughably used by Socialists to push their,by definition, ‘authoritarian’,anti nation state agenda.In this case allied to Conservative Unionism/Federalism.
I wasn’t pushing the “nationalist v ■■■■” link on you. Hitler’s nationalism was clearly of a colonial sort (where Germany would be the spider at the centre of the web), not the secessionist/anti-colonial nationalism of the likes of Collins or Ghandi.
Hitler’s ideology had no socialist basis. He was violently anti-Marxist, and in practice the German war economy was scarcely as collectivised as Britain under Churchill, let alone Stalin.
And a great deal of Stalin’s motivation was Soviet self-determination, and freedom from external capitalist predation and troublemaking, which was very different to the problem in Germany which was not ideological conflict with the other European powers.
Here’s a clue if it ain’t the secessionist/sovereign self determination of Collins and Ghandi then it ain’t Nationalism.
While I think we all know that Soviet Socialism,like German Federalism in all its forms with the NSDAP’s 3rd Reich just being one of them,are both the total opposite to Nationalism.Both predictably clearly based on Anti Nation State collectivism and imposed Social Engineering policies.IE the definition of Socialism.