Fucking LOL. What do Labour even stand for these days if not the workers?
Mate I’m gonna vote for you because you’re the only opposition party leader that can beat the Tories, but what?
Edit: Apparently the minister made up policy on the spot on a unauthorised media appearance. That contextualises it a little bit. After all, other Labour MPs have backed the strike action after Starmer asked not to publicly, and they kept their jobs.
Might as well admit he was emperor palpatine all along at this rate.
~~Am I missing something or is this absolutely disgusting?~~
~~My head is swirling.~~
Who actually represents us, the workers, in this country?
***EDIT***: Looks like I reacted emotionally and prematurely. Turns out he was sacked for making an unauthorised media appearance. I’m still sceptical on this as a justification and Starmer must know how this ultimately damages the apparent support Labour have of the (railway) strikes. Ultimately though, there is more than what the headline would suggest and I did fall for it.
I wonder what kind of labour Kier Starmer thinks his party is named after. Does he think they were founded by women having contractions?
Voting for the Lib Dems at the next GE is getting more and more appealing by the day…
I understand the need to be electable, but i cannot for one second understand why Labour has to go against what the party stands for and its key principles. Labour is a party of the working class and for workers up and down the country, they should be on the front lines fighting for higher wages and better job security.
For someone out of the loop, can someone explain the real reason why Labour are going against the rail union at the moment? Isn’t the rail strike for better wages their jam?
A lot of people say keir is making all these sacrifices to win elections but 1 is it even working , like for how unpopular Johnson is he should be on easy street no matter how he plays it . At what point does he stop making these sacrifices to labours ideal because it’s got to the point where labour won’t even support union action .
Not voting Labour next election. This and the Forde report locked it in for me
Right, that’s me leaving the party then. I don’t pay 5 pound a month for this bullshit. Fuck off.
Anyone with any notion of socialism or even social democracy supporting this fraud Starmer is absolutely fooling themselves
isnt labour supposed to stand for the common man/woman? which is essentially like those rail workers?
They are saying it’s because he invented Labour policy commitment on the spot and not because he was on the picket line. Sounds like a weak excuse tbh. They didn’t want to sack him for standing up for workers so they used an unfortunate interview gaffe as the reason.
I get that Starmer is trying to make Labour electable, but this just looks really bad.
there are backbench tories who are more centre left than this cunt.
Nice to see the BBC pushing the Tory line, as usual.
Disgraceful piece of regulatory capture by the scumbags.
Preparing to be downvoted to oblivion **but anything like this is worth not to have Liz Truss as prime minister for seven years**
Lets play a game of “who actually read the article instead of skimming the top few lines”.
Is this the same Sam Tarry that’s in the process of being deselected?
Unpopular opinion, I kind of get starmers position.
My first reaction was ‘fucking right wing turn coat’, but if you sign an agreement to be part of the cabinet to have your appearances approved a) get them approved, b) if they’re not being approved for political reasons that are against members interests…call that out.
If I was in in his position, potentially about to be PM and my cabinet weren’t following the rules already, I’d be doing the same.
He hasn’t been sacked FOR appearing on the picket line, despite what he says himself. Helps if people actually read the article instead of going off the clickbait headline.
The BBC are fuckheads for editorialising headlines like this
I see a lot of idiots in this thread. Or Tories/russians trying to divide.
Dude got fired for unauthorized media appearance. So equating that with supporting the strike action is something you are creating in your head, or you are listening to the Tory narrative to dissuade you from voting, to keep themselves in power.
That aside, if you truly want rid of the Tories, you need to stfu and vote for the left leaning candidate who is best positioned to keep the Tory candidate out in your constituency. That is it.
If it’s labour, vote labour. If it’s lib Dems or plaid or whoever else you vote for that candidate.
You are not in a position to choose the one you like the most, or represents you the most. That’s not how the system works. Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably a Tory shill.
(And to think I got perma banned from green and pleasant for making this argument, bloody idiots)
Did anyone read the article?
> “This isn’t about appearing on a picket line. Members of the frontbench sign up to collective responsibility. That includes media appearances being approved and speaking to agreed frontbench positions.
> “As a government in waiting, any breach of collective responsibility is taken extremely seriously and for these reasons Sam Tarry has been removed from the frontbench.”
The headline is true but also misleading. He was sacked for making up policy at an unscheduled media appearance, not for supporting the strikes.
Given that, Starmer is doing the right thing. People can’t be allowed to just make up policy on the spot because then the whole party is branded liars if they don’t follow through on one person’s opinion. But it really should have been handled privately, with no public consequence. The optics aren’t good.
That’s a bit unfair and misleading headline. He wasn’t sacked for backing strikes.
>Ilford South MP Sam Tarry attended the protest at London’s Euston station despite Sir Keir saying his frontbench MPs should stay away.
​
>”As a government in waiting, any breach of collective responsibility is taken extremely seriously and for these reasons Sam Tarry has been removed from the frontbench.”
Disgusting article titling by BBC here. That isn’t why he was sacked, it’s just incidental. Would be like a title that says “man who gives to homeless sacked” whilst failing to mention the man murdered the homeless people he gave to. This shit is how the Tories win as you morons all fall for it as usual.
BBC have spun this headline so hard. Disgusting, when we’re they last actually impartial? What happened?
He made up policy on the spot in an unauthorised interview, which made Labour look stupid, he wasn’t fired for backing strikes, dozens of high profile labour politicians did that publicly and kept their jobs. This is Reddit though, so we’ll have a reeing circlejerk pretending otherwise.
Fuck the bbc for this absolutely misleading bullshit headline
It’s incredible how so many people wilfully believed such a misleading headline because they don’t like starmer and don’t think he’s labour enough for them – thereby playing into the tories’ hands.
“Labour said he had been fired for making unauthorised media appearances.”
“Labour said he had been fired for making unauthorised media appearances.”
“Labour said he had been fired for making unauthorised media appearances.”
“Labour said he had been fired for making unauthorised media appearances.”
“Labour said he had been fired for making unauthorised media appearances.”
Read the article before you trust the BBC’s headline bait
32 comments
Fucking LOL. What do Labour even stand for these days if not the workers?
Mate I’m gonna vote for you because you’re the only opposition party leader that can beat the Tories, but what?
Edit: Apparently the minister made up policy on the spot on a unauthorised media appearance. That contextualises it a little bit. After all, other Labour MPs have backed the strike action after Starmer asked not to publicly, and they kept their jobs.
Might as well admit he was emperor palpatine all along at this rate.
~~Am I missing something or is this absolutely disgusting?~~
~~My head is swirling.~~
Who actually represents us, the workers, in this country?
***EDIT***: Looks like I reacted emotionally and prematurely. Turns out he was sacked for making an unauthorised media appearance. I’m still sceptical on this as a justification and Starmer must know how this ultimately damages the apparent support Labour have of the (railway) strikes. Ultimately though, there is more than what the headline would suggest and I did fall for it.
I wonder what kind of labour Kier Starmer thinks his party is named after. Does he think they were founded by women having contractions?
Voting for the Lib Dems at the next GE is getting more and more appealing by the day…
I understand the need to be electable, but i cannot for one second understand why Labour has to go against what the party stands for and its key principles. Labour is a party of the working class and for workers up and down the country, they should be on the front lines fighting for higher wages and better job security.
For someone out of the loop, can someone explain the real reason why Labour are going against the rail union at the moment? Isn’t the rail strike for better wages their jam?
A lot of people say keir is making all these sacrifices to win elections but 1 is it even working , like for how unpopular Johnson is he should be on easy street no matter how he plays it . At what point does he stop making these sacrifices to labours ideal because it’s got to the point where labour won’t even support union action .
Not voting Labour next election. This and the Forde report locked it in for me
Right, that’s me leaving the party then. I don’t pay 5 pound a month for this bullshit. Fuck off.
Anyone with any notion of socialism or even social democracy supporting this fraud Starmer is absolutely fooling themselves
isnt labour supposed to stand for the common man/woman? which is essentially like those rail workers?
They are saying it’s because he invented Labour policy commitment on the spot and not because he was on the picket line. Sounds like a weak excuse tbh. They didn’t want to sack him for standing up for workers so they used an unfortunate interview gaffe as the reason.
I get that Starmer is trying to make Labour electable, but this just looks really bad.
there are backbench tories who are more centre left than this cunt.
Nice to see the BBC pushing the Tory line, as usual.
Disgraceful piece of regulatory capture by the scumbags.
Preparing to be downvoted to oblivion **but anything like this is worth not to have Liz Truss as prime minister for seven years**
Lets play a game of “who actually read the article instead of skimming the top few lines”.
Is this the same Sam Tarry that’s in the process of being deselected?
Unpopular opinion, I kind of get starmers position.
My first reaction was ‘fucking right wing turn coat’, but if you sign an agreement to be part of the cabinet to have your appearances approved a) get them approved, b) if they’re not being approved for political reasons that are against members interests…call that out.
If I was in in his position, potentially about to be PM and my cabinet weren’t following the rules already, I’d be doing the same.
He hasn’t been sacked FOR appearing on the picket line, despite what he says himself. Helps if people actually read the article instead of going off the clickbait headline.
The BBC are fuckheads for editorialising headlines like this
I see a lot of idiots in this thread. Or Tories/russians trying to divide.
Dude got fired for unauthorized media appearance. So equating that with supporting the strike action is something you are creating in your head, or you are listening to the Tory narrative to dissuade you from voting, to keep themselves in power.
That aside, if you truly want rid of the Tories, you need to stfu and vote for the left leaning candidate who is best positioned to keep the Tory candidate out in your constituency. That is it.
If it’s labour, vote labour. If it’s lib Dems or plaid or whoever else you vote for that candidate.
You are not in a position to choose the one you like the most, or represents you the most. That’s not how the system works. Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably a Tory shill.
(And to think I got perma banned from green and pleasant for making this argument, bloody idiots)
Did anyone read the article?
> “This isn’t about appearing on a picket line. Members of the frontbench sign up to collective responsibility. That includes media appearances being approved and speaking to agreed frontbench positions.
> “As a government in waiting, any breach of collective responsibility is taken extremely seriously and for these reasons Sam Tarry has been removed from the frontbench.”
The headline is true but also misleading. He was sacked for making up policy at an unscheduled media appearance, not for supporting the strikes.
Given that, Starmer is doing the right thing. People can’t be allowed to just make up policy on the spot because then the whole party is branded liars if they don’t follow through on one person’s opinion. But it really should have been handled privately, with no public consequence. The optics aren’t good.
That’s a bit unfair and misleading headline. He wasn’t sacked for backing strikes.
>Ilford South MP Sam Tarry attended the protest at London’s Euston station despite Sir Keir saying his frontbench MPs should stay away.
​
>”As a government in waiting, any breach of collective responsibility is taken extremely seriously and for these reasons Sam Tarry has been removed from the frontbench.”
Disgusting article titling by BBC here. That isn’t why he was sacked, it’s just incidental. Would be like a title that says “man who gives to homeless sacked” whilst failing to mention the man murdered the homeless people he gave to. This shit is how the Tories win as you morons all fall for it as usual.
BBC have spun this headline so hard. Disgusting, when we’re they last actually impartial? What happened?
He made up policy on the spot in an unauthorised interview, which made Labour look stupid, he wasn’t fired for backing strikes, dozens of high profile labour politicians did that publicly and kept their jobs. This is Reddit though, so we’ll have a reeing circlejerk pretending otherwise.
Fuck the bbc for this absolutely misleading bullshit headline
It’s incredible how so many people wilfully believed such a misleading headline because they don’t like starmer and don’t think he’s labour enough for them – thereby playing into the tories’ hands.
“Labour said he had been fired for making unauthorised media appearances.”
“Labour said he had been fired for making unauthorised media appearances.”
“Labour said he had been fired for making unauthorised media appearances.”
“Labour said he had been fired for making unauthorised media appearances.”
“Labour said he had been fired for making unauthorised media appearances.”
Read the article before you trust the BBC’s headline bait