“He WOULD be a great leader if he was just strong enough, like why wasn’t he backing the rail strikes, surely Labour is the party of the ‘workers’ and should defend them.”
With some variation, this seems to be what most friends, Tories and Labourites alike, make of Starmer’s leadership. Many view his inaction, or rather explicit opposition against the strikes (Labour warned all members against supporting strikes in an official party memo), to be somehow atypical of a Labour leader and thereby evidence of his unsuitability for leadership. There is certainly an undeniable reputation attached to Labour as the party of the workers and they were founded with these principles at heart, right from the Independent Labour Party of the early 1900s. But, just a cursory glance into Labour’s involvement with strikes throughout the 20th-century would suggest the contrary.
Indeed, it seems Labour’s historical record is littered with constant and often violent repression of strikes throughout the country. Whether that be the 1984-85 miner’s strikes, with Labour’s failure to side with its leaders against Thatcher’s 20 pit closures. In fact, Labour’s leader Kinnock went further to completely undermine the strikers (pardon the pun) by suggesting the implementation of a ballot to determine whether support was ‘complete’. Or in Wilson’s government which, in good socialist and union-supporting style, used emergency powers to crush a seafarers’ strike over pay. The Blair years, I suppose as a result of the infamous Clause IV which saw the disbandment of socialism as a core principle of the Labour Party, also saw an increased level of government apathy towards strikes. Recently, Sir Tony popped his head up to warn Starmer against supporting the strikes at such an ‘uncertain’ point in the British economy- good to see he still sees the need to meddle.
1984/5 Miners' Strike
So in fairness to Labour, we shouldn’t label their current inaction as unconventional and hence representative of weakness; it seems to be perfectly fitting with a historical trend. But, what is crucial to recognise is that just because this is the predominant rhetoric of the party, we most certainly shouldn’t consign them to this forever. Labour, in case you haven’t noticed, desperately needs public support at the moment and Starmer used the strikes as a chance to appeal to this but it made little difference, and it’s pretty clear why. As the prodigious Labour MP Zarah Sultana observed, 58% of the British population supported the strikes (that’s more than Brexit), so the question must be asked if Starmer really misjudged the ‘public support’ or if he’s more eager to maintain a Blairite stance towards trade unions and more typically ‘socialist’ notions regardless of public support of them.
Despite the aforementioned party memo warning Labour MPs against supporting the strikes, many joined in. Including 5 frontbenchers and 15 backbenchers, with veteran MP Diana Abbot tweeting “On the RWT union picket line at Seven Sister’s Depot (Don’t tell Keir)” and Angela Rayner also tweeting her support. What I hope the strikes have revealed is a promising future sect of Labour prepared to move away from the current rhetoric of the party in regards to their view of strikes and the lives of workers.
Those MPs who, as it seems now, risked their status in the party to represent workers and their rights embody the kind of political representation I certainly expect of a party like Labour. It is crucial that now more than ever with the constant growth of mass conglomerates (such as Amazon) that such rights are protected and who else should we trust more than our Labour MPs with this responsibility- they are after all OUR representatives in government. Perhaps it’s idealistic of me, but if Labour moved in such a direction I’d certainly welcome it.
Comentarios