Forum Topics

Rosie Duffield's Resignation Letter

"I can no longer stay a Labour MP under your management of the party, and this letter is my notice that I wish to resign the Labour Party whip with immediate effect.Although many "last straws" have led to my decision, my reason for leaving now is the programme of policies you seem determined to stick to, however unpopular they are with the electorate and your own MPs. You repeat often that you will make the "tough decisions" and that the country is "all in this together". But those decisions do not directly affect any one of us in Parliament. They are cruel and unnecessary, and affect hundreds of thousands of our poorest, most vulnerable constituents.This is not what I was elected to do. It is not even wise politics, and it certainly is not "the politics of service". I did not vote for you to lead our party for reasons I won't describe in detail here. But, as someone elevated immediately to a shadow cabinet position without following the usual path of honing your political skills on the backbenches, you had very little previous political footprint. It was therefore unclear what your political passions, drive or direction might be as the leader of the Labour Party, a large movement of people united by a desire for social justice and support for those most in need. You also made the choice not to speak up once about the Labour Party's problems with antisemitism during your time in the shadow cabinet, leaving that to backbenchers, including new MPs such as me. Since you took office as Leader of the Opposition you have used various heavy-handed management tactics but have never shown what most experienced backbenchers would recognise as true or inspiring leadership. You have never regularly engaged with your own backbench MPs, many of whom have been in Parliament far longer than you, and some of whom served in the previous Labour government. You have chosen neither to seek our individual political opinions, nor learn about our constituency experiences, nor our specific or collective areas of political knowledge. We clearly have nothing you deem to be of value. Your promotion of those with no proven political skills and no previous parliamentary experience but who happen to be related to those close to you, or even each other, is frankly embarrassing. In particular, the recent treatment of Diane Abbott, now Mother of the House, was deeply shameful and led to comments from voters across the political spectrum. A woman of her political stature and place in history is deserving of respect and support, regardless of political differences. As Prime Minister, your managerial and technocratic approach, and lack of basic politics and political instincts, have come crashing down on us as a party after we worked so hard, promised so much, and waited a long fourteen years to be mandated by the British public to return to power. Since the change of government in July, the revelations of hypocrisy have been staggering and increasingly outrageous. I cannot put into words how angry I and my colleagues are at your total lack of understanding about how you have made us all appear. How dare you take our longed-for victory, the electorate's sacred and precious trust, and throw it back in their individual faces and the faces of dedicated and hardworking Labour MPs?! The sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice are off the scale. I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party. Someone with far-above-average wealth choosing to keep the Conservatives' two-child limit to benefit payments which entrenches children in poverty, while inexplicably accepting expensive personal gifts of designer suits and glasses costing more than most of those people can grasp — this is entirely undeserving of holding the title of Labour Prime Minister. Forcing a vote to make many older people iller and colder while you and your favourite colleagues enjoy free family trips to events most people would have to save hard for — why are you not showing even the slightest bit of embarrassment or remorse? I now have no confidence in your commitment to deliver the so-called "change" you promised during the General Election campaign and the changes we have been striving for as a political party for over a decade. My values are those of a democratic socialist Labour Party and I have been elected three times to act on those values on behalf of my constituents. Canterbury made history when its voters elected their first woman, and only non-Conservative, MP since the seat was created in the thirteenth century. My constituents elected an independent-minded MP who vowed to put constituency before party, and to keep tackling the issues that most affect us here — Brexit fallout, funding for our universities, our desperately struggling East Kent NHS, dire housing situation, repeated sewage pollution and protecting our vital green spaces. I am confident that I can continue to do so as an independent MP guided by my core Labour values. Sadly, the Labour Party has never shown any interest in my wonderful constituency in the seven years that I have been in Parliament. But I am proud of my community and will continue to serve them to the best of my ability. My constituents care deeply about social issues such as child poverty and helping those who cannot help themselves. I will continue to uphold those values as I pledged to do when I first stood before them for election in 2017. As someone who joined a trade union in my first job, at seventeen, Labour has always been my natural political home. I was elected as a single mum, a former teaching assistant in receipt of tax credits. The Labour Party was formed to speak for those of us without a voice, and I stood for election partly because I saw decisions about the lives of those like me being made in Westminster by only the most privileged few. Right now, I cannot look my constituents in the eye and tell them that anything has changed. I hope to be able to return to the party in the future, when it again resembles the party I love, putting the needs of the many before the greed of the few."Wow!! Don't hold back Rosie!! 😹

Sue Hammond ● 769d4 Comments ● 769d

What are Labour's policy commitments fir this Parliament ?

Can anyone list or point me to a list of the policies that Starmer has promised the Labour Party will legislate for and commit to delivering in this Parliament ?By this I mean policies that have some measurable base and target and are not just woolly platitudes such as Miliband's 'tackling the climate crisis that imperils our world'.Though to be fair to him he did make a measurable promise that we would have 'zero carbon electricity by 2030' which would then save families “up to £300” on their bills per year'.So that's one to watch out for.There will also be a 'The Railway Services Bill - bringing our railways back into public ownership.'Now that will raise a cheer from every £65,000 a year (plus pension and other benefits) train driver.Also especially for their leader Mick Lynch whose annual renumeration package is worth some £124,886 -  a £89,962 gross salary, Employers' NI contributions of £11,590 and pension contributions of £23,334.Will he take a pay cut as he will be negotiating, not with the wicked Tories, but with the Party which shares his political viewpoint and which he supports and is thus more likely to give him what he asks for ?An improvement in service will doubtless result from this Bill with performance targets set, monitored and published one hopes.Furthermore we have been promised an improvement in the NHS presumably in terms of efficiency and outputs.Again we should look for targets and measured achievements.Though no member of the Government has any experience in working in business or industry, one hopes they will adopt many of their performance measurement approaches.

John Hawkes ● 773d12 Comments ● 771d

Is Starmer Unfit For The Job?

There's a very insightful article about Starmer written by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday. It is behind a paywall so I have copied it below. Look away now if you think Starmer a top man in the top job ...Can it be that the Great Prosecutor Starmer is a colourless empty nobody unfit for the top?Is it possible that Sir Keir Starmer simply isn't up to the job the Labour Party tried so hard to get for him? Anyone who observes modern politics knows that many who now struggle to the top of the greasy pole are deeply unwonderful. I am always amused by journalists who boast of their conversations with 'ministers', as if such people are especially intelligent, informed or talented. Most of them are dullard careerists who hope for an easy route to wealth and status.How could Sir Keir, for instance, not have realised that his childlike readiness to accept shiny gifts was a danger childlike readiness to accept shiny gifts was a danger? Honestly, free suits for him and free dresses for his wife? VIP seats at concerts and football matches? This would be a very cheap price to accept for your soul, if you thought you had one, as he doesn't. Perhaps the free glasses failed to improve his vision and made him unable to spot approaching disaster.We are always told he is the great prosecutor, but really, is heading a staff of trained lawyers, with all the prestige and money of the state on your side, so hard? I'd be more impressed if he were a penniless defence counsel who won his cases against the odds.I've many times drawn attention to Sir Keir's past as a wooden-headed, hard-Leftist, revolutionary dogmatist. He doesn't actually disown this past, though nobody has ever properly questioned him about it. He's still an atheist, perhaps the flattest and most boring world-view known to man. It is empty of hope or depth, based on the view that the universe is nothing but a cosmic car crash in which nothing can therefore matter very much.Amazingly (to me anyway) he confessed before the election that he does not have a favourite book or a favourite poem. Some people say he was afraid of getting into trouble if he revealed such things. But I believe him. He acts at all times as if he has no imagination, and no poetry. It is in the imagination that we work out how our actions will affect others, and with poetry we surprise ourselves by finding out what really moves us.We also know he has an unfavourite work of art, a painting of Margaret Thatcher that so got on his nerves that he had it put in some (as yet unidentified) boxroom. This is in the same class as the leaden decision of his equally colourless Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, to tolerate no paintings in the State Room in 11 Downing Street, except pictures of or by women.When he felt safe to do so, he used to call for the abolition of the monarchy, another crude and unpoetic opinion. Now that this position would lose him votes, he mumbles vaguely nice things about the monarch and accepts various honours from the Crown. But I haven't heard him say he actually prefers a constitutional monarchy to a republic. He has also followed the Blairite practice of displaying Union Jacks everywhere, in the hope that this will fool people into thinking Labour is a traditionalist, patriotic party. But what do you think he really thinks?And this is why he is making such a mess. He has long-term dogmatic aims – his Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, for example, is pursuing those with vigour and spite. But he only ever wanted to be Chief Commissar and Chief Bureaucrat. The ancient splendours of Downing Street, as the King's First Minister, as heir of Pitt, Wellington, Disraeli, Gladstone, Lloyd George and Churchill, mean little to him. He is an uninteresting man, scuttling about in vast echoing halls and chambers built for far bigger people.https://mol.im/a/13876179

Sue Hammond ● 776d13 Comments ● 771d