So the employers were divided and the highly unionized employees were united, which meant that they did extremely well in negotiations. The membership overall are extremely loyal to their union leadership, because of how successful they've been in maintaining conditions and improving wages.
He’s not even an MP! He’s not allowed to be the leader.
As you might expect the political parties in the UK are organised differently according to their principles, so the Labour Party is an unincorporated association which only owns companies for purposes for which an informal group would be illegal (e.g. "People who come to our meetings" cannot legally own a plot of land, but "Labour Party Meetings Limited" could) while whatever the current Nigel Farage vehicle is (Reform? Brexit Party? Whatever he's calling it now) is a private company entirely owned and controlled by Nigel and his friends.
Not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes they can have whatever rules they want... and the rule they want is that the leader must be a commoner MP.
Labour could change that, but if they were to be changed, it would not be for Sadiq Khan. Maybe for Andy Burnham. Khan doesn't have enough support among Labour members. Realistically it won't be changed for either, as it would cause too many difficulties.
Maybe Heir apparent is a bit strong? He's not defonate. But I can't think of anyone else with the name recognition...
Of course he does. He has to be a commoner MP.
> The leader and deputy leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Rule-Book-2...
> But he could easily be dropped into a safe seat.
Hmmm not sure how many of those they have available right now!
In this case however I think it's much more likely that if Khan is the choice, room will be found for Khan to win a byelection somewhere. Labour has plenty of London MPs still, they've struggled mostly with the North, progressive policies sell very well among socially aware people inside the M25 but aren't popular among people for whom the whole point was that the Unions ought to run the country.
In lots of Labour seats in London it really wouldn't matter who you run. That's why Vauxhall's MP used to be Kate Hoey. Nice part of London, very gay friendly, many of the people there have never eaten meat, much less gone fox hunting and of course they opposed Brexit - and yet of course Kate was pro-hunting, pro-guns, anti-gay and fiercely favoured Brexit. Why did they elect her? Because it said "Labour" next to her name and they don't do research.
Agreed on the safe seats. Corbyn/Starmer has been pretty dire for Labour.
(but of course same issue: would need to become an MP again first)
£1.8 billion in loans/grants
Yes, London got hung out to dry as usual.
Sadly London is not yet more important than the rest of the UK combined.
Maybe r/uk should kick us out as we're clearly holding you all back.
I'd love to know by what scale you consider the British government "right-wing"?
Realistically, they are all pretty centrist - at their most radical, they lean slightly one way or the other.
In the uk, train drivers unions are one of the last meaningful unions left and the right wing government hates that.
Also, London has a left wing mayor and a very good public transport system. The right wing government hate both the mayor (he's heir apparent to lead the party nationally) and the concept of public transport.
That's also the real reason private train operators were bailed out but public TfL was been hung out to dry...