The British Labour right's campaign to purge all socialists with false accusations of "antisemitism"

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh

When the Daily Telegraph cloaks its racist opposition to Black Lives Matter by inventing accusations that the movement is antisemitic, and when Keir Starmer sacks the lone, bothersome left-winger in his shadow cabinet by accusing her of antisemitism, neither of these things has anything to do with Jews. It is not really about protecting a small minority community from harm. Jews are being harnessed to quite other agendas.

https://novaramedia.com/2020/06/26/long-baileys-sacking-shows-how-antisemitism-has-been-dangerously-redefined/

josh

Leftwing Labour MPs including John McDonnell are urging colleagues, “don’t leave, organise”, as the sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey provides a rallying point for critics of Keir Starmer’s leadership.

. . . .

The Labour leader is facing a backlash from leftwingers in the party after abruptly removing Long-Bailey from her post as shadow education secretary on Thursday.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/26/keir-starmer-faces-backlash-from-leftwing-mps-over-rebecca-long-bailey-sacking

Ken Burch

One thing is clear:  if there are no leftwingers in the shadow cabinet, Labour won't be different from the Tories once in government.  It's only the Labour Left that wants a clear break from austerity, special deference to the rich, and perpetual war.

The Labour Right-and that's what the "moderates" are; none of them have any radical or non-capitalist views about anything anymore- won't stop until they've lowered the party to Blair's policies, even though the public doesn't want Labour to be a right-wing party like that anymore, and even though it would be meaningless to win an election on those policies, which the miserable showing of Change and the LibDems in '19 proves is impossible anyway.

Labour can only win next time if it keeps left activists in the party and addresses the real reasons it lost dozens of seats what used to be the Red Wall areas:  The long-term decline in Labour organization-going back well into the Blair and even Kinnock years-in those areas and the pointless insistence of Starmer and the PLP-there was no broad-based popular demand for this anywhere-on pushing Labour to endorse a second referendum when Red Wall-area voters are overwhelmingly Leave and will always be overwhelmingly Leave, and then refusing to let it go at that and pushing for the party to go all-out Remain in the referendum campaign, knowing that that push would do nothing but further antagonize the Red Wall voters while having no chance of gaining any significant number of seats anywhere else.

One thing that is clear:  Starmer can't win if he does what you clearly want and leave the left totally out in the cold.   There simply aren't any votes to be gained from doing that.

Kinnock's no socialism/no internal democracy policies are not the key to a comeback, and neither is Blair's appeal to snobbery and militarism.

nicky
josh

So what?  Neil Kinnock at periods of time had better personal ratings than Thatcher,  That and his purge of the left didn't prevent him from losing two general elections.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Funny, isn’t it Josh and Ken, how sacking RLB seems to lifting Starmer  in public esteem:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8467585/amp/Labours-Keir-Starmer-OVERTAKES-Boris-Johnson-nations-favourite-prime-minister.html?__twitter_impression=true

Correlation, not causation.  What you're leaving out is that Starmer is not the victim of a relentless smear and hate campaign from them media-and the only sort of Labour leader that would get that kind of freedom of abuse was one who was clearly going to make sure the party he led no longer stood for anything.  Any leader NOT subject to a relentless hate and smear campaign of the sort the past leader was unjustifiably subjected to would be rising in popularity simply because that leader wasn't being smeared.

And the reason Starmer isn't being relentlessly smeared is because he has proved he won't do anything non-Tory in office.

We already know, from the sacking and smearing of Long-Bailey, that Starmer will ditch all socialist, and for all practical purposes all distinctly Labour policies between now and the election, just as Kinnock did in '92-an unlosable election that Kinnock singlehandedly managed to lose-after which, he insisted that the socialists and peace activists he had driven away were to blame.

 

Ken Burch

In a moment of just desserts, Squawkbox has officially charged Starmer with antisemitism, due to his insistence on conflating Israel with Jews and Judaism:
 

https://skwawkbox.org/2020/06/27/skwawkbox-editor-lodges-formal-antisemitism-complaint-against-keir-starmer-for-conflation-of-jewish-people-with-actions-of-israeli-government-in-breach-of-ihra-code/

nicky

I suspect you and I may disgarre on this Ken.

You think that Corbyn can only win by embracing the little sect that doomed Labour in the last election and achieved the worst result in 85 years.

I think he can only win by isolating them.

Polling has quickly turned in Labour's favour, coincident with Starmer marginalizing that sect. He must put further distance between them in order to win. If he doesnt, he will not.

NDPP
josh

nicky wrote:

I suspect you and I may disgarre on this Ken.

You think that Corbyn can only win by embracing the little sect that doomed Labour in the last election and achieved the worst result in 85 years.

I think he can only win by isolating them.

Polling has quickly turned in Labour's favour, coincident with Starmer marginalizing that sect. He must put further distance between them in order to win. If he doesnt, he will not.

Sect?  You mean the group that chose Corbyn to be leader twice?  Who led Labour to its highest share of the vote in 16 years?  Even though the party establishment worked harder to defeat him than they did to beat the Tories?  And did so again two years later thanks to a combination of the anti-Semitism smear and anti-Brexit fundamentalism.

nicky

Yes, josh, “sect” is what I meant, a sect that made Labour unelectable and delivered a landslide to the Cons.

i used the name Corbyn in my last post when I of course meant Starmer

lagatta4

Nicky, why are you still infesting a longstanding left site? Go (imagine the end of this phrase). Or go play on the other side, where you'll swiftly find  yourself in Naziland.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

I suspect you and I may disgarre on this Ken.

You think that Corbyn can only win by embracing the little sect that doomed Labour in the last election and achieved the worst result in 85 years.

I think he can only win by isolating them.

Polling has quickly turned in Labour's favour, coincident with Starmer marginalizing that sect. He must put further distance between them in order to win. If he doesnt, he will not.

Who are you defining as being in that "sect"?  What united people who supported that former leader was ideas, not a man.  And the key idea is that Labour values cannot be made compatible with free-market capitalism, that there has to be some sort intervention in the market, that yes, sometimes the state or the workers themselves need to be able to pick winners.

Labour can't move to the right of those ideas and still remain distinct from the Tories.  And Labour can't do much of anything that isn't Tory-all of Blair's policies could have been carried out by Stanley Baldwin or Churchill, for god's sakes-if it isolates socialist ideas and anathemizes people simply for being associated with the previous leader.  It's enough that that leader is not leader now.

The difference between us is not about people, it's about ideas, and it's about the purpose of the Labour Party.

Based on all the indications you have given think Labour should go back to being bland and centrist, to supporting the Tory austerity agenda-as it did when it abstained on the benefits cuts in 2015- should be just as militarist as the Tories, and should not only not restore full internal democracy, but should go back to the days when internal democracy didn't exist and the party conference was a meaningless, irrelevant sideshow.  And you appear to want Labour to make it impossible for anyone in the party to say anything critical of the Israeli government, given your support for "examples" which would allow the Israeli government or anyone defend it to simply claim that that government was being held to a higher standard than other countries, which, of course, is what Netanyahu ALWAYS says about anything the Israeli government is criticized for.

You don't seem to want a Labour government that does anything radical or egalitarian, anything to further the cause of peace, anything to challenge the idea that nuclear weapons must always be a part of life, even in an era where they serve no valid purpose.

You don't seem to want Labour to be a party where the members have any real say-to go back to the days when a handful of cynical, antisocialist advisers to the leader decide what the party does and does not stand for.

And you seem to want the party to not only be as obsessed as you are with perpetually demonizing the last leader-a decent man who was smeared by his own MPs even though he did nothing to deserve those smears-but to drive the hundreds of thousands of people he encouraged to join the party, to believe that politics might actually matter again, to go away, even though no good would come of people to their right-people who hate socialism, as you do, people who would bring a "we don't like peace campaigners 'round here" attitude, could have anything to offer Labour or stand for anything that would possibly be different from the Tories.

I want Labour to have a reason to exist.  

It can only have a reason to exist if it is socialist, if it is radical, if it is as antimilitarist as possible.

Labour values can never again justify war.

It can never be decent for any future Labour government to ever bring in another austerity budget.

It can never be morally acceptable again for former Labour cabinet ministers to end up on corporate boards after leaving politics-if you're on a corporate board, it means you never had Labour values at all.

It can never be good for Labour to once again become a party where activists and the rank and file have no say.

Labour can't be capable of standing for anything different than the Tories if the socialist majority in the rank and file are marginalized again and if the party leaves left activists out in the cold.  The Left are the only people in the party with any passion and energy.  

And there cannot be any justification for Labour to become a party in which the Israeli government is the ONLY government on the planet that cannot be criticized by party members without risk of suspension or expulsion.

It's not about any one leader-it was NEVER about any one leader, and you knew that all along-it was about preventing the PLP and the party bureaucracy from chaining the party to Blairism for the rest of eternity.

That is what terrifies a lot of people-that Starmer would reduce Labour to Blarism again-any swing to the right on policy will inevitably end up there-and that Labour will drive all the hundreds of thousands of people who supported the ideas the last leader stood for, since he'd have no right to even ask for their votes if the party did go back to Blairism and even though the country doesn't WANT Labour to do that.  If the country wanted Blarism back, Change UK would not have had the pathetically weak showing it did, and the LibDems would not have seen their own leader beaten in her constituency.

And the reality is that ANY Labour leader not being perpetually smeared and vilified by the press would be gaining on the Tories in the polls.  That is a massive difference that, for your own cynical reasons, you refuse to acknowledge.

I'm fighting what could only be a tragic outcome if Labour ditched the ideas associated with the previous leader-ideas supported by the majority of the Labour rank-and-file , ideas popular with the electorate, some of which have been implemented by Boris,

Ken Burch

And it's simply barbaric to punish people just for being associated with the last leader.   

And there is no left politics, no radicalism, nothing but Toryism to the right of that last leader.

Without radicalism, without socialism, Labour becomes nothing at all.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Yes, josh, “sect” is what I meant, a sect that made Labour unelectable and delivered a landslide to the Cons.

i used the name Corbyn in my last post when I of course meant Starmer

There was no other candidate and no other possible set of Labour policies that would have led to a better showing for the party.  Labour would not have done better with a bland, cynical leader who treated activists like dirt, refused to promise to be anti-austerity, and still defended the deluded idea of "humanitarian intervention".

Labour would not have done better with any of the other 2015 leadership candidates, all of whom pledged to keep the party exactly where it was on the issues-other than Liz Kendall, who promised to move the party to the right of the Tories.  

Neither Kendall, nor Yvette Cooper, nor Andy Burnham had anything more to offer.

And neither could Owen Smith, who, by taking a job as a Pfizer lobbyist, proved he had no socialist values at all, no speaking skills at all, no agenda at all.

And as I've said many times, the previous leader, who hadn't actually wanted to be leader at all, likely would have gone if the PLP had agreed that the ideas his supporters-the majority of the party-backed, would not face a purge or marginalization.   Why couldn't the PLP just publicly accede to that?

And why couldn't the PLP accept the reality that the 2015 and 2016 leadership results meant that the party, at grassroots level, was committed to distancing Labour from the pointless fixation with the "centre ground"?  Why couldn't they accept that the party was done with Blarism and that they, the PLP needed to accept that and stop trying to drag Labour back to the 1990?

Last questions:  to what degrees do you want Labour to be to the left of the Tories at all? 

Do you accept that if Labour goes nonsocialist again it will no longer have a reason to exist?
 
And what would have to happen for you to accept that the "distancing" has gone far enough?  Will you accept that Labour is distanced enough without it abandoning all traces of socialism?

Finally, what is the point of Labour being centrist again when the 2010 and 2015 results prove that Labour can't win as s center party anymore?

nicky

Ken, no matter how many times you repeat that no one could have done better than Labour’s previous leader, the evidence is decisively to the contrary.

Not only has Starmer in just a few months added 12% to Labour’s vote he has pulled ahead of Johnson as preferred PM.

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/29/how-in-just-three-months-starmer-has-changed-the-political-weather/

josh

Labour got 32 in last year's election.  It is averaging 38 over the last 5 polls.  So I don't know where you got 12 from.

nicky

Mike Smithson

@MSmithsonPB

·

Jun 27

Detail from latest

@OpiniumResearch

poll finds that in the seats the Tories gained from LAB at GE2019 the best PM split was Johnson 33% Starmer 41%

Mike Smithson

@MSmithsonPB

·

Jun 27

From latest Opinium - Voting intention in the seats won by CON at GE2019 CON 37% LAB 50% LD 8%

nicky

Naziland Lagatta?

Isn't that a place of extreme censorship and mindless conformity where no discordant voices are ever allowed?

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Mike Smithson

@MSmithsonPB

·

Jun 27

Detail from latest

@OpiniumResearch

poll finds that in the seats the Tories gained from LAB at GE2019 the best PM split was Johnson 33% Starmer 41%

Mike Smithson

@MSmithsonPB

·

Jun 27

From latest Opinium - Voting intention in the seats won by CON at GE2019 CON 37% LAB 50% LD 8%

As would be the case with ANY Labour leader who wasn't subject to relentless media attack.  

Look, you seem to think I'm arguing that the previous leader should have stayed on after the last election-we both know he couldn't have stood down between the 2017 AND 2019, due to the fact that his doing so would have led to all socialists being expelled from the party-but I don't believe any such thing.

What I'm saying is that it is enough that there's a different leader- that there don't need to be any swings to the right on policy-none of the 2015-2020 policies were unpopular OR wrong- and nobody should be punished or anathemized simply for being associated with the last leader.

What is needed is better communication of policy more than anything else.

And while I hope Starmer can win the next election-though that would only matter if he didn't move the party to the right, since replacing Boris with a Blairite restoration would be pointless and since nobody in the UK wants Labour to reduce itself to that- I am terrified that, like Kinnock, he will blow the next election by waging war against socialists and socialism, as Kinnock did between 1987 and 1992, even though the socialist wing of the party bore no responsibility whatsoever for her personal failure to win in 1987.  Kinnock's 1992 platform had nothing radical or transformative in it at all, offered no real change, and by ditching all the socialism-there was no longer, in 1992, any meaningful difference between "social democracy" and Thatcherism- Kinnock convinced the voters that he cared about nothing but power in name.  That is why Kinnock lost what should have been an unlosable election, and that's why Blair's abandonment of everything recognizably Labour in the policy offer in 1997 was unnecessary and pointlessly damaging-the voters were going to vote for a change in government at that point no matter what Labour stood for and no matter who led it-they weren't insisting that the party apologize for every fighting to keep the unions from being crushed or against any of the privatizations, or against the cuts.  They weren't demanding that Labour surrender and reduce itself to being nothing but an alternative party of the status quo.  

And, in a time when the voters are outraged about the status quo, they aren't demanding that Labour move to the right on policy or carry on a pointless vendetta against grassroots socialists.

And here is something Starmer has to come

Ken Burch

And here is why Starmer would not have done better as leader in the last election:

Starmer, for no valid reason, was pushing for Labour to not only support a second referendum-which was concession enough to Remain voters to get their support-but also that Labour pledge to go all-out Remain in the second referendum, and before that to keep trying to undo Brexit in the then-current parliement.

That position was going to cost Labour even more seats in the Red Wall areas- areas that were overwhelmingly Leave and would always stay overwhelmingly Leave-not over immigration but because UK membership in the EU had excluded every part of the Red Wall from economic benefits-while, at the same time, bringing such benefits to much of Scotland, including areas only a few miles away from the North and North East of England.

There is no possible way Starmer could have won the votes of people in Leave areas while taking a position on the EU that totally disregarded the universal sense of abandonment and disregard Red Wall areas felt about the EU.

And if Starmer was, therefore, doomed to do as badly as or worse than the previous leader did, which he was, there was no way he could have made anywhere near enough gains in any other regions of the UK-there were no significant numbers of Tory constituencies anywhere in the UK that would have flipped to Labour if only Labour had gone all-out Remain, and there were no significant numbers of LibDem constituencies, period.

So give it a rest about the flaws of the previous leader.  He was smeared, he's gone-but the stances the party took on issues under that leader were never unpopular and the voters aren't demanding that everyone who had any connection to him be thrown into permanent exile within Labour  

And they damn sure don't ever want Labour to go back to a pointless obsession with a "centre ground" that simply doesn't exist anymore.

There's nowhere further right Labour can go on any significant issue without inexorably ending up back in Blairism or "Blue Labour" and neither of those approaches have any solutions to offer for the problems the UK faces-problems that can only be addressed with policies that bring radical change.

 

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
Polling has quickly turned in Labour's favour, coincident with Starmer marginalizing that sect. He must put further distance between them in order to win. If he doesnt, he will not.

Why does that matter right now when the next election is years away? The federal NDP led in public opinion polling in 2015, along with the BC NDP right up to the last poll in 2013. Paul Martin should have led the Liberals to be the only party in the House of Commons with offical status based on public opinion polling when he took office.

Aristotleded24
Ken Burch

Aristotleded24 wrote:

nicky wrote:
Polling has quickly turned in Labour's favour, coincident with Starmer marginalizing that sect. He must put further distance between them in order to win. If he doesnt, he will not.

Why does that matter right now when the next election is years away? The federal NDP led in public opinion polling in 2015, along with the BC NDP right up to the last poll in 2013. Paul Martin should have led the Liberals to be the only party in the House of Commons with offical status based on public opinion polling when he took office.

And Neil Kinnock-who is apparently nicky's model Labour leader-should have been able to count on winning a majority of 250 or so in the 1992 elections, based on his poll ratings immediately after stripping Labour of nearly all socialist values and launching a completely unjustified purge of left activists- instead, he lost an election he had no excuse for losing.  

All Starmer has received is the temporary surge any new leader who wasn't the subject of a hate, smear and lie campaign from not only the media but the majority of his party's MPs would be able to count on receiving.  I'm fairly sure Labour had at least something of a surge in the polls when Michael Foot won the leadership, before the furthest right wing of the party splintered off to form the SDP out of nothing but arrogant, antidemocratic egotism.

nicky

Ken, you will see from the polling I posted that Starmer is in fact rebuilding the Red Wall with Labour now running 15% ahead in those seats lost to the Cons and Starmer being more popular than Johnson in those seats.

You may also remember, though I suspect you have suppressed this, that numerous studies have established that labour lost far more votes because of its former leader( whose name I have agreed not to mention) than because of its Brexit position. By a margin of 3 to 1.

Even those who switched from the party because of Brexit where not all Leavers. At least as many left either because Labour was not proEurope enough or because of Labour’s incoherent policy.

You might also remember that by the time of the last election voters favoured Remain by about 53 to 47.

lagatta4

Nicky, I was referring to actual Nazis and other white supremacists who infest conservative sites nowadays.

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
Ken, you will see from the polling I posted that Starmer is in fact rebuilding the Red Wall with Labour now running 15% ahead in those seats lost to the Cons and Starmer being more popular than Johnson in those seats.

You may also remember, though I suspect you have suppressed this, that numerous studies have established that labour lost far more votes because of its former leader( whose name I have agreed not to mention) than because of its Brexit position. By a margin of 3 to 1.

Even those who switched from the party because of Brexit where not all Leavers. At least as many left either because Labour was not proEurope enough or because of Labour’s incoherent policy.

You might also remember that by the time of the last election voters favoured Remain by about 53 to 47.

Then how do you explain the fact that, during an election campaign in which Johnson campaigned to "get Brexit done," his party won a majority, while the Liberal Democrats, who essentially took your position that stopping Brexit was the only thing that mattered, barely moved ahead in the standings at all? Do you not think that in the 1980s and 1990s, when the issue was current, that public opinion polls in Quebec had a majority of support for sovereignty? Notice how difficult it is for the PQ to gain any traction in that province no matter how much they try to distance themselves from that issue now?

Polls are all over the place. When the British public had a direct say over the Brexit issue, they twice voted for it. The Guardian and the left establishment needs to accept that if they are to become relevant in British politics again.

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
You may also remember, though I suspect you have suppressed this, that numerous studies have established that labour lost far more votes because of its former leader( whose name I have agreed not to mention) than because of its Brexit position. By a margin of 3 to 1.

We know exactly who you are talking about, so your refusal to name him is meaningless. Your continued insistence on dragging up what went wrong while insisting on the importance of Labour being able to win without engaging on the substance of any of the issues we have tried to raise comes across as passive agressive and petty.

nicky

It is very easy to explain Aristotle - the First past the post system that gave the Cons a majority with 43.6 %. 

The LDs lost seats but increased their vote by 4%, more than any other party. They of course were unequivocally pro Remain

The sad fact is that Brexit was imposed on an unwilling majority.

As for me raising the C word, it was only in response to Ken’ s assertion that Starmer wd have done worse because he was a Remainer. Which is complete nonsense as shown by recent polling

And Lagatta, if that was an apology, I accept.

 

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Ken, you will see from the polling I posted that Starmer is in fact rebuilding the Red Wall with Labour now running 15% ahead in those seats lost to the Cons and Starmer being more popular than Johnson in those seats.

You may also remember, though I suspect you have suppressed this, that numerous studies have established that labour lost far more votes because of its former leader( whose name I have agreed not to mention) than because of its Brexit position. By a margin of 3 to 1.

Even those who switched from the party because of Brexit where not all Leavers. At least as many left either because Labour was not proEurope enough or because of Labour’s incoherent policy.

You might also remember that by the time of the last election voters favoured Remain by about 53 to 47.

What YOU continue to suppress is that the Red Wall areas are overwhelmingly, unchangably leave.   If Starmer has gained ground overall-and we both know most of that gain is simply from the fact that neither the press nor the right wing of his own party have not been on a perpetual campaign to demonize him and drive him out of office-it is because he hasn't mentioned the EU issue much yet as leader.

If he goes pushes to get Labour to go all out Remain/Rejoin, as he did before the last election for no valid reason, he will drive support back down in the Red Wall areas again, because there is nothing any leader could do to get the Red Wall areas to vote Labour if he revives the pointless fight to reverse Brexit.  There is no way for Labour to fight for Remain without telling the Red Wall that the next Labour government will leave it out in the cold again.

And there simply weren't any significant number of seats Labour could have gained from the Tories by going all-out Remain.  

As to the polls on Remain vs. Leave-that's what the polls pretty much all showed during the referendum.  There's no more reason to think the lead would hold in a second referendum, either, especially since Remainers still refuse to admit that Leave won because EU membership had never brought any economic benefits to the Red Wall areas, have STILL refused to propose any serious EU reform measures, and still insist on depicting all Leave voters as bigots.

Not only that, but in a second referendum, Starmer would probably have Labour join another all-party campaign for Remain instead of making a Labour case for that position.

Remain will lose again because the Remain leadership has refused to listen.  

 

 

Ken Burch

(Self-delete.  Dupe post).

nicky

Well Ken, how do YOU explain that Labour under Starmer is now 15% ahead in the Red Wall seats that switched to the Conservatives? I guess you would say that without Starmer's history as a Remainer they would be 30% ahead.

Of course it has nothing to do with switching leaders. That just does not compute for you.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Well Ken, how do YOU explain that Labour under Starmer is now 15% ahead in the Red Wall seats that switched to the Conservatives? I guess you would say that without Starmer's history as a Remainer they would be 30% ahead.

Of course it has nothing to do with switching leaders. That just does not compute for you.

I didn't say that a difference in leaders makes NO difference-and you seem to think that I'm arguing that the previous leader should have stayed on after the last election and I'm not, I'm honestly not.   

Here's what I'm ACTUALLY saying

1) As much as anything else, the change is due to the fact that Starmer is not being subjected to a 24-7 hate, smear and lie campaign from both the media and the antisocialist wing of the PLP.   There's no way you can seriously deny that both A) A leader who isn't having all of that thrown her or his way will automatically do better in the polls than a leader who is;

2) There is valid reason to worry that the fact that the current leader isn't receiving that treatment is a good sign that that leader won't be verry different than the Tories if that leader does somehow lead Labour to victory- the media and the Labour Right don't ever give that kind of deference and respect to Labour leaders who are going to make any significant changes;

3) It's somewhere between absurd and obscene to even insinuate that the change in poll ratings somehow JUSTIFIES th0 etreatment the previous leader received, especially the relentless AS smear, especially since this change in poll ratings would not have happened if the previous leader had been replaced by an all-out Remainer on the eve of an election.   If the last leader had been forced to step down right before or during the last election, no one the PLP would have accepted as a replacement for that leader could ever have won the unified support of that party and, having spent the previous four years refusing to accept that previous leader, there is no way the PLP would have had any authority, let alone any moral right, to expect the party to unite behind a leader they imposed.  Starmer was hated by the supporters of that previous leader-who, at that time, were the majority of the party.  Even if he'd been willing to stand to be a replacement leader-he wouldn't have been-he would never have been accepted by the majority of the rank and file and could never have offered a unifying message.

4) At the moment, nobody is talking about Brexit.  When that does become an issue again, there will be no way Labour can unify on an all-out Remain message because that will drive the Red Wall-almost all of which is Leave territory-back to the Brexit Party or the Tories.  

5) It's unhealthy for you to seemingly demand that Labour repudiate everything-and I assume you mean every policy-associated with the previous leader, because Labour can't make "we don't like peace campaigners 'round here" it's organizing principle.  Labour needs to regain the Red Wall voters lost over the EU issue-voters who would never have voted Labour if its policy had been all-out Remain- and to hold the young activists who joined Labour in the Teens, whose arrival was nothing but positive for the party, in the party and believing that Labour can be a vehicle for transformative change.

Starmer has promised not to move the party to the right.  Keeping that promise, at least on policies, is the only way Starmer will retain any right to ask anyone under 45 to vote Labour.  

You are the one who has a pathological hatred of the last Labour leader.  Nobody in the UK does.  Everyone there let it go at his standing down from the leadership.  They aren't demanding that the man be anathemized for life-only you are.  They aren't demanding that everyone even vaguely connected with the man be proscribed or expelled.  Only you are.

And the reality is, if Labour did everything you wanted, if it erased everyone and everything even remotely related to what the 2015-2019 era, it wouldn't be different than the Tories.  It wouldn't be capable of being radical, it wouldn't be capable of expressing empathetic, humane values (those had all been extinguished among the people who were obsessed with forcing the last leader out) and it would never question militarism or imperialism.

There are three words to describe what Labour would be if it did all that you wanted regarding the last leader;

The Conservative Party.

Labour needs to keep the radicalism it allowed back in.

It needs to move forward with Open Selection and the restoration of internal party democracy.

And from now on, it must always be anti-austerity and antiwar(not pacifist, but reserving the use of force to defending UK soil from attack, rather than staging pointless and always unwinnable invasions of non-European countries).

Ken Burch

I would like to see Starmer win-the thread I started with suggestions for him, the one you insisted on derailing, was about positive suggestions, not nostalgia for anyone from the past, not sabotage of Starmer.

Starmer's approach needs to be strictly positive-from now on, he needs to focus on what he promises to do, not on what he promises to abandon.

There are no policies to the right of any of the 2015-2019 policies that would be more popular than the 2015-2019 policies or be distinguishable from Tory policies.  And there is no way Labour could even start moving to the right without the PLP insisting on pushing it back all the way to Blarism- a set of policy ideas-which included continuing privatization- which have nothing to offer in the UK of today.

 

NDPP

Re:  What Starmer promises : 'I support Zionism without qualification.'

Israel Lobbyist Funded Labour's New Leader

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley-israel-lobbyist-fund...

"A multi-millionaire pro-Israel lobbyist donated $62,000 to help Keir Starmer win the UK Labour Party's leadership election, it was revealed last week. The official register of lawmakers' interests shows that Trevor Chinn donated teh sum as part of Starmer's leadership campaign. During the campaign Starmer said 'I support Zionism without qualification.' Since his election he has tilted the party sharply towards Israel. The donation from Chinn was not reported until 5 days after Starmer won the election, although it was received in February..."

Vote Labour - get Likud. Surely no true progressive can possibly support such a party with such a leader.

Pages