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

207 posts / 0 new
Last post
nicky

Let me try to understand some of the arguments floated on Babble about why Labour  lost the so-called Red Wall seats.

Voters in those seats really wanted a left wing socialist alternative but were repelled bet Starmer’s Brexit position which overwhelmed the otherwise pure Labour socialist platform under its former leader, a platform they were otherwise itching to embrace. Therefore they flooded to the most right wing Tory leader since Thatcher. Starmer and the Brexiters were solely to blame for this.

How ironic that these same Red Wall voters are flooding back to Labour now that Starmer is no longer the Brexit critic but the leader. 

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/07/16/new-polling-analysis-by-peter-kellner-suggests-that-the-tories-could-lose-power-if-an-election-was-held-now/

And Michael, I didn’t realize you have so much hate in your heart. It is sad to observe.

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
Let me try to understand some of the arguments floated on Babble about why Labour  lost the so-called Red Wall seats.

Voters in those seats really wanted a left wing socialist alternative but were repelled bet Starmer’s Brexit position which overwhelmed the otherwise pure Labour socialist platform under its former leader, a platform they were otherwise itching to embrace. Therefore they flooded to the most right wing Tory leader since Thatcher. Starmer and the Brexiters were solely to blame for this.

How ironic that these same Red Wall voters are flooding back to Labour now that Starmer is no longer the Brexit critic but the leader.

Not just people on babble, nicky. Some of us have posted links to articles, and you haven't engaged the material at all. You keep on posting polls showing Labour support going up and expecting us to believe it, and yet won't seriously acknowledge anything that contradicts your position.

Besides, if polling trends like you have continually posted hold up and campaigns don't matter, then Hillary Clinton would be President by now.

nicky

What evidence are you referring to Aristotle that contradicts my position# and that I have not addressed?

as for your facile observation about PresidentClinton, the polls were relatively accurate in 2016, overestimating her lead on averag3 by only 1%. That difference unfortunately was crucial.

the polls were brutally accurate in the last British election, although certain ostriches made excuses for them rather than address the root cause of Labour’# dilemma.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Let me try to understand some of the arguments floated on Babble about why Labour  lost the so-called Red Wall seats.

Voters in those seats really wanted a left wing socialist alternative but were repelled bet Starmer’s Brexit position which overwhelmed the otherwise pure Labour socialist platform under its former leader, a platform they were otherwise itching to embrace. Therefore they flooded to the most right wing Tory leader since Thatcher. Starmer and the Brexiters were solely to blame for this.

How ironic that these same Red Wall voters are flooding back to Labour now that Starmer is no longer the Brexit critic but the leader. 

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/07/16/new-polling-analysis-by-peter-kellner-suggests-that-the-tories-could-lose-power-if-an-election-was-held-now/

And Michael, I didn’t realize you have so much hate in your heart. It is sad to observe.

There are two reasons, and two reasons only, why Starmer's personal popularity ratings(he's still ten points behind Boris and that's not going to change if it hasn't changed by now) is higher than his predecessors' :

1) Starmer is not the subject of a relentless hate campaign by the media and the majority of his MPs;

2) Nobody is talking about Brexit.

It still goes without saying that, if Starmer goes all-out Remain or Rejoin at the next election, rather than accepting that Brexit is a settled matter-as everyone in the UK now essentially accepts it to be- the Red Wall voters will refuse to vote for him.

Voters in the Red Wall cared about Brexit and nothing else in 2019.  There WERE no "local issues" that would have kept them voting Labour and ditching the previous leader wouldn't have made any difference with them if that leader was replaced by Starmer-the SAME Starmer who had just led an utterly pointless rally for Remain outside the last Labour conference.  

And you were one of the people who kept arguing that staying in the EU was more important than beating the Tories-all of you knew Labour couldn't win the election on a Remain platform, all of you knew that Labour was doomed with ANY all-out Remainer as leader-and yet you would not let it go.

Why was that?

And why, if you couldn't let it go, could you not accept that pledging a second referendum was as close to going all-out Remain as Labour could get?  Why keep pushing for all-out Remain when you knew that position couldn't gain Labour seats or votes anywhere?  And why, for that matter, did you keep attacking Labour's leader during the election when you knew it wasn't possible for Labour to change leaders-or unite behind a new leader even if it did change-once the election had been called?

Can you not acknowledge that the intransigence of your position played a significant role in the outcome of the election, and now that the leadership has changed, why can't you let it go at that?  What is the point of refusing to stop waging war against the last leader and those associated with that leader, when that leader is gone, when it wasn't evil simply to be associated with that person, and when Labour can't unify behind its current leader if that current leader does what you want and spends every moment between now and the next election purging the left and abandoning socialist policies?  How can you imagine Starmer having any right to ask those who support those policies-a group which still makes up the majority of the party- if he spends all the time between now and 2023 demonizing socialists and moving the party closer and closer to the Tories on the issues?  Labour wouldn't have done any better in 2017 or 2019 if it had stayed at the now- nonexistent "centre ground" and if it had kept the left as far out in the cold as it had been between 1997 and 2015, and no significant number of voters in the UK thinks it would be worth ousting the Tories if what replaced them was once again Labour running on an "it's enough that it's US doing it" program.

Starmer can't unify through retribution.  And nobody's going to rally to Labour if it tells the left to go to hell again.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

nicky wrote:

And Michael, I didn’t realize you have so much hate in your heart. It is sad to observe.

Where's the eye-roll emoji when I need it? So now nicky plays the victim. I don't hate you, dude. You aren't worth the energy to hate. I do find you to be a contemptible troll, and I will continue to mock your dishonesty and refusal to take part in any sincere discussion at every opportunity.

Ken Burch

Here's a tricky question:  after spending most of the tenure of the last leader trying to undermine and oust him, how can Starmer possibly make a legitimate case that the supporters of the last leader, without whose backing Labour cannot win the next election, owe him the loyalty as leader that he consistently refused to display to his predecessor?

He can't really ask for unity while encouraging demonization and retribution.

 

nicky

No Ken, Starmer was in fact unduly loyal to Corbyn, never criticizing him publicly and never resigning from the shadow cabinet as many did who could not stomach his leadership.

Had Starmer decisively broken with Corbyn it might well have resulted in a new leader who could have avoided Labour’s worst defeat in 85 years.

Starmer’s loyalty to Corbyn was in my view a serious failing on his part. It cost Labour dearly.

Meanwhile, this forthcoming book looks to be of interest to everyone on all sides of the Corbyn question.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Left-Out-Inside-Labour-Corbyn-ebook/dp/B084YSBVTK/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Left+out&qid=1595242990&s=books&sr=1-1

nicky

Michael, you may remember that I recently set out at some length , and in response to being challenged to do so, my history in the NDP and progressive causes which goes back almost 50 years.

Have a look at that before you call me a troll.

Perhaps you can outline your own practical contributions to progressive politics.

I realize that my progressive credentials pale beside those who are so  ideologically pure that they feel absolved from ever having knocked on a door or donated a dollar.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

nicky wrote:

Michael, you may remember that I recently set out at some length , and in response to being challenged to do so, my history in the NDP and progressive causes which goes back almost 50 years.

Have a look at that before you call me a troll.

Perhaps you can outline your own practical contributions to progressive politics.

I realize that my progressive credentials pale beside those who are so  ideologically pure that they feel absolved from ever having knocked on a door or donated a dollar.

First of all, babble is a discussion forum for those of a generally leftist persuasion. It is not an NDP site. Your political resume and mine are irrelevant to any discussion being had here. If we were running against each other for some office in the NDP, these matters would be relevant. Here, only the validity of the ideas is at issue. For the sake of argument, I will happily assume that any contribution I may have made to the NDP is miniscule next to yours. That doesn't matter at all.

I don't hate Liberals. I was one myself many years ago, and most of my family members still are. But I know one when I see one, and you are ideologically a Liberal. Which would be fine, if you only admitted it, and argued on that basis. In one of the many Corbyn threads, I pointed this out to you, and you replied that you "abhor" the Liberal party. I then asked you to mention a few Liberal economic policies that you disagree with, and received no reply.

Ever since the first Corbyn thread, Ken, Ari, Josh, myself, and others have been excited about the policies Corbyn was bringing forward. None of us particularly cared about him personally, although he does seem to be a very decent and intelligent person.

You, on the other hand, have steadfastly refused to discuss any of the policy issues, or take any position on them. You have concentrated solely on demonization of Corbyn personally, and scorn for those of us who have supported him, suggesting that we were part of a cult of personality. However, this is not even in the ballpark of true, and you know that perfectly well. But you are a bad-faith actor, so you have continued making totally unjustified claims of Corbyn worship by those who support the direction he was moving in, towards democratic socialism.

Anyway, nicky, I have one question for you, which you will never answer. Do you believe that capitalism is fatally flawed, and that we must work to replace it with something closer to democratic socialism? Or do you believe that the current system is mostly Ok, and we would be best off not to mess with it too much, lest we end up worse than we started?

Once you've answered that, we could begin more detailed discussions of specific policies. In this thread that would be about what Starmer should do as Labour leader. However, I predict that none of that discussion will ever happen because you are not willing to defend the policies you support, preferring instead to hide behind "credentials".

Ken Burch

And nicky, everyone you're talking to here has spent years, often decades, knocking on doors and doing all the practical, gritty, day-to-day political work you've done.  You aren't entitled to lecture any of us about "walking the walk".

Here's the reality:

The NDP has spent decades running itself as you seem to think Labour should be run-and it has next to nothing to show for it.

The NDP has nothing to show for the near-abolition of internal party democracy and for moving the party perpetually further and further to the right.

There's nothing to show for every NDP leader keeping the party Likudnik on the Israel/Palestine issue and for joining in the canard tht criticism of the Israeli government is antisemitism.

There's nothing to show for fetishizing balanced budgets and low taxes.

There's nothing to show for keeping progressive activists out in the cold and letting Hill and Knowlton run the show.

There's nothing to show for being part of the "consensus" on foreign policy, for being just as militarist as the Libs and the Cons.

Given that there's been nothing to show for the NDP running itself that far, for treating the left as a greater enemy than the right, why on EARTH do you want Labour to use the same approach?

 

Ken Burch

And why do you care so much more about punishing Labour's LAST leader and his supporters than you do about the question of what positive direction Labour should take under its current leader.

The plain and simple fact is that the last election proves there are no votes Labour could gain from moving significantly to the right.   The 2010 and 2015 elections prove the same thing.

The "centre ground" strategy is doomed to fail, because the "centre ground no longer exists in UK politics.  

What we're saying is, accept that the past leader no longer matters, that it's pointless to keep arguing that that last leader should never have been allowed to be leader at all.  Nobody but you cares about that and there are no votes to be gained from treating that past leader as a pariah, and there is no reason to keep trying to defend the Five Years Hate the man was subjected to by the PLP and the media, when that Five Years Hate was never, at any point, going to get Labour a better leader before the 2017 or 2019 elections-nobody who had more to offer was even available in the party.

I think Starmer can be a good leader-but he can't be an effective if if focuses on doing what you want and "distancing" the party from the last leader's policies.  There are no policies to the right of the Green New Deal that can make any meaningful difference on climate; there is nothing Labour could do that would actually involve Labour values if it didn't nationalize rail, electricity, and water-none of those can ever be run by the private sector in accord with Labour values.  There can never again be a war in a non-European country that could possibly be a fight for Labour values, and it can't be Labour to go back to fawning over and committing to perpetually overpaying the Windsors.

The answer isn't to move right-the answer isn't to punish socialists or supporters of the restoration of internal party democracy, or to force everyone in the party to be a Likudnik, which is what being a Zionist has to mean now, given that nothing resembling a humane, socialist, inclusive and pro-peace form of Zionism can ever exist again.  

There are no votes to be gained from making Labour blander, making it abandon socialism again-nothing to the right of socialism can ever be Labour again, making it more dismissive and exclusive of activists, OR making a fetish of the Union flag.

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
No Ken, Starmer was in fact unduly loyal to Corbyn, never criticizing him publicly and never resigning from the shadow cabinet as many did who could not stomach his leadership.

Had Starmer decisively broken with Corbyn it might well have resulted in a new leader who could have avoided Labour’s worst defeat in 85 years.

Starmer’s loyalty to Corbyn was in my view a serious failing on his part. It cost Labour dearly.

You're absolutely right that openly sabotaging your own party leader in public is a great way to advance your political career. You can ask Manitoba Premier Theresa Oswald about that.

Ken Burch

In any case, no replacement for the last leader who chose to take the antiworker, pro-austerity stand of committing the party to an all-out Remain position could possibly have held the Red Wall seats-the consensus is that the dominant issue for those voters was making sure that Brexit happened.  Even by switching from the 2017 "we respect the referendum" position to a pledge for a second referendum, as Starmer relentlessly pushed for, was always going to cost Labour the Red Wall seats no matter who was leader.  

The ONLY reasons Starmer is gaining in those seats now is that he has made it sound as though he accepts that the EU issue is settled and because, thanks to Covid, nobody is talking about Brexit.

The moment Boris brings that back to the center of the discussion, any gains Starmer has temporarily made in the Red Wall will vanish.  No case can ever win any currently Leave area to Remain, and quite frankly there's no good reason even to try to reverse the last referendum.

Any policies to the right of the last leader would have to be considered Tory.  There's no meaningful difference between Toryism and the bitter, spiteful Blairism of most of the PLP, and nobody outside the PLP even WANTS Labour to move towards those policies again.  And if those policies were the key to victory, Labour would have won in 2010 and 2015, when the policy offers were indistinguishable from Blair's.

nicky

But what would have happened,  Aristotle, if Theresa Oswald had succeeded in supplanting an out of touch and electorally doomed premier? Might she not be premier today with your province saved from its present regime?

And she almost succeeded as I recall, losing the leadership by a whisker. Didn’t that margin reveal the insuperable failure of Salinger?

There comes a point when loyalty to party must prevail over loyalty to leader. Where that leader is running the party into the ground that point may be reached. Arguably this wass reached with the NDP in Manitoba. Certainly it was reached with the Labour Party in the UK.

Ken Burch

It wasn't the leader's fault.  It was caused, as much as anything, by the bloodyminded arrogance of those in the PLP who spent more of their time trying to oust the last leader than they did trying to oust the Tories.  They knew the whole time they were never going to get that leader to stand down-especially since they refused to guarantee they wouldn't erase the policies associated with that leader, purge most of that leader's supporters, and wouldn't simply go back to the hopeless dead zone of the 2010-2015 era, or worse, go back to full on Blairism.

The PLP forced that leader to stay on because they were so hopelessly rigid, reactionary, and out of touch.  

Why could they not have engaged the supporters of that last leader, proposed to find some way to work with them, and made it clear that a leadership change would not mean lowering the party to the pre-2015 status quo?  

And why can't you accept, nicky, that that last leader is gone for good, so there's no reason to continue to be at war here?

Labour can't go back to being a bland centre war party and gain votes.  Most of the UK doesn't want there to be no real difference between the policies of the government and those of the opposition...most of them don't want to choose between two militarist parties anymore...most of them aren't insisting that Labour go back to being sickeningly deferential to the flag and the monarchy.

Most of the UK doesn't want Labour to move as far to the right as it did in the Nineties, and no one would think it even mattered if Labour won on a centrist/war/austerity manifesto again.  Why do you?

What matters is what the Labour does now...not the degree to which it anathemizes the last leader and his supporters.  Nobody who wants that leader anathemized cares about the poor or wants to defend the NHS or would vote Labour under any leader.

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
But what would have happened,  Aristotle, if Theresa Oswald had succeeded in supplanting an out of touch and electorally doomed premier? Might she not be premier today with your province saved from its present regime?

And she almost succeeded as I recall, losing the leadership by a whisker. Didn’t that margin reveal the insuperable failure of Salinger?

There comes a point when loyalty to party must prevail over loyalty to leader. Where that leader is running the party into the ground that point may be reached. Arguably this wass reached with the NDP in Manitoba. Certainly it was reached with the Labour Party in the UK.

Nicky, are you serious? Oswald burnt so many bridges within the party by publicly denouncing Selinger. The anger towards that was so great that people on babble at the time said they would never vote for the NDP again if she had succeeded. She might have had a honeymoon period as a new leader, but I don't think it would have been enough to raise the NDP over the threshold. There likely would have also been a civil war within the NDP what would have resulted in a seat count close to what happened. So no, having watched things unfold around me, she had no chance of ever becoming Premier.

You have also cited the fact that Labour MPs hated Corbyn as reason for him to have to step down. Guess who NDP MLAs backed for leader at the time? They backed Selnger.

Ken Burch

Now that Starmer's predecessor is gone, the MPs who spent years sabotaging him and trying to oust him need to agree to stand down at the next election.  They have no positive role to play in the party.   And whatever else happens, there is no excuse to move to the right on any of the 2017 or 2019 policies, as there is no large bloc of voters in the UK that even want Labour to blur the differences between that party and the Tories again.

It's time for purely positive steps for unity. 

nicky

You are right Aristotle, that selinger retained the backing of a majority of his MLAs, but it was a bare majority - 15 vs 6 for Oswald and 7 for Ashton.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_New_Democratic_Party_of_Manitoba_leadership_election

In a parliamentary system it is extraordinary for a leader to stagger on with a large portion of his caucus voting non-confidence.

For example, Neville Chamberlain resigned as PM in May 1940 when 41 Conservative MPs out of 375 voted against him.

Needless to say, any leader who lost the confidence of 80% of his caucus, as happened with the Labour Party, should have done the responsible thing and stepped aside.

To return to the actual topic of this thread, Ken has written, “It's time for purely positive steps for unity.”

Thankfully Labour took such a positive step today:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/22/labour-pays-out-six-figure-sum-and-apologises-in-antisemitism-row

 

The Labour party has apologised “unreservedly” and paid out a six-figure sum to seven former employees and a veteran BBC journalist, admitting it defamed them in the aftermath of a Panorama investigation into its handling of antisemitism.

The settlement and formal apologies to both the reporter, John Ware, and the ex-employees, which have been read in open court, is believed to have cost the Labour party between £600,000 and £750,000, with about £200,000 in damages agreed for the eight individuals.

The settlement is believed to be an unprecedented case of a political party libelling a journalist and former employees.

Advertisement

Labour conceded it had made defamatory and false allegations against the litigants in the light of their interview with the Panorama programme Is Labour Antisemitic?, broadcast last July.

It agreed to retract and withdraw accusations that the whistleblowers were motivated by their opposition to the party’s former leader Jeremy Corbyn and had “political axes to grind” and its accusation that Ware had conducted a “deliberate and malicious misrepresentations designed to mislead the public”.

In a four-page agreement statement made in relation to the former staff’s libel action read out in court 37 of the high court, it said: “The Labour party is here today to publicly set the record straight, and to apologise to the claimants for the distress and embarrassment that it has caused them.”

 

 

 

josh

The decision by the Labour leadership to make an apology in open court and a commitment to pay “substantial damages” to those who were suing the Party is deeply disappointing. As Len McCluskey has said, the settlement is a misuse of funds derived from the subscriptions of thousands of individual members in order to settle a case that the Party was advised it could win in court.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/statement/on-the-labour-party-apology/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=new-article-from-jvl-newsletter-post-title_8

NDPP

Total abject surrender. Mission accomplished.

nicky

Now 32 former Labour officials will sue party over leak of report they say falsely accused them of undermining the former leadership.

https://labourlist.org/2020/07/former-general-secretary-iain-mcnicol-to-sue-over-leaked-antisemitism-report/

nicky

Even John Lansman, founder of Momentum and one of Corbyn’s chief allies, has admitted it was wrong to attack the whistleblowers who exposed anti-semitism in the Labour Party.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/23/momentum-founder-jon-lansman-apologises-for-joining-labour-attack-on-whistleblowers

But of course some Babblers know better than he does.

josh

I guess you know better than Jewish Voice for Labour, Len McCloskey, John McDonnell, etc.

nicky

Josh, you should pay some attention to the old maxim cui bono.

Lansman, MacDonnell and McCloskey were all part of the old leadership which was accused of tolerating antiSemitism among Corbyn’s backers. It is in all their interests to deny this, as two of them do. The only one acting against his own interests by acknowledging it is Lansman. 

That should logically carry more weight, regardless with how uncomfortably it fits with your prejudices.

josh

You mean as required by the settlement the Labour establishment entered into with itself?

NDPP

Sir Keir is a faux left establishment war-pig: Pity so many have similar  tendencies.

"Starmer has just called for Russia Today's broadcasting license to be revoked. This is days after he called for the UK to 'go further' on China and issue sanctions against it. The 'opposition' is pushing for more extreme measures than a Tory govt, what a political spectrum we have."

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1285898151774257153

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1286023264876331013

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

NDPP wrote:

Sir Keir is a faux left establishment war-pig: Pity so many have similar  tendencies.

"Starmer has just called for Russia Today's broadcasting license to be revoked. This is days after he called for the UK to 'go further' on China and issue sanctions against it. The 'opposition' is pushing for more extreme measures than a Tory govt, what a political spectrum we have."

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1285898151774257153

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1286023264876331013

That's just how nicky likes it. The less distance between Labour and Conservative, the better.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

In the last year or so, I've come to rely on Novara Media as an intelligent left wing voice on British politics. Today they put out an 18 minute video about this settlement agreement.

kropotkin1951

Michael Moriarity wrote:

In the last year or so, I've come to rely on Novara Media as an intelligent left wing voice on British politics. Today they put out an 18 minute video about this settlement agreement.

Thanks. That was a very good explanation. What I love is that often in a defamation suit the damages awarded are nominal because it is the good reputation that needs restoring and it is really hard to quantify economic loss from defamation. Since it seems none of the litigants have had their careers affected in the long term it is clear that they have received a windfall. Them and the lawyers involved in the case. I wonder whether the Labour Party will be paying everyone's lawyers costs.

Ken Burch

Starmer went against the wishes of the party's lawyers, who said they had a strong case.  Basically, he cut a check-paying out money the party desperately needed to be able to win the next election, because he knew that if Labour won the case, as it almost certainly would have, that his unjustly demonized predecessor would have been proven innocent of the charge of not fighting AS in the party.

And it is not inappropriate to note that Starmer's actions here can fairly be interpreted as rewarding the individuals who made his accession to the leadership possible, by destroying hid predecessor's chances of winning the election.

In any case, nicky, now that this has happened, can you FINALLY accept that the war against the last leader should be declared over?

At this point, can you finally accept that enough vengeance and vilification has occurred?

 

nicky

Yes Ken, like you, I would like the “last leader”, the great Conservative enabler, to disappear into the trash can of history.

Unfortunately he insists on making Labour vulnerable to enormous additional legal damages and expenses:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/23/jeremy-corbyn-accused-unleashing-wave-legal-claims-against-labour/

Yes, if only he would just dry up and blow away and stop sabotaging the Labour Party.

nicky

And NDPP, why are you such an apologist for Putin and RT?

I am sometimes chided on Babble, albeit in a gentle and friendly way, for bringing social democratic views to a “Left wing site.” 

Yet you are constantly defending a fascist who is the bulwark of the hard right throughout the world.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

nicky wrote:

I am sometimes chided on Babble, albeit in a gentle and friendly way, for bringing social democratic views to a “Left wing site.” 

Gotta hand it to you. You do have a way with words.

kropotkin1951

The difference between a social democrat and a left liberal is timing, just ask Bob Rae or Ujjal Dosanjh or Tom Mulcair. Nicky from your posts I think they are your kind of "left" leaders.

NDPP

George Galloway: Labour's Demand For Offcom Review of RT License is Apostasy Against Democratic Principles (and vid)

https://on.rt.com/amik

"The descent to apostasy in the UK Labour Party of Sir Keir Starmer continues at such a pace it would come as no surprise if he were to expel his predecessor in whose shadow he sat without public complaint. Oh wait...Seems that's already underway..."

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The difference between a social democrat and a left liberal is timing, just ask Bob Rae or Ujjal Dosanjh or Tom Mulcair. Nicky from your posts I think they are your kind of "left" leaders.

Hahahaha. This made my day. Thanks, Kropotkin!

P.S.: They ain't no Bill Siksay or late Raymond Gravel.

Ken Burch

Michael Moriarity wrote:

nicky wrote:

I am sometimes chided on Babble, albeit in a gentle and friendly way, for bringing social democratic views to a “Left wing site.” 

Gotta hand it to you. You do have a way with words.

When have you even expressed "social democratic" views?  

The only views you ever really express here are that 

1) Mulcair should have been kept in the NDP leadership no matter what-even though his reduction of the party to third place means he could never have led the party to a comeback in any subsuquent election;

2) Starmer's predecessor should never have been allowed to be Labour's leader, and there is nothing to discuss regarding Labour other than the need to keep relentlessly demonizing and vilifying that previous leader.

What do you want, nicky?  It's not legitimate to demand that the previous leader be made into a pariah by his former party.  The policies his supporters-the majority of the party-weren't wrong and there's no good reason to move to the right on any of them.  And labour can't win if Corbyn's supporters are either silenced or driven to leave in despair.  Nobody's going to reward Labour at the polls for abandoning socialism again, for fighting to stop  Brexit when it can only be right wing to keep fighting to stop Brexit, or for supporting or keeping silent(keeping silent is the same thing as supporting) what Netanyahu does to the Palestinians.

BTW, nicky, while I agree that NDPP is wrong to be even mildly pro-Putin, you should remember that, in the last election, NDPP was doing what you wanted and going all out to demonize the previous Labour leader and work for his defeat-though for different reasons than you-so you can't really be that mad at at the guy.

NDPP

Jeremy Corbyn was a weak, ineffectual, vascillating leader unwilling to confront attackers but more than willing to betray political friends and capitulate to enemies. His massive election loss, the rise and ultimate ascension to power of Sir Keir Starmer was predictable. And furthermore this whole naseating trajectory is nothing new for UK Labour.  Like the Hill & Knowlton advised NDP it is truly a No Difference Party and the present times demand far more serious an approach to politics than these sad, clapped out political dead ends.

Glad to see Nicky and the little band of brothers found something they agree upon. Always knew they had far more in common than not. Another characteristic of their failed UK Labour brand of pseudo-leftism is never to fundamentally question or oppose essential prevailing imperial orthodoxies as represented by msm or western 'intelligence agencies'. And so anyone who questions Russiagate etc is smeared as pro-Putin, anyone who questions 'Make Hong Kong Great Again' is pro-Beijing, anyone who questions White Helmets or regime change in Syria is pro-Assad, anyone who questions the public persecution and destruction of WikiLeaks/Assange supports a 'rapist' who made crooked Hillary lose the election to Trump etc etc. Anyway I'll let  these political bed-fellows get back to the endless drivel and pointless pillow-fights over  Jeremy vs Sir Keir etc while the world burns. Tony Benn must be spinning in his grave.

 

The Starmer Restoration is Only Just Getting into Stride

https://www.counterfire.org/articles/opinons/21447-the-starmer-restorati...

"...All of this - whether welcome or not - is an overhead you have to carry if Labour is to be 'electable'. This is why Starmer won the leadership with the votes of a considerable number of members who had previously twice voted for Corbyn....The enormous crisis now, the second in a decade, means some different policy mixes and overarching ideological positioning. But it will be relatively-new-Labour. That is Stormer, Nandy & co defining themselves against the 'failed left' seeking thoroughly capitalist arguments against the Tories and positioning as a sensible voice of the capitalist centre. I think it has yet to hit people just how far this is going to go.."

Ken Burch

NDPP wrote:

Jeremy Corbyn was a weak, ineffectual, vascillating leader unwilling to confront attackers but more than willing to betray political friends and capitulate to enemies. His massive election loss, the rise and ultimate ascension to power of Sir Keir Starmer was predictable. And furthermore this whole naseating trajectory is nothing new for UK Labour.  Like the Hill & Knowlton advised NDP it is truly a No Difference Party and the present times demand far more serious an approach to politics than these sad, clapped out political dead ends.

Glad to see Nicky and the little band of brothers found something they agree upon. Always knew they had far more in common than not. Another characteristic of their failed UK Labour brand of pseudo-leftism is never to fundamentally question or oppose essential prevailing imperial orthodoxies as represented by msm or western 'intelligence agencies'. And so anyone who questions Russiagate etc is smeared as pro-Putin, anyone who questions 'Make Hong Kong Great Again' is pro-Beijing, anyone who questions White Helmets or regime change in Syria is pro-Assad, anyone who questions the public persecution and destruction of WikiLeaks/Assange supports a 'rapist' who made crooked Hillary lose the election to Trump etc etc. Anyway I'll let  these political bed-fellows get back to the endless drivel and pointless pillow-fights over  Jeremy vs Sir Keir etc while the world burns. Tony Benn must be spinning in his grave.

 

The Starmer Restoration is Only Just Getting into Stride

https://www.counterfire.org/articles/opinons/21447-the-starmer-restorati...

"...All of this - whether welcome or not - is an overhead you have to carry if Labour is to be 'electable'. This is why Starmer won the leadership with the votes of a considerable number of members who had previously twice voted for Corbyn....The enormous crisis now, the second in a decade, means some different policy mixes and overarching ideological positioning. But it will be relatively-new-Labour. That is Stormer, Nandy & co defining themselves against the 'failed left' seeking thoroughly capitalist arguments against the Tories and positioning as a sensible voice of the capitalist centre. I think it has yet to hit people just how far this is going to go.."

I wasn't agreeing with nicky.  Just pointing out that you were essentially working hand in hand with him.  The fact is, no Labour leader could have done what you demanded Corbyn do and stay with the "we respect the results of the referendum" position on Brexit.  By the same token, no Labour leader could have done what nicky demanded and take the right-wing, pro-austerity, antiworker position of allout Remain.  The regional split within the party meant neither position could be taken without causing the creation of a new party that couldn't come close to winning but could only make the Tory majority get even larger by splitting the Labour vote.

NDPP

The reactionary yips and yaps of russophobic running dogs in UK Labour with sympathetic snaps and snarls from their friends abroad is right on cue...

Russia Report Says Moscow Meddled For Years

https://youtu.be/C9EFjpL9SEM

"...The impact of any such attempts would be difficult - if not impossible - to assess, and we have not sought to do so...We are grateful to Christopher Steele for very substantial expertise on Russia."

 

Galloway on The Russia Report

https://youtu.be/hvVGZLUOD2s

"The call by Keir Starmer to ban RT is not just a strike at freedom of speech. It's an attempt to suppress alternative views."

Given Sir Keir's enthusiastic and substantial role in the torture and stitch-up of Julian Assange on behalf of US/UK intelligence agencies, his outrageous attack upon RT  should come as no surprise. As always the rotten left collaborates.

josh

Tony Benn would have been standing four square alongside Jeremy Corbyn.  For he too was a victim of a smearing press and backstabbing from his party's establishment.  And if Tony Benn had been leader, you would have trashed him.  He would have ended up being one of your "running dogs,"

Ken Burch

And it's not even ABOUT standing with the former leader-though it is legitimate to denounce the continuing slurs against the man, including Starmer's insistence on abetting the smears by settling with the "whistleblowers" and the "journalist", in a case where the lawyers advised Starmer that Labour had a strong case and likely would have won in court.

Starmer has the job.  The former leader is out.  Is it not time for Starmer to do the decent thing and end the war against the former leader?  How much more retribution does Starmer feel he needs to inflict?  

And the truth is, Starmer, as a hardline Remainer from a London constituency, had no chance of doing any better than the former leader in the Red Wall areas-if anything, he might have done worse, since there were no issues that mattered to the electorate, especially in the Red Wall areas, than Brexit.  Those areas are overwhelmingly Leave and they couldn't forgive Labour for betraying its 2017 pledge to honor the results of the referendum.

At the moment, Brexit is not being talked about.  When Covid- an issue which vindicates the Labour Left's arguments about the need to create a radical and democratic alternative to capitalism and prove that nothing can be done by settling for nothing but tiny, gradual modifications to the status quo- is resolved, Boris will immedately start relentlessly attacking Starmer for his point fight to stop Brexit- and when he does, whatever appeal Starmer has in Red Wall seats will vanish.

BTW, Labour lost the last election by nine percentage points.  The most recent poll shows Labour, with a new leader and at a time when the Tories are constantly demonstrating epic incompetence, shows Labour, with the exception of a single rogue poll showing them four points behind, anywhere from five to ten points behind, with a recent overall trend to an increasing Tory lead.  So much for Starmer having so much personal political magic that the PLP and the MacNicol cabal were justified in sabotaging Labour's chances in the last election with the AS smear just to get him.  So much for the idea that "distancing" the party from the last leader was anywhere close to being the most important thing Starmer could do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

Ken Burch

And it's not even ABOUT standing with the former leader-though it is legitimate to denounce the continuing slurs against the man, including Starmer's insistence on abetting the smears by settling with the "whistleblowers" and the "journalist", in a case where the lawyers advised Starmer that Labour had a strong case and likely would have won in court.

Starmer has the job.  The former leader is out.  Is it not time for Starmer to do the decent thing and end the war against the former leader?  How much more retribution does Starmer feel he needs to inflict?  

And the truth is, Starmer, as a hardline Remainer from a London constituency, had no chance of doing any better than the former leader in the Red Wall areas-if anything, he might have done worse, since there were no issues that mattered to the electorate, especially in the Red Wall areas, than Brexit.  Those areas are overwhelmingly Leave and they couldn't forgive Labour for betraying its 2017 pledge to honor the results of the referendum.

At the moment, Brexit is not being talked about.  When Covid- an issue which vindicates the Labour Left's arguments about the need to create a radical and democratic alternative to capitalism and prove that nothing can be done by settling for nothing but tiny, gradual modifications to the status quo- is resolved, Boris will immedately start relentlessly attacking Starmer for his point fight to stop Brexit- and when he does, whatever appeal Starmer has in Red Wall seats will vanish.

BTW, Labour lost the last election by nine percentage points.  The most recent poll shows Labour, with a new leader and at a time when the Tories are constantly demonstrating epic incompetence, shows Labour, with the exception of a single rogue poll showing them four points behind, anywhere from five to ten points behind, with a recent overall trend to an increasing Tory lead.  So much for Starmer having so much personal political magic that the PLP and the MacNicol cabal were justified in sabotaging Labour's chances in the last election with the AS smear just to get him.  So much for the idea that "distancing" the party from the last leader was anywhere close to being the most important thing Starmer could do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

nicky

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

con 43.6

lab 32.1

According to Ken, that is a 9 point gap

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

con 43.6

lab 32.1

According to Ken, that is a 9 point gap

I stand corrected on the numbers there-although the difference between a nine point loss and an eleven point loss is fairly trivial.

The point stands that there has been no dramatic improvement in the party's poll ratings.  At this point in the life of a government, the opposition party is historically almost always ahead in the polls.  

I wish Starmer well, but the polls prove that he's not possessed of any personal electoral magic and that he's not really impressing voters that much by keeping the war against his predecessor going.

The voters don't aren't that interested in seeing him denounce the previous leader-they want to know what policies he is going to offer.  And clearly, based on the 2010 and 2015 results, they don't want him to move the party to the right on policies.  They don't want Labour to go back to supporting the myth of "humanitarian intervention", they aren't that interested in how much the party waves that nasty old imperialist flag, and they are not more concerned than anything else with seeing Keir silence or expel the left Kinnock-style.  And the voters are NOT obsessed, unlike you, with silencing all dissent about what Netanyahu does to the Palestinians-it's only the Labour Right itself that wants that.

And as you may recall, Kinnock's purges of the left did the party no real good in his second campaign, in 1992, in which Labour lost what should have been an unlosable election to a Tory party led by an already discredited bufoon of a leader.

 

NDPP

Lest we forget...

Norman Finkelstein on the 'Anti-Semite Corbyn' Claims (and vid)

https://twitter.com/communicipalist/status/1287722227484549121

Labouring under 'Anti-Semitism'

Ken Burch

Petition against expelling Corbyn and the Left from Momentum:  https://actionsprout.io/A6E323?fbclid=IwAR3M8zwey11CyeUzNsqVxWPI-yp-kXBrBx7jJ389wWlQvrFb283FB_QI0I8

It should be more than enough for Starmerites that the man is no longer leader.  Making him and his supporters into pariahs, when they've done nothing to deserve that, is pointless.

Hugh Gaitskill wasn't expelled for losing the 1959 election.

Harold Wilson wasn't expelled for losing the 1970 election.

James Callaghan wasn't expelled for losing the 1979 election, after spending three years creating the conditions that make a Labour defeat inevitable by accepting the 1976 IMF austerity program.

Michael Foot wasn't expelled for almost leading the party into third place in the popular vote in 1983.  

Neil Kinnock wasn't expelled for blowing two elections he should have been able to count on winning.

Gordon Brown wasn't expelled for losing the 2010 election

Ed Miliband wasn't expelled for losing the 2015 election, on a comparable vote share to the 2019 result and with a lower vote share than the 2017 result.

Why on earth should the last leader be subjected to any greater retribution than they were?

And what's the point in anyone perpetuating the AS smear when the only reason it was spread was to either get the last leader out of the leadership or make sure Labour lost with him as leader, and it already achieved its effect?  

It's time to end the war, nicky.  It's enough that you forced the guy out.  No further punishment is needed for anybody.  And the voters aren't going to make their decision in the next election based on how vindictive the party was to its last leader-they're going to decide on policies and they don't want Labour moving towards the Tories on the issue and blurring the differences down to nothing again like Blair did.  They are not saying they will only vote Labour if it has a leader who treats socialists like vermin.

josh

The left need to leave Labour.  Unless they want the same thing to happen to them as what happened between 1985 and 2010.

nicky

My you give me a lot of credit Ken.

I wish I could say that I did Labour the incalculably valuable service of forcing Corbyn out, as you seem to believe.

But , as I've said before, no one in Britain pays any more attention to me than they do to you.

I didnt force him out. The voters did.

nicky

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-ehrc-report-libel-a9637606.html

Starmer made it clear during the leadership election that he had objected in the shadow cabinet to Corbyn’s handling of antisemitism. He also knew that Corbyn’s claim to have a “strong” defence was rubbish. This was confirmed yesterday when it was reported that Thomas Gardiner, Labour’s legal director until last month, formally warned the party not to use the “selective” and “misleading” evidence on which it intended to rely in the libel case.

 

Pages