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

207 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

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.

To clarify, by "you", I didn't mean you as an individual, but all of you who never accepted the guy as leader and chose to spend the whole time attacking him and the Left when those who attacked them shouldn't have been attacking anyone other than the Tories-those who still won't stop the AS smear, those who still won't admit it's enough that there is a different leader.

The last leader doesn't deserve punishment and nobody other than the Tories would cheer if he was expelled.  Expelling the man and anathemizing his supporters would inevitably mean moving the party to the essentially Tory policies it was committed to in 2010 and 2015, or worse, back to Blair's policies, which neither the Labour rank-and-file nor the electorate wants.

There's no votes to gain by blurring the differences and taking the right-wing, antiworker, pro-austerity and capitalism position of allout Remain-a stance which is also pointless since the issue is already settled for all time.

NDPP

Corbyn never made a strong defence. He folded like a cheap suit. Not the only time either. Sir Starmer has simply dropped pretenses. Just another no difference party of a rotten, compromised left. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Ken Burch

NDPP wrote:

Corbyn never made a strong defence. He folded like a cheap suit. Not the only time either. Sir Starmer has simply dropped pretenses. Just another no difference party of a rotten, compromised left. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

It's true he never defended himself against what we all know was totally bogus accusations on the AS issue, but no, you've got no reason to imply that he was no different than Starmer.  Nothing was going to be achieved by the Left deserting Corbyn and taking the World Socialist Web Site's advice to create a sectarian Trotskyist party.  There was never any chance that a party like that will ever make either a strong showing in an election OR lead a successful revolutionary uprising.

Vanguardism was never going to create a socialist world.

Ken Burch

Here's the thing.  Under Starmer, Labour has never led the Tories in a poll-the party actually did lead the Tories in numerous polls in the 2015-2020 era, a fact which proves that, if the PLP had stopped undermining and trying to remove the last leader and focused solely on attacking the Tories-something the PLP basically refused to do in those years-Labour could well have been elected in those years under that leader.

Given that Boris has been an absolute incompetent on Covid and that the UK economy has largely collapsed under his leadership, there's really no excuse for Starmer not ever having his party ahead of the Tories in any poll taken so far-OTHER than the fact that, rather than focusing solely 0n what he should be doing, which is attacking the government while offering radical alternatives to the status quo, Starmer has said virtually nothing about Tory incompetence and the nastiness of Tory policies, has offered no policies of his own - we already know that "it's enough that we're not the Tories" isn't going to be sufficient to elect a Labour government- and encouraged the continuing, toxic, divisive and utterly indefensible war the Labour Right is carrying on against his predecessor.

Is this not proof, to one and all, that there is no reason for the battle to anathemize Labour's former leader to go on, that Starmer should just tell everybody in his party to leave that former leader alone and focus solely on attacking the Tory government?

NDPP

Ken Burch wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Corbyn never made a strong defence. He folded like a cheap suit. Not the only time either. Sir Starmer has simply dropped pretenses. Just another no difference party of a rotten, compromised left. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  There was never any chance that a party like that will ever make either a strong showing in an election OR lead a successful revolutionary uprising.

Vanguardism was never going to create a socialist world.

NDPP wrote:

 Not a Trotskyite, wouldn't know, and post from a lot of different sources of which WSWS is only one. But what I do know clearly  and demonstrably is that it's even more ulikely with a UK Labour Party under  Corbyn or Starmer. At this critical point in  history there's no time to waste on such compromised and collaborationist political dead ends. Or their pathetic attempts to court reactionary right wing support of Zionists, Russophobes and warmongers with outrageous and ridiculous positions concocted by Western intelligence agencies and pro-imperialist msm agit-propagandists. Like I said before, Tony Benn must be spinning in his grave...

"We left the European Union due to a massive fraud perpetrated by the Russian State and its black ops...Some people may not want to hear this but we must demand a delay in leaving the European Union whilst we consider the role played by the Russian state in the referendum process!"

https://twitter.com/BarrySheerman/status/1285539524802760704

Hey, why not? Who cares if it's untrue? Look how well it worked for crooked Hillary. New, New Labour's Remain-Redux campaign anyone? That'll be a winner fer shure!

nicky

It is becoming increasingly clear that the intransigence of the Corbynites is exposing Labour to crippling legal costs.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/25/antisemitism-labour-warns-of-cash-crisis-as-cases-grow

Contrary to the narrative that is being floated by some, the internal report did not reveal a widespread effort by Labour functionaries to undermine Corbyn by unjustly tarring his faction with anti Semitism. The expurgated report as leaked to the press was slanted and omitted much contrary evidence.

As well, internal Labour legal advice did not say that Labour had a strong defence to the lawsuit. To the contrary it warned that the party’s legal position was precarious because it relied on misstatements and a misleading redacted report.

The present leadership sized up the legal jeopardy and reached a settlement objectively, not to demonize the Corbynites. It was a painful settlement but it was designed to avoid much worse.

Now Corbyn has doubled down by denouncing the settlement and resurrecting  the conspiracy theory, leading to a further giant libel action which threatens Labour with enormous liability that will cripple it financially.

Of course this is in keeping with Corbynism which always thought it preferable to control an unelectable party than losing control to the moderates. They would rather destroy Labour that let their rivals win.

josh

nicky wrote:

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.

 

Starmer trashing Corbyn?  Dog bites man.

josh

It is becoming increasingly clear that the intransigence of the Corbynites is exposing Labour to crippling legal costs.

Good.

nicky

Oh Jeremy Corbyn ! 

The gift that keeps on giving - to the Conservatives.

josh
NDPP

McCarthyite Witch-Hunt Over Alleged Anti-Semitism Explodes in British Labour Party

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/07/29/corb-j29.html

"Sir Keir Starmer has launched a witch-hunt against the left in the Labour Party and beyond, of unprecedented scope. In the process, political opposition to the criminal suppression of the Palestinians by Israel will be officially recast as a form of anti-Semitism..."

NDPP

Campaign for Free Speech! With Norman Finkelstein, Tariq Ali, Jackie Walker and Others (and vid)

http://normanfinkelstein.com/2020/07/29/022-20119-campaign-for-free-spee...

Victims and opponents of the UK Labour Witch-Hunt.

See also #147

NDPP

(April 2020) Who is the New UK Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/04/07/star-107.html

"...Corbyn spent the best part of five years strangling a popular movement against austerity and war, in a stated attempt to prevent the total collapse of a discredited party of third-rate, right-wing politicians. The fruit of his labour is the election of a backroom state functionary to the Labour leadership. Starmer will make a fitting figurehead for the party's final descent into political oblivion."

NDPP

(April 2020) Who is the New UK Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/04/07/star-a07.html

"...Corbyn spent the best part of five years strangling a popular movement against austerity and war, in a stated attempt to prevent the total collapse of a discredited party of third-rate, right-wing politicians. The fruit of his labour is the election of a backroom state functionary to the Labour leadership. Starmer will make a fitting figurehead for the party's final descent into political oblivion."

josh

Nicky and NDPP join hands to dump all over Corbyn.

NDPP

And Starmer too, in my case. Because it's true. Just look at the  mess they have made of people's hopes in UK Labour by their awful politicking and fatal weaknesses. A plague on both of them.

josh

It's like the whole topic of this thread flew over your head.

josh

Labour’s biggest union backer will review its political donations in light of Keir Starmer’s decision to pay damages to ex-staffers who claimed the party had not dealt with antisemitism, its general secretary has warned.

. . . .

McCluskey put Starmer on notice that he would fight any shift to the right. He said it would “constitute a problem” if Starmer edged away from his 10 leadership campaign pledges, which included Corbyn-era policies such as higher taxes on the wealthy, abolishing tuition fees and “common ownership” of rail, mail, energy and water. “He has to recognise that the ship he is sailing, if it lists too much to the right, will go under,” he said.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/01/unite-warns-labour-on-antisemitism-payouts?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_TweetCaster

Ken Burch

NDPP wrote:

And Starmer too, in my case. Because it's true. Just look at the  mess they have made of people's hopes in UK Labour by their awful politicking and fatal weaknesses. A plague on both of them.

Nothing would have gone better if the Left had broken with Labour in the 2015-2019 era.  There's no way they could have built an alternative party that could possibly have gained any significant amount of electoral support.  And it wasn't an option to simply try and drive the Labour Right out-all that could have done was cause a repeat of the 1983 and 1987 results.

nicky
Ken Burch

It would have gone down with ANY leader who wasn't facing the same relentless and undeserved hate campaign as Starmer predecessor, and with that same leader not being tormented by the Remain crowd or without Boris endlessly bleating "Get Brexit Done", thanks to Covid-19, nobody's talking about Brexit right now.

Look, you wanted a different leader, you've got a different leader.  You don't have any reason to keep trying to justify your past and continuing nastiness towards that former leader.  In fact, since that leader is in the past, you have no reason to keep going after that person at all.  It just makes you look absurdly petty and spiteful.

Nobody's arguing for the reinstatement of the former leader- just for an end to the hate campaign against him and the people who supported what he fought for.  Is that really asking too much?

It's not as though he deseves to be locked up in the Tower for life or something.

Why can you not move on?

NDPP

UK Labour Party Teeters on Brink of Civil War Over Antisemitism

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/55415.htm

"Jeremy Corbyn, the former left-wing leader of Britain's Labour party, is once again making headlines over an 'antisemitism problem' he supposedly oversaw during his five years at the head of the party. This time, however, the assault on his reputation is being driven not by the usual suspects - pro-Israel lobbyists and a billionaire-owned media - but by Keir Starmer, the man who succeeded him...Starmer chose to sacrifice his predecessor rather than risk being tarred by the same brush. As a result, Labour now appears to be on the brink of open war..."

nicky

Jeez Ken, all I did was post a link, without comment, to t poll showing Starmer is doing relatively well.

How is that being "nasty" to the former leader?

Incidentally, the former is leaer is not "moving on" as you advise me to do. He is making reckless statements that may render Labour liable to enormous damges for libel.

If only he would move on.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Jeez Ken, all I did was post a link, without comment, to t poll showing Starmer is doing relatively well.

How is that being "nasty" to the former leader?

Incidentally, the former is leaer is not "moving on" as you advise me to do. He is making reckless statements that may render Labour liable to enormous damges for libel.

If only he would move on.

It was never reasonable to expect him to say nothing when Starmer threw innocent people under the bus by agreeing to leave the false accusations against those people unchallenged.

Nobody would agree to such a thing, and Starmer didn't need to throw those people under the bus just to "distance" himself.  Distancing doesn't have to mean anathemizing.

And c'mon, the only reason you are posting those polls-polls which are essentially meaningless almost four years away from an election- is that you think that the polls vindicate your loud and obnoxious support of the unjustified hate and sabotage campaign against the last leader, a campaign that never had any possible chance of putting a more electorally effective leader in place before the last election, and which itself bore a significant share of the responsibility for Labour's poor showing in that election.

You took that showing so far as to attack that leader, and encourage attacks on that leader from within the party even DURING the last election campaign, even though everyone knew there was no chance that the attacks would lead to the leadership being changed during the campaign, since it is impossible for any major political party to ever change leaders during an election campaign and when any replacement would be doomed to do just as badly as the departing one becuase that new leader would have no right to even ask the supporters of the previous leader to keep voting for the party.

Clearly, if the choice had been to lose the last election by relentlessly attacking Labour's last leader, or possibly winning it by ceasing the attacks and getting behind that leader-there was never an option of continually vilifying that leader 'til he resigned and then winning under a replacement, since no replacement that could have won was available-even if we allow that the last leader was unpopular, it still goest without saying that neither Starmer nor any other all-out Remainer could ever have held the Red Wall seats-they were going to vote against Labour with ANY Remainer as leader, and the size of the losses by that was going to guarantee a Labour defeat no matter what- and it also goes without saying that there was never any chance of stopping Brexit in parliament and if there was no chance, therefore no reason to keep trying- AND it goes without saying that there was nothing either that past leader nor anybody else could have said in the referendum that was ever going to produce a Remain victory or stop Brexit.  Why do you still refuse to accept that?  Why did you spend four years acting like nothing mattered more than the unwinnable and pointless fight to stop Brexit?  Why couldn't you move on on THAT, either?

josh

NDPP wrote:

UK Labour Party Teeters on Brink of Civil War Over Antisemitism

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/55415.htm

"Jeremy Corbyn, the former left-wing leader of Britain's Labour party, is once again making headlines over an 'antisemitism problem' he supposedly oversaw during his five years at the head of the party. This time, however, the assault on his reputation is being driven not by the usual suspects - pro-Israel lobbyists and a billionaire-owned media - but by Keir Starmer, the man who succeeded him...Starmer chose to sacrifice his predecessor rather than risk being tarred by the same brush. As a result, Labour now appears to be on the brink of open war..."

Good.  Turnabout is fair play.

nicky

Ah, Ken, where to start?

You display a Trumpian level of projection in your embarrassing defence of a disastrous leader. You pretend that no leader could have done better but ignore so much evidence, such as the mere fact that no leader has done worse in the last 85 years.

Starmer looks to be rebuilding Labour, drawing close to the Cons in the overall polling and well ahead in the red wall seats lost so decisively by the former leader. 

You delude yourself that Labour will only lose if it opens clear water between its present and former leadership. Yet it has done just that and it looks to be paying off.

As for your ostrich like denial of the antiSemitism issue, it was there on full display. The EHRC verdict will come soon. So will libel suits against the former leader. You will ignore those too I expect because you are blinded by your myopic loyalty to a failed leader.

You.keep imploring me to “get over it.” That is really classic projection from someone unwilling to honestly confront how bad Corbyn was for the Labour Party.

 

Ken Burch

It sounds like you want everyone to admit that Corbyn-I'll use that name once- should never have been leader and to agree that that the four year sabotage campaign against the man was fully justified, even if it meant-as it clearly did- that a good chunk of the PLP ended up deciding that forcing him out was worth making it impossible for the party to win the 2017 and 2019 elections.

You're just going to have to give up on that goal, because it's a waste of your time and everyone else. 

What you still don't get is that it was never a personality cult-it was never about one man.

The results of the 2015 and 2016 leadership votes were the grassroots categorically and permanetly rejecting the Third Way and Blue Labour.  The results were about ideas, not a person.

Why couldn't those of you who were so obsessed with getting the person out accept that the point was ideas?  That the best way to get the person to go would have been to get the PLP to accept the ideas as where Labour needed to go, to agree that someone committed to the ideas would be on the leadership ballot, and to agree that nobody should be punished just for supporting the winning leadership candidate?

And when Starmer got in, why couldn't HE accept that the worst possible way to unify the party was to insist on keeping the anathemization campaign going and to agree to the totally unjustified idea that not being a Zionist, or in many cases simply offering tough critiques of what the Israeli government did to Palestinians, was never in any universe an expression of antisemitism?   Why did he have to concede the false assertion that criticism of the Panorama program was equivalent to antisemitism?  Why did he have to encourage the totally unjustifiable campaign on the Labour Right to actually expel the past leader-a person who has done nothing to deserve expulsion- from the party?

Nobody who wants Labour to be a radical party-a party clearly to the Left of the Tories on all issues, a party that recognizes that nothing short of dramatic, transformational policies that challenge the establishment can make any difference at all, was ever demanding that.

All Corbyn is doing is standing with innocent people against undeserved vilification.  

If Starmer hadn't settled the suit, and if he wasn't condeming good people who've done no real wrong to show trials where the verdicts of "guilty" have clearly been rigged in advance at the EHRC, Corbyn would not have said anything in response to him.  Indeed, since leaving the leadership, the former leader has done nothing to merit further attack at all, and has every right to spend the rest of his days as a respected elder statesman of the left.  Making him into a pariah would benefit no one but the rich.

The PLP should have done the decent thing and let it go at electing somebody else as leader-the voters were not demanding, and are not demanding, that Starmer make the anthathamization of his predecessor the organizing principle of his leadership.

The voters want Starmer to focus on nothing attacking the Tories, not large sectors of his own party.

NDPP

Ken Burch wrote:

All Corbyn is doing is standing with innocent people against undeserved vilification. 

 

NDPP wrote:

LOL!  I suspect Chris Williamson for one thrown under the Corbyn bus might take issue with that bs. Perhaps you should review #163 again.

NDPP

"Read this important letter from Roger Waters about pitbulls and poodles that was vetoed by The Times..."

https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1289469922347634688

nicky

Starmer preferred over Corbyn by 60 to 5% by all voters and by 73 to 7% among Labour voters:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/13/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-compare-labour-leaders

Ken Burch

Here is why the EHRC proceedings will be nothing but rigged show trials:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIrqslrCMIQ&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR2DCajX3Q5hGrKW4DCafapSTa-8j5f_aWP9OL9aaIBDFMpMcPAWUpiNyc

The EHRC doesn't fight bigotry...it has no other agenda now than to push the lie that Labour was institutionally antisemitic.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Starmer preferred over Corbyn by 60 to 5% by all voters and by 73 to 7% among Labour voters:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/13/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-compare-labour-leaders

A meaningless thing, given that Starmer is leader and his predecessor is never going to stand for the leadership again.

Neither you nor Starmer has any reason to continue to campaign against the former leader-it's enough that he stood down.   If Starmer hadn't settled the suit-and, in doing so, agreed to perpetuate the unjustified smears on the former leader's staff, that former leader would never have said anything critical of him.  Indeed, other than that, all the former leader has done since resigning is simply to speak out for the causes he has supported all of his life, none of which are illegitimate and none of which he should feel any obligation to the party to cease speaking out on.

It was never a valid expectation to insist that Starmer's predecessor simply vanish from public life.

nicky

Ken, given the incalculable damage the former leader did to Labour we can on;ly wish he disppears.

I don';t know why you so begrudge Starmer's favourable polls?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

nicky wrote:

Ken, given the incalculable damage the former leader did to Labour we can on;ly wish he disppears.

I don';t know why you so begrudge Starmer's favourable polls?

The problem is that Corbyn did not do incalculable damage to Labour, or indeed, any damage at all. When he got a chance to run a campaign, he delivered a much better result than you or any of your British think-alikes imagined possible. If not for the incalculable damage done by the treacherous PLP and party apparatchiks in 2015 and 2016, Corbyn probably would have become PM.

For you and those in Britain with whom you agree, that would have been the worst possible result. So, they continued to inflict incalculable damage on the party after the 2017 election, to ensure that Corbyn and his socialist principles would not succeed. Starmer was one of the main conspirators, and did indeed cause huge damage to the party during Corbyn's leadership.

Virtually everything you post is a lie just like this one, nicky, but one must admit, you are quite a skillful liar, in that it takes much longer to debunk one of your lies than it does for you to state it.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Ken, given the incalculable damage the former leader did to Labour we can on;ly wish he disppears.

I don';t know why you so begrudge Starmer's favourable polls?

I don't begrudge Starmer the polls.   I wish him well.  What I DO begrudge is your relentless implication that the polling regarding Starmer vindicates the Four Years' Hate the PLP carried out against his predecessor, and your ugly refusal to admit that it's time for the war to stop.

You wanted him out as leader...to the point that you were clearly rooting for a Tory victory in both 2017 and 2019 just to get him out...fine...he's out as leader...

Why isn't that enough for you?

And why are you acting as though Starmer needs to make the demonization of his predecessor the organizing principle of his OWN leadership?

The voters want to see what Labour stands FOR-not who they anathemize.

And the voters don't want what you want, which is the repudiation of the policies of his predecessor-none of which are unpopular.

If Labour did what you wanted, and totally ditched the nationalization of rail, electricity and water...if it went back to Blair's Euston Station militaristic imperialism...if it ditched the undoing of all the privativazation measurs Thatcher and her apprentice Blair imposed on the NHS and renounced the vital need to restore most it not all the cuts Thatcher and Blair imposed in benefits, as well as agreed to keep the barbaric benefits sanctions policy-and believe me, those changes are exactly what your essentially Tory heroes in the PLP are pushing for- while abandoning the restoration of internal party democracy and making it clear that Open Selection would never happen, what reason would Labour even have to exist?

How can Labour possibly have enough people to go out and doorbell for it at elections-something only people on the left wing of the party ever do- if you get your way and Momentum(i.e, all the socialists in the party) were expelled?

What message of hope could Starmer offer to the electorate if he does do what you want and goes back to the pointless obsession with the now-extinct "centre ground" and reduces Labour's message, once again, to "it's enough that it would be US doing it"?

Is there ever going to be a time when you accept that the message of the 2015 and 2016 leadership results was clearly that the Labour rank-and-file wanted- and continues to want- a clear break from both Blair's pointlessly antisocialist approach and the dead zone, stand-for-nothing manifestos Labour stood and lost on in 2010 and 2015?  That it's always been about ideas and never about any particular personality or personalities?

nicky

Ken, Is there ever going to be a time when you accept that the message of the 2019 election results was clearly that the Labour rank-and-file wanted- and continues to want- a clear break from Corbyn’s pointlessly ideological approach and the dead zone, stand-for-nothing acceptable manifesto Labour stood and lost on in 2019? 

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Ken, Is there ever going to be a time when you accept that the message of the 2019 election results was clearly that the Labour rank-and-file wanted- and continues to want- a clear break from Corbyn’s pointlessly ideological approach and the dead zone, stand-for-nothing acceptable manifesto Labour stood and lost on in 2019? 

That's what you consider a valid response?  "I'm rubber, you're glue"?  

There was no evidence at all, during the 2019 campaign, that Labour would have done better running a campaign that treates idealism and the young with dismissive scorn, promised to out-hawk the Tories on foreign policy-in a time when there was nothing to be hawkish about and no possible just war to fight- and expressed contempt for working-class supporters  by going all-out Remain at a time when only the economically priviliged were still obsessed with the attainable goal of stopping Brexit, would have led Labour to any better showing.  And we already know, due to his unjustified insistence on centering the hopeless fight to stop Brexit that Starmer would have lost badly, too.

Can you please accept that there is no good reason to keep relitigating the question of who should have led Labour between 2015 and 2020, OR to keep defending the five year long sabotage campaign the leader in that era was subjected to?

There was nobody else who stood for the leadership in either 2015 or 2016 who could ever have won the trust and support of the rank-and-file, and it goes without saying that if somebody else had taken over as leader in 2016 because thge PLP HAD been allowed to block the incumbent from standing as leader, that leader could never gained enough suport to win an election, because no one who only won the Labour leadership because everyone else was barred from standing-we all know the PLP would, had it been allowed to, have limited the 2016 leadership to only one candidate abs they'd have insisted that it be a right-winger like Owen Smith-could ever have been able to emerge as a credible figure with the overall UK electorate, an electorate that was sick of Labour continuously standing for nothing as it always had between 1997 and 2015.

You rage against a former leader and you refuse to accept reality; in 2015, nobody at all in the UK, OTHER than the PLP itself, wanted Labour to stay on "the centre ground".  

If the PLP was that sure that that particular leader was the problem, why didn't they do the obvious thing and agree that, if that leader stood down, the policies-all of which were and are popular, as even you don't dispute-would be kept and no one who had joined in support of the policies would be punished or driven away?

Since the 2010 and 2015 elections had proved Labour would never win again on bland centrist policies and with the party keeping an undemocratic internal political structure, why couldn't the PLP see that agreeing to that would be the obvious solution?

It was their refusal to do that that left the previous leader with no alternative to stay in the job.  You couldn't really expect him to just go and put everything the left-wing majority of the Labour rank and file and everyone associated with it at risk of obliteration?

Why couldn't the PLP bend?  Why did it have to be completely, arrogantly inflexible?

And as for the present, I started a whole thread offering positive suggestions for things Starmer might do and you treated it with complete disrespect, because, for some twisted reason, you can't accept that Starmer should focus on anything other than making his predecessor a pariah.

Why can't you accept that what Starmer should be exclusively focused on is implacably opposing the Tories and everything they do?  That what the voters want is for Starmer to show how different he is from Boris, not how much he hates radicals.  The voters want to know what they can count on a Labour government changing, not how much it will keep the same in a time when there are no votes to be gained from promising to keep anything the same.  The voters want labour to attack the massive injustices in the status quo not to waste time on childish pointlessness like ranting about Putin, and especially not to make useless bombastic speeches about the Skripals-the ones who weren't given lethal toxins by Russia after all- or useless tactics like moving the party to the right on the issues or in presentation when there are no issues Labour can move to the right on and still legitimately call itself Labour.  It can't gain Labour votes for Starmer to denounce people for pulling down the statue of a slave trader or to make a pathetic, embarrassing show of singing God Save The Queen OR or of going back to Euston Station militarism.

Ken Burch

And as to "acceptable" all of Labour's 2019 policies were popular with the voters.  What policies to the right of the 2019 policies would even have been different than just standing on the Tory manifesto.

Labour can't be different than the Tories if it ditches water/electric/rail nationalization, or if it doesn't make massive increases in social spending and get rid of the benefits sanctions regime, or if it moves at all to the right of the '17 and '19 positions on NHS funding, or if it goes full-on "law and order", or if even considers any future military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world.

And the '19 result proves that there is no longer any "centre ground", so there are no votes to be gained from imitating Blair on anything.

The voters don't want Starmer to turn Labour into the UK version of the Tom Mulcair NDP.  And, in case you've forgotten, the 2015 election proved that Canadians never wanted Tom Mulcair to turn the NDP into the Tom Mulcair NDP.

So if that's the model you want Starmer to emulate, prepare for a much worse Labour showing in 2023.  If it didn't work for the NDP to be led by a bitter, arrogant, left-hating miser, it can't work for Starmer to make Labour do that, either

nicky
josh

nicky wrote:

Ken, Is there ever going to be a time when you accept that the message of the 2019 election results was clearly that the Labour rank-and-file wanted- and continues to want- a clear break from Corbyn’s pointlessly ideological approach and the dead zone, stand-for-nothing acceptable manifesto Labour stood and lost on in 2019? 

if they did, Corbyn wouldn't have led Labour to its best result since 2001 in 2017.  Then came the full out anti-Semitism smear campaign and the idiotic second referendum promise.

nicky

Image

Surely Josh it is time to abandon the myth that Corbyn's unpopularity had nothing to do with the election debacle.

Ken Burch

It matters, though, that most of that unpopularity was unearned and artificially created.  

The former leader you are so still obsessed with demonizing-even though, since he is no longer leader, there's no REASON to keep demonizing the man-made a much better showing in the 2017 election than any of the essentially small-c conservative candidates-Kendall, Cooper, Burnham, or Smith-the PLP preferred to him.

If any other leader had led the party to an unexpectedly strong showing like that, the PLP would either have said "ok, we accept that it's time to stop trying to force this person out" or, at the least decided "ok, we still want this person out, but rather than trash him, we'll accept the policies his supporters want, and we'll agree not to suspend or expel people for supporting him-also, we'll immediately reinstate the 100,000 people we suspended or expelled right before the 2016 leadership ballot we unnecessarily forcced, since they did nothing to deserve suspension or expulsion".

Yet, the PLP refused to do that.

They refused to stop the war against that leader.

They invented the AS myth, even though that leader and his supporters had done nothing to deserve the vile accusations involved.

They continued the insulting canard that support for that former leader was not about what the party should stand for, but was, instead, a personality cult.

And they did all that even though they had no one waiting in the wings who could possibly have been a more effective leader in the 2019 election that everyone knew was going to have to happen.

Yes, the past leader was made unpopular-even though none of the policies his supporters backed ever were-and yes, that past leader lost the 2019 election after four years of relentless sabotage from his own MPs.

Nicky, how can you not acknowledge that 

A) There was no good reason for the PLP, after the 2017 result, to not only keep trying to force that former leader out OR to push for the abandonment of the policies associated with that leader;

B) The tactics of the PLP strongly suggest that it was THEY, not the former leader you still won't stop attacking, who were the actual "Conservative enablers", since they clearly made a decision in the run-up to the 2019 election- knowing that their arrogant instransigence had made it impossible for that leader to stand down before that election- to put discrediting that leader AHEAD of beating the Tories as their primary goal in politics.

There's a different leader now- we all accept that- but that leader does have an obligation not to ditch the policies associated with that previous leader, given that any policies to the right of those would be indistinguishable from Tory policies- and that leader needs to make his identity as leader about presenting a purely positive message about how life will be radically different and radically better under a Labour government, and NOT on your pointless determination to try and force everyone to agree with your canard that the previous leader should never have been leader at all.

If Corbyn did anything to deserve punishment, it's more than punishment enough that the PLP did all they could to lose the last election rather than doing what they were supposed to be doing and focusing solely 0n campaigning against the Tories.  

There is simply no point in your patholigical fixation with trying to get everyone on the planet to agree that he shouldn't ever have been leader.

Trying to get people to do that is a waste of your time, a waste of everyone else's time, and does no good for Starmer's chances at all.

We all hope Labour wins the next election- but the party doesn't need to erase Corbyn and the policies associated with him- policies still supported by most of the party, and policies which were implemented, in some cases, by Boris of all people- to be able to do that.

Nobody besides yourself is this invested in trying to retroactively discredit a person who doesn't even hold the leadership anymore.  

And there was no good reason for Starmer to put that former leader in a situation where his only choices were to accept his staff being despicably slandered OR to have to openly speak out against his party's new leader.

There was simply no reason for Starmer to do that to his predecessor.   None at all.

He should have let the war end with his election as leader.

And you should have too.

 

 

 

nicky

Corbyn’s fans complain that his opponents denigrate him long after his merciful departure. It is ironic then that the Corbynites have prolonged the “civil war” , long after his merciful departure, by releasing a slanted anonymous report claiming , like you know who, “a stab in the back” by party officials to sabotage the election. Anything to shift the blame for the debacle away from the former leader’s myriad failings.

Unfortunately it looks like the Corbynites are intent on plunging Labour into lots of future internal turmoil.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/07/where-the-battle-lines-are-being-drawn-over-leaked-labour-report

 

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
Unfortunately it looks like the Corbynites are intent on plunging Labour into lots of future internal turmoil.

Good. If Labour is not going to stand for any principles, then it is time to start a new party that will displace Labour and the Tories.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Corbyn’s fans complain that his opponents denigrate him long after his merciful departure. It is ironic then that the Corbynites have prolonged the “civil war” , long after his merciful departure, by releasing a slanted anonymous report claiming , like you know who, “a stab in the back” by party officials to sabotage the election. Anything to shift the blame for the debacle away from the former leader’s myriad failings.

[quotes]

Well, when you DO keep denigrating the man long after his departure, what other response do you expect?

Why would you ever have thought it was reasonable for that former leader to say nothing when his predecessor agreed to a settlement that perpetuated a smear on some of his closest advisors?  Why couldn't Starmer just say "the past is past and now we'll focus solely on the future"?

It's not as though Starmer has no choice but to anathemize and seek to delegitimize his predecessor if he is to win.

The voters want Labour to provide policies that will help them, not to focus on imposing retribution on people who were guilty, in the end, of simply being associated with a person the party twice elected leader by overwhelming margins.

If Starmer wanted his predecessor to be less visible-he had no right to try and totally silence the man- why would he take a step that he knew would leave that predecessor with no alternative but to fight back in defense of the people Starmer is smearing?

Labour has nothing to gain from everyone associated with that last leader being proscribed, or from that last leader been expelled and anathemized.  Those objectives are the last things the voters are asking of the main alternative to the Tories.

They want to see what Labour will change-not what it will renounce and who it will exclude.

 

 

josh

nicky wrote:

Corbyn’s fans complain that his opponents denigrate him long after his merciful departure. It is ironic then that the Corbynites have prolonged the “civil war” , long after his merciful departure, by releasing a slanted anonymous report claiming , like you know who, “a stab in the back” by party officials to sabotage the election. Anything to shift the blame for the debacle away from the former leader’s myriad failings.

Unfortunately it looks like the Corbynites are intent on plunging Labour into lots of future internal turmoil.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/07/where-the-battle-lines-are-being-drawn-over-leaked-labour-report

 

Nicky is the master of chutzpah.

nicky

Kind of you to say so Josh

Ken Burch

Since the fight to remove Labour's former leader is over, and since there is no reason to keep the war against the man going, would you be willing, for once, to actually say what kind of policies you'd LIKE to see Labour stand for?

Do you want Labour to disagree with the Tories at all, or do you really still want-as most of us suspect you want-the party to go back to the Blair era when it didn't disagree with the Tories on any but a few tiny, trivial side issues?  When it agreed to endorse the Tory argument that the poor are to blame for their condition and deserve to be morally shamed for it?  When it apologized for every opposing Thatcherism at all?  

Or, to use a more recent example, to model itself on Thomas Mulcair's NDP and become a party that put the ruling class goal of a balanced budget-a goal which has no practical utility in modern governance and which forces any party pledged to it to impose massive cuts in social benefits if that party does end up forming a government?- above fighting for the powerless and creating a humane, democratic, inclusive alternative to the status quo?

What is your view of the role rank-and-file activists should be allowed to play in policymaking and internal governance within Labour- or, for that matter, within the NDP?

What is your view about what Labour or NDP members should and should not be allowed to say on the Israel/Palestine issue?  Do you actually accept that opposition to-or even simply a refusal to actively support and defend- Zionism as ideology, as a(now permanently right-wing and already completed) nationalist is one and the same as antisemitism?

What I'm asking you, here, is to take this discussion out of personalities- since the role of specific people is now irrelevant- and address ideas, policies and strategy.

Are you willing to do that?

Are you willing to finally move past your fixation with a now-FORMER party leader?

nicky

Ken, he may be a former leader but he looks to haunt Labour well into the future through his past coddling of anti-Semites and present spurious litigation to prevent the party making responsible amends for the behaviour of his faction.

incidentally, what do you think of McClusky arranging for Unite to pay enormous legal fees on behalf of The former leader, much to the consternation of its members?

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/hp-sauce

Aristotleded24

You're absolutely right, nicky. With the concern about covid, businesses shutting down or going under, the state of elder care, people wondering if it is safe to send their children back to school, people concerned about the negative health and safety impacts of a prolonged lockdown, the issue of (supposed) anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party is right now the top of mind issue for average, every day people as they go about their lives.

Pages