Starmer As Labour's Leader-what should he do?

162 posts / 0 new
Last post
nicky

Josh, if you meant to say there is no apparent bounce for Labour in the first poll since Starmer’s win, you would be right.

But  in saying there is no bounce for Starmer you are wrong.

https://twitter.com/electsworld/status/1249449028556926977?s=21

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-labour-leadership-ratings-update-jeremy-corbyn-poll-a9460716.html

He has a 34 to 8 favourability rating overall. In those constituencies that the Conservatives gained from Labour it is 41 to 7.

Contrast this with Corbyn’s 4 or 5 to 1 negative ratings and it is hard not to conclude that the public sees Starmer as a great improvement and approves of him marginalizing the Corbynites.

The party polling is so far less favourable but it is likely distorted by the crisis effect and sympathy with Boris over his illness.

Leadership figures on the other hand are often a leading indicator of shifts in party support.

So let’s wait and see where things are in a couple months.

 

 

nicky
Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Josh, if you meant to say there is no apparent bounce for Labour in the first poll since Starmer’s win, you would be right.

But  in saying there is no bounce for Starmer you are wrong.

https://twitter.com/electsworld/status/1249449028556926977?s=21

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-labour-leadership-ratings-update-jeremy-corbyn-poll-a9460716.html

He has a 34 to 8 favourability rating overall. In those constituencies that the Conservatives gained from Labour it is 41 to 7.

Contrast this with Corbyn’s 4 or 5 to 1 negative ratings and it is hard not to conclude that the public sees Starmer as a great improvement and approves of him marginalizing the Corbynites.

The party polling is so far less favourable but it is likely distorted by the crisis effect and sympathy with Boris over his illness.

Leadership figures on the other hand are often a leading indicator of shifts in party support.

So let’s wait and see where things are in a couple months.

 

 

It clearly demonstrates that your obsession with ousting Corbyn as leader was pointless.  And quite frankly, we have no reason to think the same gain in personal approval wouldn't have happened with Long-Bailey had she won the leadership.  

It also shows that there's no gains to be made for the party in the polls from anathemizing people simply for having supported or being associated with Starmer.

Now that Starmer has won, are you going to start calling on him to work for unity by not anathemizing people associated with Corbyn?

And will you finally admit that the Corbyn phenomenon was about policies and ideals and that it demonstrated that the Labour rank and file wanted a clear break with the Blair/Brown/Miliband era?  

Ken Burch

In any case, there was never any reason for anyone to use the term "Corbynite" or to ever imply that support for him was a cult of personality.   Support for Corbyn's leadership campaigns was solely about the fact that voting for him was the ONLY possible way to get the party ever to change-and the 2010 and 2015 results proved that the party was never going to win another electio if it DIDN'T make a clear break with the 1997/2015 status quo.

It wasn't irrational to believe that the party needed to change, and it wasn't irrational for Corbyn's supporters to assume that, if he had simply stood down, the party would have gone straight back to Blairism and the door to change would have been shut forever.

Corbyn had flaws...all of us have acknowledged that...Corbyn himself has acknowledged that.  But it's silly for you to act like he should never have sought the leadership at all, given that all of the other candidates would have prevented any change from ever happening and given that their refusal to allow any change would have made it impossible for the party ever to have made any comeback at the polls.

If you felt that nothing mattered other than forcing Corbyn out as leader, you SHOULD have been calling on the PLP to accept that there needed to be radical change and you should have been pushing for a restoration of internal party democracy.  You should have accepted that guaranteeing that there'd be no erasure of the policies associated with Corbyn and no mass purges of those whose only crime was supporting the man would make it much easier to achieve your objective of getting Corbyn to stand down.  Yet you dismissed all of that, and acted as if those who did support the policies Corbyn's rise to the leadership embodied had no right to have won in the leadership vote and owed it to the PLP to simply renounce their victories in 2015 and 2016 and hand the party back to...well, to the people who had blown the elections Labour should have been able to count on winning in 2010 and 2015. 

Why is it that you never did that in any of the discussions we have ever had on this subject?

Why were you so stubborn and rigid about refusing to acknowledge that anything mattered other than removing Corbyn as leader?

Why were you so adamant in refusing to accept that Corbyn's victories in the leadership contest were a valid measure of what the Labour base thought the party should be standing for, and in insisting that the only opinions within the party that mattered where those of the PLP? 

There's no special wisdom or insight that comes from being elected as an MP-it simply means that you've somehow managed to persuade 10,000 to 20,000 people to vote for you.  If you stood in what was already a safe seat, you had no persuading to do.

Oswald Mosley managed to win a seat, for God's sakes.   So did Neville Chamberlain.  So did a father and son team of bigoted, reactionary Ulster whackjobs named Ian Paisley.  Why should what an MP thinks is the right approach for a party matter any more than what anybody else in the party thinks?

Based on your continued unwillingness to reveal what you think Labour should stand for, you seemed to think the party should have stayed exactly where it was before Corbyn took over-when it had blown two elections it would have won solidly if it had retained or re-introduced any aspects of socialist values at all.  The 2010-2015 zone was where the party would have stayed for the rest of eternity if Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, or Owen Smith-the man who never got anyone to turn up for his rallies during the leadership campaign, which tells you all you need to know about his potential at a general election-and if Liz Kendall had won, the party would have gone to the right of Blair/Brown/Miliband and possibly to the right of the Tories.

Starmer can't gain any votes for the party from going back to the 2010-2015 dead zone.  And yes, he has the right to choose his own shadow cabinet, though he needs to recognize that most of the party and most of the country aren't insisting that everyone who had even the slightest connection to Corbyn be treated as unclean.

But I want to take this discussion in a different direction.

For the first time ever...will you actually describe the policies you think Labour should fight the next election on?

On foreign policy/defense

On restoring the Tory benefits sanctions policy

On green issues

On Thatcher's antiworker laws

On economic renewal for Wales/the North/the North East/the Midlands

On the NHS

on social inclusion

on how it is to define "patriotism".

On the EU(I assume you are still a hardline Remainer-do you advocate pushing for any changes on the taxation/spending/nationalization restriction policies the EU imposes, restrictions that currently make socialism or even "social democracy" impossible for EU member countries-and if so, what would make you think the EU even can be changed?  Or are you arguing that Labour should still buy into the "end of history" canard?)

 

You have an obligation to say, at long last, what you think Labour should be about.

I assume you'd agree that just electing something that CALLED itself "a Labour government", without a commitment to radical, transformative change, would be pointless.  So what degree of difference between Labour and Tory policies on the major issues do you think should be a reasonable expectation? 

Also, why was it so important to you that Labour's leader be the guy who prosecuted Julian Assange and refused to prosecute the police who caused the death of Ian Tomlinson through the unprovoked, unjustified beating they administered to him?  It's not as though the voters will only elect Labour if it has a leader who thinks left protests SHOULD be violently suppressed, or who thinks it's fine for police to assault a man like Ian Tomlinson, whose only crime was not moving along fast enough to suit the cops.

NDPP

Anti-Corbyn Labour Officials Wanted to Lose General Election to Oust Leader, Leaked Dossier Finds

https://t.co/f4H7MR5IIj?amp=1

"Call for investigation into 'possible misuse of funds' by senior officials on party's right wing. Labour party officials opposed to Jeremy Corbyn wanted to lose the 2017 general election in the hope that a bad result would trigger a leadership contest to oust him, a dossier drawn up by the party suggests. A huge cache of leaked WhatsApp messages and emails show senior officials from the party's right wing, who worked at its HQ, became despondent as Labour climbed in the polls during the election campaign despite their efforts..."

Syriza, NDP, UK Labour etc. Why are all these bourgeois social democratic parties so frequently treacherous and disgusting? And why do so many of their die-hard fans continue to support their awful politics nonetheless? The urgency of the times demand the consignment of such inane, pointless monstrosities to the dustbin of history and the redoubled pursuit of the necessary serious changes the people so urgently require.

NDPP

Active Sabotage (and vid)

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1249729345549205505

"The biggest Lie Ever Told!: Release the report Keir Starmer! It was a political assassination and the story must be heard..."

contrarianna

 More details on the leaked report of concerted and treacherous betrayal by Labour elite to prevent a Corbyn-led Labour government over a right-wing Conservative government. The dirty work including fraudulent anti-antisemitism smears to throw the 2016 election in order to keep a moderate reformer out of power.   It includes citations by Nicky's anti-democratic lying slimy friends:

‘The People Have Spoken. Bastards’

Leaked Labour Report Shows Party’s Own Senior Staff Acted To Keep Corbyn Out Of Power
16th April 2020

A leaked internal Labour report now reveals that senior Labour figures were actively trying to stop Labour winning the general election in order to oust Corbyn as party leader. The 860-page document, ‘The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014 – 2019’, first leaked to Sky News, was the product of an extensive internal investigation into the way Labour handled antisemitism complaints.

The report includes copious damning examples of email and WhatsApp exchanges among Labour officials expressing contempt for Jeremy Corbyn and anyone who supported him, including other Labour staff, Labour MPs and even the public....

Reading through the leaked examples should induce nausea; the article concludes:

Closing Remarks

The newly leaked Labour internal document reveals the fear and disgust amongst many figures in senior Labour Party management towards socialism in the UK. So many Labour figures at the top simply could not bear the prospect of the mildly progressive Jeremy Corbyn reaching Number 10 Downing Street.

Where are the media headlines, interviews and extensive analyses of how senior insiders colluded for Labour to lose a general election? What about the betrayal of all those Labour MPs, staff and volunteers who worked to overturn a destructive right-wing Tory government? What about all those millions of British people who voted for a shift to a more just and compassionate society? A society in which the NHS is truly valued, the welfare and benefits system really does act as a safety net for all, radical carbon cuts in emissions are implemented immediately, and in which foreign policy is no longer guided by outdated and discredited brutal imperialism and the supposed need for a profitable ‘defence’ industry.

Is ‘democracy’ so unimportant – or so repellent – that the UK’s most highly-rewarded and prominent news media, editors and journalists can dismiss the revelations behind the 2017 general election with such superficial reporting or, worse, a disdainful silence? Especially given the present coronavirus pandemic, and the ever-looming climate catastrophe that threatens to overwhelm us all, the implications of stifling a rational leftward shift in British society, and the wilful refusal to examine what happened, are almost too horrendous to imagine.

DC & DE

https://www.medialens.org/2020/the-people-have-spoken-bastards-leaked-la...

Ken Burch

contrarianna wrote:

 More details on the leaked report of concerted and treacherous betrayal by Labour elite to prevent a Corbyn-led Labour government over a right-wing Conservative government. The dirty work including fraudulent anti-antisemitism smears to throw the 2016 election in order to keep a moderate reformer out of power.   It includes citations by Nicky's anti-democratic lying slimy friends:

‘The People Have Spoken. Bastards’

Leaked Labour Report Shows Party’s Own Senior Staff Acted To Keep Corbyn Out Of Power
16th April 2020

A leaked internal Labour report now reveals that senior Labour figures were actively trying to stop Labour winning the general election in order to oust Corbyn as party leader. The 860-page document, ‘The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014 – 2019’, first leaked to Sky News, was the product of an extensive internal investigation into the way Labour handled antisemitism complaints.

The report includes copious damning examples of email and WhatsApp exchanges among Labour officials expressing contempt for Jeremy Corbyn and anyone who supported him, including other Labour staff, Labour MPs and even the public....

Reading through the leaked examples should induce nausea; the article concludes:

Closing Remarks

The newly leaked Labour internal document reveals the fear and disgust amongst many figures in senior Labour Party management towards socialism in the UK. So many Labour figures at the top simply could not bear the prospect of the mildly progressive Jeremy Corbyn reaching Number 10 Downing Street.

Where are the media headlines, interviews and extensive analyses of how senior insiders colluded for Labour to lose a general election? What about the betrayal of all those Labour MPs, staff and volunteers who worked to overturn a destructive right-wing Tory government? What about all those millions of British people who voted for a shift to a more just and compassionate society? A society in which the NHS is truly valued, the welfare and benefits system really does act as a safety net for all, radical carbon cuts in emissions are implemented immediately, and in which foreign policy is no longer guided by outdated and discredited brutal imperialism and the supposed need for a profitable ‘defence’ industry.

Is ‘democracy’ so unimportant – or so repellent – that the UK’s most highly-rewarded and prominent news media, editors and journalists can dismiss the revelations behind the 2017 general election with such superficial reporting or, worse, a disdainful silence? Especially given the present coronavirus pandemic, and the ever-looming climate catastrophe that threatens to overwhelm us all, the implications of stifling a rational leftward shift in British society, and the wilful refusal to examine what happened, are almost too horrendous to imagine.

DC & DE

https://www.medialens.org/2020/the-people-have-spoken-bastards-leaked-la...

Thanks for that link, contrarianna.  

If Starmer wants to bring the party together, he has an obligation to move against those who actively worked to prevent the election of a Labour government in the Corbyn era.  

The evidence is there.

The proof is there.

The right-wing bureaucrats were the problem, not Corbyn or the Labour Left.

Starmer needs to distance the party from the anti-Corbyn cabal-the TRUE "Conservative enablers"-or he will have no credibility as leader at all.

 

contrarianna

More from the leaked report from the Daily Maverick:

Labour Party officials secretly blacklisted Britain’s anti-war activists
By Phil Miller• 15 April 2020

Labour Party staff opposed to Jeremy Corbyn compiled a secret blacklist to deny or revoke membership of the party to those criticising “war criminals”, a leaked document shows.

Scores of internal emails and WhatsApp messages show that party officials were hostile towards new members who came from Britain’s anti-war movement. Some party officials also relished public criticism of Corbyn’s support for nuclear disarmament and wanted him to blame immigration for a terrorist attack.
....
When polling showed Corbyn’s chances of winning the general election were actually increasing, a party official said they felt “sick” and commented: “I CANNOT WAIT to see [right-wing journalist] Andrew Neil rip him to pieces over it tonight”, referring to Corbyn’s speech.

On 8 June 2017, when an exit poll for the general election predicted a hung parliament, one senior party official and opponent of Corbyn lamented his surprising performance and said it was the “opposite to what I had been working towards for the last couple of years!!”

Corbyn defied expectations and secured a hung parliament, coming within 2,227 votes of becoming prime minister.

The leaked report appears to show evidence that some of the most highly-paid Labour staffers wanted their party to lose the UK general election in 2017, and that campaign funds were secretly diverted towards candidates in safe seats who were personally favoured by party officials....cludes

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-04-15-labour-party-official...

If the establishment response to whistleblowing leakers  runs true to form,   the emphases of Labour investigation into this report will focus more on killing the messager, ie. "what bastard leaked this to the press!"  rather than the outlandish anti-democratic outrages it rightfully reveals to the public and those who worked for a Labour Party government.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture
contrarianna

And then there is the racism and misogynism cited in the Labour report:

Labour leaks have cost the party dearly – but its dismissal of anti-black racism means it’s about to lose a lot more

It feels like black women on the left are between a rock and a hard place: abstain from politics or support a party that believes speaking out is evidence of factionalism
Paula Akpan

....
In February 2017, senior staff discussed that Diane Abbott, Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP and former shadow home secretary, was crying in a toilet, having just received more abuse in the form of rape and death threats – a daily event for the politician. One of the senior staffers revealed Abbott was in a Leon restaurant on Victoria Street, to which another replied with “Shall we tell Michael Crick” – Crick being a Channel 4 reporter at the time. The response? “Already have” with a winking emoji....

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-leaks-report-antisemitism-ra...

To that particular response Yomi Adegoke pondered:

One can only fathom the level of dehumanisation that has taken place, for peers to gleefully relish in bullying that has brought a colleague to the brink and then contribute to it....

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/leaked-labour-report-reveals-shoc...

Spiteful misogynistic bullying of Diane Abbott and left-wing staff laid out in internal party report

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/h-long-250-spiteful-misogynistic...

nicky

Some of you will not want to read this but this article undermines the Corbynites myth that his deat was due to his detractors in the Labour Party rather than to his own shortcomings.

it reminds you of Donald Trump. Blame everyone except yourself.

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/04/20/david-cowling-examines-cobyns-claim-that-lab-would-have-won-ge2017-if-it-hadnt-been-for-plp-coup-the-year-before/

 

The difficulty in sustaining Mr Corbyn’s assertion that he could have won in 2017 (for me at least) is the fact that in that election, when he was, apparently, undermined by his MPs, the party gained 36 seats (and lost six); and in the 2019 election, when he was in total control of the party and the election campaign and the PLP was quiescent, the party lost 60 seats (and gained one). 

Because the polling suggests that, from the outset, the public had a negative view of Jeremy Corbyn that he could never shake off. He is the only Opposition Leader in Ipsos MORI’s monthly series of party leader favourability (begun in 1977) never to have received a positive rating. There never was a honeymoon with the British electorate subsequently wrecked by disloyal and poisonous individuals within the party: the longer voters knew Mr Corbyn, the more dissatisfied they seemed to become.

Ken Burch

The unpopularity was created by the refusal of the PLP to ever accept him and treat him with respect, even after he put the leadership issue to rest by being re-elected leader by an increased margin of victory.

In any case, the report does provide strong evidence that:
1) Any delay in dealing with accusations of antisemitism and disciplinary measures against people found guilty of it was likely the work of deliberate sabotage by MacNicol's antisocialist cabal, and that Corbyn is totally innocent of the charges that he ignored or even encouraged AS.

2) The emails show that the MacNicol's sabateurs were working to create a culture of derision of hostility towards Corbyn supporters and all socialists within the party-as was exemplified by the wish expressed that a Labour activist die and the indefensibly vicious comments about people like Diane Abbott.

3) Those allied with MacNicol WERE working against Labour's chances of victory in the 2017 election, and given that it is generally agreed that Corbyn ran a fine campaign that year, they are likely responsible, at the very least, for the Tories staying power-there was a huge swing to Labour in that campaign in the polls and, had it not been for the continued anti-Corbyn(and therefore antisocialist) collusion during the election campaign, Labour could and likely would have won outright-which means that MacNicol and Co. "brought the party into disrepute" and did it actual harm.

If Starmer doesn't move against MacNicol and his mob, he could cause an irreparable split in the party, thus destroying any chances that he could possibly lead Labour to victory in the next election.

There is no longer any justification for punishing the Left-the Right are the ones meriting punishment.

Ken Burch

And no, in 2019, Corbyn was NOT in total control of his party-the PLP-the members of whose anti-Corbyn wing are all essentially Tories-what else would you call someone like Tom Watson or a vindictive anti-Irish militarist like Ian Austin?-openly attacked Corbyn throughout the campaign, refusing to stop spreading the AS smear even though they knew they were costing the whole party votes, and in many cases fought for the purely Thatcherite cause of Remain-a cause no one had any valid reason to be continuing to fight for after the referendum settled the issue)were able to carry on a relentless sabotage campaign while facing no disciplinary measures at all.

If repeatedly accusing your party's leader of ignoring a bigotry he has never ignored-while at the same time working actively to hinder that leader's ability TO discipline the handful of Labour members, such as Ken Livingstone, who are actually guilty of it-is not "bringing the party into disrepute", what is?

And why would they not stop even after the election campaign had started, when they knew, as they knew in 2017, that there is no valid means for a party to depose and replace leader during an election campaign-when they knew that even if they'd managed it to find a way to do so,  that no leader imposed during an election campaign as leader, under what would have have been an undemocratic process, could possibly come anywhere close to a credible showing in that election-and when they would have to have known that there'd have been no reward at the polls for trying such a thing?

Clearly, the only possible motivation the people who did all that could have had was to make sure the Tories won. 

And people who actually help the Tories win just to get rid of a leader they didn't like-and who they didn't like mainly because, unlike them, he thought Labour should be run democratically and from below by its paid members and supporters, the people who do the actual work OF trying to elect Labour governments, unlike reactionary bureaucratic elitists like MacNicol-should be punished if their irrational hatred of a particular leader caused them to actually do the party harm.

This is not the sort of thing that you can even come close to excusing by saying "nothing mattered more than removing Corbyn as leader"-because there ARE things that matter more than that-such as not trying to undermine Labour's chances in a general election in the name of removing Corbyn from the leadership.

Even if you had no use for the man, nicky, there is nothing that could possibly be so odious, and no policies he could have implemented as prime minister so thoroughly reprehensible as to justify deciding what MacNicol and his lot clearly seem to have decided-that it was appropriate for them, as paid staffers of the Labour Party, to make sure the Labour Party lost a winnable election and the Tories stayed in power.

Nothing Corbyn could have done could possibly have been worse than what May and Johnson HAVE done.

And since Corbyn IS in fact out as leader, there is no reason to protect any of the cynical reactionaries who did all they could to sabotage him when he still had the job.

Nobody in the wider electorate would reward Starmer for protecting them, or vote Labour when they otherwise would not have done so.

 

contrarianna

Ken Burch wrote:

And no, in 2019, Corbyn was NOT in total control of his party-the PLP-the members of whose anti-Corbyn wing are all essentially Tories-what else would you call someone like Tom Watson or a vindictive anti-Irish militarist like Ian Austin?-openly attacked Corbyn throughout the campaign, refusing to stop spreading the AS smear even though they knew they were costing the whole party votes, and in many cases fought for the purely Thatcherite cause of Remain-a cause no one had any valid reason to be continuing to fight for after the referendum settled the issue)were able to carry on a relentless sabotage campaign while facing no disciplinary measures at all....

Quite so, Cowling's bolded central claim--

The difficulty in sustaining Mr Corbyn’s assertion that he could have won in 2017 (for me at least) is the fact that in that election, when he was, apparently, undermined by his MPs, the party gained 36 seats (and lost six); and in the 2019 election, when he was in total control of the party and the election campaign and the PLP was quiescent, the party lost 60 seats (and gained one).

--is pretty much a bald-faced fabrication, as the report evidence and anyone following the history of the rightwing Labour-connected elite unrelenting attacks on Corbyn and his supporters  before, during, and after the 2017 election. These attacks did not subside after the election as any observation of those saboteurs in place (plus new ones) make obvious, and the pretense that Corbyn "controlled" these operatives is gag-worthy.

Cowling's pseudo-scientific tactic--dazzle with numbers, then fabricate--is in no way supported by evidence. The central article claim is bolded, as if it made that egregious non sequitur true.

When the unfounded claim is rightfully dismissed, his argument boils down to:
"Labour's numbers were down, therefore Corbyn lost the election because the numbers were down".
It's like saying "look no farther for reasons, the king was beheaded only because the ax hit his neck".

He simply doubles down on his history of statistical-dressed anti-Corbyn pieces, only this time with a grudging passing admission he never acknowledged before, "when he was, apparently, undermined by his MPs",  --despite the attacks being widely reported, obvious and ongoing, throughout Corbyn's tenure.

This was a weak timed hit piece to undermine the report it barely alludes to.

nicky

A central point in MrCowlings analysis, and one ignored by some on this post, is that Corbyn was always unpopular with the electorate.

This is born out by the tables in this article :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_approval_opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

The Corbynites are attempting to float the dangerous myth that everyone and everything except him were resposibl3 for th3 defeat. Rather lik3 the stab in the back argument perpetrated by those who searched for a reason for Germany’s defeat in WW One

nicky

Further uncomfortable psephology for some of you. The near miss in 2017 was an aberration in an unmitigated string of electoral disasters under Corbyn:

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/02/29/labour-must-get-over-its-myth-of-2017-if-it-is-to-win-again/

 

The right argument is that even if 2017 was a glorious defeat, it was also the one ray of false dawn in what was otherwise a four-year long record of failure, and that the consistency of the rest of the record represents the public’s genuine verdict on the out-going leader.

To remind ourselves of just how badly Corbyn did, here are a few of the low-lights

 

  • A net loss in Westminster by-elections during 2015-20, including the first loss by an opposition party to the government in over 30 years
  • Finished third, losing to the Lib Dems, in the 2019 European Parliament elections
  • Lost a third of Labour’s MSPs in the 2016 Holyrood election, to finish behind the Tories
  • Lost around 400 councillors and 13 councils in net terms across the 2016-19 May rounds of local government elections
  • Worst ever net satisfaction rating by a Leader of the opposition
  • Failed to prevent Brexit, either at the referendum or afterwards
  • The smallest Labour PLP since 1935 (2019GE)

Ken Burch

Yes, Corbyn had issues with personal popularity. 

All of which was caused, at least in significant measure, by the relentless corrosive attacks launched against said leader by the PLP and the right-wing party bureaucracy-with the anti-Corbyn MPs often carrying out their project of savaging the leader against the will of their own constituency parties-i.e., against the will of those who were responsible for those MPs BEING ELECTED in the first place-

It was an era where you had Labour MPs, DURING ELECTION CAMPAIGNS, attacking their leader and for all practical purposes campaigning for the Tories and the LibDems during election campaigns.

It was an era in which Corbyn could not move against the traitors in his own party and clearly seems to have felt he could not support the introduction of Open Selection for sitting MPs because of the fear that the anti-Corbyn wing of the PLP might try to form a second SDP-a fear that was vindicated when the hard right of the party-with one Tory brought in for cover-formed "Change UK".  Corbyn's big mistake there was in NOT introducing Open Selection and not as soon as it became clear that Change, unlike the SDP, had no popular support, which was demonstrated when none of the Change MPs stood down from their seats and fought by-elections as Change candidates against Labour-as soon as it was clear that the antidemocratic, antisocialist Labour Right had "nowhere to go".

It was an era where the PLP, in its undemocratic arrogance, essentially refused to accept the results of TWO leadership elections, refused to accept that the Corbyn leadership victories meant that the rank-and-file of the party itself wanted a clear break with Blairism-Brownism, and refused to treat the socialist commitment of the majority of their own party with any respect at all.

And it was an era when the most antiracist person ever to lead a major political party in the UK was repeatedly demonized with what everyone knew-and what the Labour Leaks now prove-were false accusations that that leader was indifferent to the need to fight AS and refused to discipline those guilty of it, when the Labour Leaks themselves prove that it was the right-wing party bureaucracy itself who deliberately delayed the disciplinary proceedings that Corbyn himself was eager to carry out-that Corbyn was always committed to fighting AS, it was just that he rejected the idea that criticism of what the Israeli government does to Palestinians, and principled opposition to Zionism on the grounds that it has become a permanently reactionary and oppressive nationalist movement are equivalent to AS.

Why couldn't those who raised the AS issue admit that there was a clear distinction between expressions of bigotry against people who are Jewish, or about Judaism as a series of cultural and religious traditions, on the one hand, and fair comment about the actions of a state?

Why should anyone have ever insisted on the demagogic idea that Zionism was now synonymous with everyone and everything Jewish?

 

Ken Burch

The pathetic showings made by the LibDems and Change UK prove that Labour would not have done better in 2019 by staying with the 2010-2015 strategy of standing for nothing and going all-out to blur the differences with the Tories.  

We can only hope that Starmer remembers that.

So, to get us back to the discussion this thread was supposed to be about, here are some things Starmer needs to do:

1) Discipline MacNicol and the rest of the Labour bureaucrats who worked hard to prevent a Labour victory in 2017, as proved by the Labour Leaks-this has nothing to do with what anyone thought about Corbyn-it's the simple fact that it is never acceptable for people who are employed by a political party, whatever that political party is, to try and prevent that party from winning an election.  There is simply no defense for such conduct.

2) Adjust the AS investigations to drop charges against anyone charged with AS simply criticism of what the Israeli government does to Palestinians OR for expressions of solidarity with Palestine, or simply for saying-as Chris Williamson did-that the party wasn't "institutionally antisemitic".

3) Create his own form of communication and his own message-he has the right to do that-but remember that that message MUST be left-wing and socialist, since a non-left wing, non-socialist Labour Party would have no reason to exist and could do nothing that made any real difference in the lives of the poor if it DID win an election. 

4) Restore every level of internal party democracy that Kinnock and Blair removed, adopt Open Selection for sitting Labour MPs.  He should also apologize to Corbyn and his supporters, on behalf of the PLP, for the indefensibly nasty and damaging way they were treated by the PLP and the MacNicol crowd.

5) Establish a better form of message communication that would include getting the Labour manifesto out far earlier than Corbyn's team managed to in 2019 and to communicate that message more effectively.

6) Make it clear to Corbyn's supporters-a significant number of whom voted FOR Starmer this time-that they and their ideals are welcome in the party and pledging publicly that there will be no Kinnock-style purges.

7) Make it clear, also, that Labour will not go back to supporting the discredited concept of "humanitarian intervention" and that "patriotism" does not mean mandatory support for any war the UK gets into, or mean embracing the idea that there is one culture, one race, one skin colour that is more "British" than all others, and does not require fawning deference to a slowly collapsing and largely irrelevant Germanic monarchy.

I do actually hope that Starmer can win-but he can only win if he takes a positive, inclusive healing approach as leader.  Starmer will not gain votes by punishing and anathemizing people whose only "crime" was being associated with Corbyn, or by treating Corbyn himself as a disgrace who should never been allowed to stand for the leadership and is now obligated to vanish from public life, or by refusing to accept that the Corbyn victories were about what Labour should stand for and how it should be run, not about a personality cult or a belief that one man was infallible.  

 

 

NDPP

Starmer Under Pressure From Jewish Groups Over MPs

https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1256518897202847744

"We warned of this. Over and over. The witch hunt was always headed for the entire Left. And because the party allowed the likes of Chris Williamson and Jackie Walker to be falsely smeared as antisemites, they're now being hoisted on their own petard."

Memo to Canada: Take down the same powerful lobby here or risk the same.

Ken Burch

Getting back on the track of what Starmer should do, since that's what this thread is supposed to be about

1) Starmer should drop charges of AS against all Labour members and supporters who were ONLY charged with that offense because of their criticism of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians, unless the criticisms contained specifically anti-Jewish phraseology, which, in fact, was almost never the case with those charged with AS as a result of making pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist comments;  And it should never be considered AS to call Israel "a racist state", since the whole concept of Zionism is predicated on the false assertion that people who are Jewish are "a race"-which is a bizarre concept for anyone who is Jewish to endorse, since the notion of a "Jewish race" was invented by European Christian antisemites as a justification for treating the Jewish communities in European Christian-majority countries as permanent-and permanently oppressed-outsiders.  

2) Starmer should admit that the Labour Leaks prove that Corbyn and his staff were innocent of the charge of not addressing AS in the party-since the Leaks prove that any delays in disciplinary proceedings against the tiny number of Labour supporters who displayed actual anti-Jewish bigotry were the work of Ian MacNicol and his anti-Corbyn clique in the party bureaucracy.  In addition, Starmer should declare that Corbyn was not solely or even primarily to blame for the 2019 result and never deserved the years of treachery the PLP inflicted on him NOR any part of the AS smear campaign, since the Leaks prove Corybn was never indifferent to AS as leader or at any previous point in his career, and since the Leaks also prove that Corbyn's supporters were no more likely to display AS than any other part of the party and, as would naturally be the case among people of the left, were in fact LESS likely to display AS than anybody other sector of the party.

3) Starmer should make it clear that there will be no savage, indefensibly brutal Kinnock-style purges against the socialist wing of the party, and that, contrary to the demands of the PLP, he will actually extend internal party democracy and throw his support behind the institution of Open Selection for all sitting Labour MPs.

4) Since it is impossible to stop Brexit, and since no such thing as a socialist, social democratic, progressive or even humanist case could possibly be made for trying to stop Brexit at this point, Starmer should accept that the issue is settled for the duration of his leadership.  He should also admit that he was wrong to be part of the pressure campaign carried out to force Corbyn to reverse the party's 2017 "we accept the results of the referendum" position, and that he was wrong to not only push Corbyn to accept a second referendum-a position Starmer KNEW was as far as Corbyn or any other possible Labour leader could go towards Remain at that point, and a change Starmer knew would make Labour unelectable in the Red Wall seats-but the, not being satisfied with that, to start pushing Corbyn to go on from that into a full Remain stance that would have forced Corbyn to promise to campaign for Remain in a second referendum.  Starmer should admit that that push-a push that was never going to do anything but cost Labour votes, a push even the rank-and-file Remainers were not demanding at that point- was nothing but damaging and destructive and that Corbyn had done nothing to deserve being undermined like that.  Starmer, Thornberry and Hodge should all apologize to the party overall for pushing for Remain at a time when there was no valid reason to do so and when all the push accomplished was to help give Boris his "Get Brexit Done" catchphrase.

5) Knowing that Corbyn and the Left were exonerated by the Labour Leaks, Starmer now needs to establish a strictly positive and inclusive tone in his leadership.  He needs to focus on improving message communication and connecting with the voters Labour did not connect with last time-especially the Labour Leave voters that were lost by the second referendum pledge.   His work now must be about bringing the party together-not punishment and not abandonment of socialism.  He must accept that Labour needs to stay at least as radical as it was in the 2017 manifesto, because if the party makes significant moves to the right of that position, it will have no reason to exist.  There is no"center" in UK politics anymore, and the socially progressive, fiscally conservative, hardline militarist voters Blair thought Labour should cater to simply do not exist.

Ken Burch

Here is the crucial point, if all of the above is too long for anyone to read:

The original narrative behind the Starmer campaign, the narrative that Corbyn was not only a failure but an utter disgrace as leader, that he should never have been allowed to stand for leader, that anything and everything was justifie in the name of removing the man from the leadership because of his sheer irredeemability, that he was somewhere between an apologist for and an enabler of bigotry, has now been totally discredited.

Starmer must establish his own voice-this is something every Labour leader, every leader of any political party needs to to do.

But his point of departure must be positive, not negative-it must be about finding a way to better communicate a socialist message while democratizing the internal governance of his party, NOT about anathemizing his predecessor and everyone remotely associated with that predecessor.

They only way Starmer can gain votes is to communicate  a socialist message that resonates with the Labour Leave voters the second referendum pledge and the push to go allout Remain alienated, the voters in Scotland who were lost by the Labour Right in 2015 due to its arrogant, quasi-Tory stance on the Scottish self-determination, and the young voters it is in mortal danger of losing and losing forever if socialists and socialism are once again made welcome.

Aristotleded24

This is a moot point anyways. Have you seen the latest opinion polls? Labour has made no gains, and slipped in London and is now behind the Conservatives in Wales. He is unpopular! Everyone hates him! He can't win an election! He needs to step down for the good of the party right now for someone else who can actually win, or else the Labour Party will be crushed under his leadership in the next election!

Ken Burch

Why, you're right Aristototled24...Starmer is a Conservative enabler.  

Ken Burch

This Twitter feed is parody...but not by much:

 https://twitter.com/TheBeigeSirKeir

nicky

I haven’t checked Babble for a couple weeks but it is nice to see nothing has changed.

Our  little quartet of embittered Corbynistas are quick to pronounce Starmer a failure one month into his leadership.

While  it is true that The Cons are well ahead in the polls, these have been carried out in the artificial climate of Corona and Johnson surviving his illness with good grace.

Thw polls also show considerable good Will for Starmer. His 3 to 2 positive approval rating is miles ahead of Corbyn’s 5 to one negative rating. If Corbyn were still around the Con lead would be exponentially greater.

So let’s wait a bit before writing Starmer’s obituary.

Ken Burch

It's not about wishing Starmer a failure.  I'd like to see him lead Labour to victory in the next election.   What we now know for certain is that he cannot do that by moving the party away from socialism, anathemizing and silencing the left or setting up a bogus standard on antisemitism that equates ANY public dissent against the Israeli government's persecution of Palestinians to bigotry against Jews or Judaism.

And it proves that the four-year long PLP crusade to delegitimize and oust Corbyn as leader was pointless and damaging, because nothing is better for the party now that there is a different leader-that getting Corbyn out was never so much more important than anything else that it justified the decision by the right-wing party bureaucracy led by MacNicol to actually try and prevent Labour from winning the last two elections.

And it's never been about worshipping Corbyn or believing him infallible-I've critiqued him myself in these threads, which is something you've never acknowledged.  It's just that I never shared your belief that nothing mattered more than forcing out the leader the majority of the party rank-and-file wanted.

Would you care to comment on the positive suggestions I've made above about what Starmer SHOULD do as leader?

And would you agree that those who have only been charged with AS because they criticized Israel or are opposed to Zionism should be exonerated, given that neither of those things are remotely close to AS?

The point is that these polls prove that there was never going to be any magical benefits to Labour from Corbyn being forced out as leader, which means that the Four Years' Hate directed against him by the PLP(including Starmer for part of it)was never justified, and was certainly never worth the PLP and the MacNicol crowd's decision to devote massive amounts of time and energy to destroying Corbyn and virtually none to what they were supposed to be focusing on, which was getting the Tories out of power so that everything they've done can be undone.

nicky

Since you ask Ken, I personally think that Starmer has to put more conspicuous distance between himself and the electoral poison that is Corbyn.

He has been doing so to some extent quietly and behind the scenes. He has removed some of the crazies from the shadow cabinet and is replenishing the NEC. The departure of Fornby is enormously salutary but Starmer must make sure somehow that her replacement is not some Unite troglodyte.

I hope you agree.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

nicky wrote:

I haven’t checked Babble for a couple weeks but it is nice to see nothing has changed.

One thing that had changed was that the stink of Third Way bullshit had abated considerably while you were gone. Sorry to have to smell your rotten ideas again.

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
Since you ask Ken, I personally think that Starmer has to put more conspicuous distance between himself and the electoral poison that is Corbyn.

You've been very clear that you disagree with Corbyn. But calling him "poison?" That is a dehumanizing tactic that authoritarians and fascists employ. So he was an ineffective leader who ran his party into the ground? Welcome to the world of politics, the world of politics is full of these people. When I think of political poison, I think of things like inciting violence or hatred against political opponents, like what we're seeing in places like the United States, Brazil, Hungary and The Philippines. Whatever Corbyn's flaws were, I'm sure that they did not nearly rise to that level.

How many people have died because of Corbyn's failures nicky? Do you honestly think the death toll from Corbyn's failures is anywhere near the deaths from the failures in the countries I just listed?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture
nicky

Sorry Aristotle. Didn’t mean to offend your delicate sensibilities by describing Corbyn’s lack of appeal as “electoral poison.”

I guess you are also offended by Michael M calling my views “ stink” and similar epithets.

Can I use the phrase “electoral kryptonite” instead?

MegB

Nicky, you seriously need to let up on the relentless Corbyn bashing. It's repetitive, tedious and has no basis in fact. Thanks.

Ken Burch

And in any case, Corbyn is no longer leader, so there is no justification at all in continuing to attack the man-to vilify a perfectly decent and honest human being who never deserved the AS smear nor any of the other lines of attack the PLP-MacNicol cabal flung at him-or continuing to blame him for the 2017 and 2019 defeats.

The Labour rank and file do not want the massive swing to the right that you want, and the Labour Leaks prove that it was the MacNicol cabal, not Corbyn or his staff, who delayed disciplinary proceedings against the handful of actual antisemites in the party.

As to the future...what sort of policies do you think Labour should have, nicky?  The 2010 and 2015 results, after all, prove that there's nothing to gain from the party moving back to "the centre ground" and running, once again, on the kinds of manifesto the Tories could just as easily run on. 

And the truth is, Labour had been steadily losing votes on "centre ground" manifestos since 2001-if the LibDems had had anything remotely similar to competent leaders in the first twenty years of this century, they could probably have moved past Labour, at least in the popular vote and perhaps in the seat count, by 2005, had they done what a competent leader would have done and run as a center-LEFT party strongly opposed to the Iraq War and austerity and promising to be a party run from below, by the grassroots membership of the party.  The Greens might have done the same, to a smaller degree, had they been willing to engage working-class voters-and might do so at the next election if Labour moves as far right as you appear to want it to move, i.e., at least to the antisocialist, antiactivist Kinnock manifesto of 1992, a platform which stood for next to nothing and produced-a solid loss in what should have been an unlosable election.

It matters WHAT Labour stands for more than anything else, nicky.  Nobody out there in the wider electorate is still obsessed with seeing the party punish and anathemize the last leader, and there aren't any votes to be gained for doing so.

There are also no gains to be made from doing what you've been insisting the party do for the last few years and go all-out Remain or Rejoin.  The electorate in the UK largely regards that as a settled issue now-especially since the hardline Remainers refused, and continue to refuse, to do the work they needed to do in preparing an agenda and a strategy for changing the EU, for getting rid of the compulsory austerity, budget-balancing and privatization requirements the EU imposes, requirements which have destroyed electoral support for every pro-EU "social democratic" party which has agreed to abide by them.

Now that the leadership issue is put to rest, where do you want Labour to go on 

A) Spending and the social welfare state;

B) Economic revival policies for the Red Wall constituencies that votes Leave because E.U. membership brought them no economic benefits;

C) Thatcher's antiworker laws;

D) Internal Party Democracy;

E) What party members should be able to say on the Israel/Palestine issue without having to worry that they'll be falsely accused of AS:

 

nicky

Sorry you find it tedious Meg but what I have posted has every basis in fact.

i have supplied many links to support my posts. Many more than have the Corbyn cheerleaders who make many repetitive,  unsupported and, dare I say, tedious statements.

MegB

nicky wrote:

Sorry you find it tedious Meg but what I have posted has every basis in fact.

i have supplied many links to support my posts. Many more than have the Corbyn cheerleaders who make many repetitive,  unsupported and, dare I say, tedious statements.

Sorry, calling Corbyn an anti-semite is factually incorrect, as is much of the crap you've posted about him.  So stop, okay? Even if it's not okay you still need to stop.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Sorry you find it tedious Meg but what I have posted has every basis in fact.

i have supplied many links to support my posts. Many more than have the Corbyn cheerleaders who make many repetitive,  unsupported and, dare I say, tedious statements.

Again...nicky...will you respond to what I asked you about in post #85, and other policy questions like that?

Why can you still not move on from your obsession with anathemizing the last leader-especially since the Labour leaks prove that that leader was innocent of the charge of delaying disciplinary proceedings against the tiny number of antisemites in the party and also proves that the right-wing party bureaucracy sabotaged Labour's chances of winning the last two elections?

Why are you still waging a war that already ended? 

The voters of the UK care about what Labour will do in office-not the degree to which it has cast Starmer's predecessor into the wilderness.  And they don't hate what Labour stood for when he was leader or want the party to go vindictively anti-Left again.

 

 

 

nicky

Meg, I have never called Corbyn an anti-Semite. I have been falsely accused of doing so by some of his fans. It is not accurate. You should not repeat this.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Meg, I have never called Corbyn an anti-Semite. I have been falsely accused of doing so by some of his fans. It is not accurate. You should not repeat this.

You have, though, repeated as if it were an unchallengable truth, the assertions that

A) Corbyn did not actively fight AS-something you know full well the man has fought passionately all his life;

B) That Corbyn's supporters were much more likely to express AS viewpoints than those who were in the party earlier than they;

C) That Corbyn's supporters had frequently intimidated  and threatened party members for being Jewish;

It's hairsplitting to say there's a difference between your repeated assertions of those three points and straight out calling Corbyn himself an AS.

And once again, Corbyn is NO LONGER THE LEADER-so can you please move on from the idea that nothing matters to Labour's future other than the degree to which Starmer anathemizes the man and those associated with him?

Can you accept that what matters now is what policies the party stands, its capacity to offer a positive message that brings back the voters lost in 2019-most due to the second referendum pledge-while holding in voters the radical message added to the party's total in 2017(few if any of whom would have swung to Labour under a "stay the course" 2010-2015 manifesto or anything to the right of those)plus finding some way to regain once-solid support in Scotland which was lost by that Anglocentric, quasi-Thatcherite form of Unionism the Labour Right insisted on in the Indyref.

In truth, Labour's support has been declining in the popular vote since 2001.  There issues involved which go back long before Corbyn.  Are you finally willing to move past your obsession with attacking a man who is no longer in the job and consider respectfully engaging in a constructive discussion of where Labour should go next?

 

 

 

nicky

You are right Ken that I have made the points you outline as A,B and C.

you are wrong to equate them with personal anti-Semitism by Corbyn himself.

his failure to deal with them reflects his failure of leadership generally. This is not splitting hairs at all.

Ken Burch

The Labour Leaks proved he DID deal authoritatively with AS- that it was the right-wing party bureaucrats around MacNicol were the ones who delayed the disciplinary proceedings and in some cases prevented them from happening at all.

You spent years endlessly flogging talking points that, as the Labour Leaks prove, unjustly blamed Corbyn for any continued incidence of AS in the party-he wasn't to blame-and that his supporters were more likely to be antisemites than others in the party- they weren't and aren't, they were simply less likely to be Zionist, and there is nothing in common with being antisemitic, on the one hand-something virtually no one among Corbyn's supporters were-and being in solidarity with the people of Palestine or simply in believing that those people have legitimate grievances against the Israeli government.

Starmer doesn't have to make it all-but-impossible for Labour Party members to protest what the Israeli government does to Palestinians, or to effectively force everyone in the party to proclaim support for Zionism, to prove that Labour takes AS seriously.  What he does need to do is punish the MacNicol cabal for sabotaging and smearing his predecessor as leader-especially since what they did played a major role in spreading the false accusations about Corbyn and AS that you still spread-the ones the Labour Leaks totally discredit-and, since there was no possible way that leader could have been traded out during either election campaign, with costing their own party victory in an election.

The MacNicol cabal were the issue, they are the ones who deserve punishment.   In terms of AS, the people deserving of discipline are the ones Corbyn's team tried to discipline but were blocked from doing so by MacNicol.   Any charges relating to opposition to Zionism-such as the councillor in Hove who is being tormented solely because she made the entirely legitimate comment that Israel is, in effect, a racist state, those disciplined for supporting a one-state model in which all live in a democratic system and as equals, and those who aren't even non-Zionists but simply grant that Palestinians are victims of historic injustices, should have ALL charges dropped and be given apologies.

Chris Williamson, who never made a single AS comment and is guilty of nothing other than saying that the party isn't institutionally antisemitic, should be reinstated and apologized to.

And Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein, who are not only NOT antisemities but are themselves Jewish and therefore CAN'T be antisemites-should not only be welcomed back, but all who were threatened with disciplinary proceedings simply for being in a virtual meeting with them, should be reinstated with full apologies.

 

nicky
Ken Burch

From your link "The big factor, though, is that far fewer of those in the sample had a view on Starmer while Johnson is much more widely known and there are fewer don’t knows. It remains to be seen whether Starmer’s lead will continue once he becomes better known."

It also shows what happens when the press and the PLP aren't spreading endless smears and lies about a leader-something Starmer's predecessor never, experienced at any point in his leadership.

There has been no reward for Starmer's gestures of hostility and dismissiveness towards the left, and the policies of the previous leader were and are popular, so we already no there's nothing to be gain from a repitition of anything Kinnock did after abandoning all socialist and democratic values in response to a massive defeat that no one but him was responsible for in 1987.

 

Ken Burch

What I've been trying to say to you, nicky, is that, since Corbyn is out, Corbyn is no longer the issue.  The point of this thread is to discuss where the party should go on the issues and on internal governance under its NEW leader-so can you please accept that the war on Corbyn and what his supporters stand for-things many if not not the majority of Starmer voters, outside the PLP, which itself is the only sector of the party that actually wants a major swing to the right-needs to end?  That "a healthy distance" from the previous leader is beside the point, that what ACTUALLY matters is finding a better way to communicate radical and socialist policies?

Yes, Labour lost in 2019.  We all KNOW that.

But it lost just as badly in the popular vote in 2010 and 2015, under the type of policies the PLP wants to bring back.  So there are no votes to be gained from the huge swing to the right going back to those policies would involve.

One thing that would help a lot would be Open Selection, before the next election, for all sitting Labour MPs.   A lot of the party's problems come from the culture of no accountability that dominates the PLP, where you have sitting MPs, most of whom are ONLY sitting MPs because they were imposed decades ago as Labour candidates by Kinnock and Brown against the wishes of their constituency parties.  These are usually people with no organic connection to the constituencies they represent, who only hold those seats because ANY Labour candidate would automatically win them.   The constituency parties-the people who do the work of actually keeping those Labour candidates in their seats, are usually treated with arrogant contempt by the MPs, since, for whatever reason, the MPs feel they owe then no respect and, well, nothing else.

Isn't it time to begin to ease that generation of MPs- a group which are very often out of step with what most of the party  wants-the vast majority of the party, including Starmer, accepts that Labour had no alternative but to reconnect with socialist and democratic values after years of Blairite autocracy, autocracy that no longer produced Labour victories-out the door?  

Isn't it time to give the constituency parties control over who is selected as Labour candidate in their constituencies, and to be able to be able to hold the MPs to at least SOME degree of accountability, rather than having the MPs act as though the CLPs are nothing but servants, there only to do what they're told?

nicky

If you are in favour of open selections, Ken, what do you say about this ?

Before the last election the Corbyn controlled NECimposed about 25 candidates , all Corbyn acolytes, on constituency parties without a vote. Surely you should be denouncing that.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

If you are in favour of open selections, Ken, what do you say about this ?

Before the last election the Corbyn controlled NECimposed about 25 candidates , all Corbyn acolytes, on constituency parties without a vote. Surely you should be denouncing that.

I don't defend that. 

Never have.

If it happened, it shouldn't have happened and that's all there is to say about that.

There were no significant number of constituencies where a socialist candidate would have lost but a candidate making a big, pompous arrogant show of distancing herself from the leader would have won.  There were no constituencies, where the voters were saying "I'll vote Labour-but only if the Labour candidate is going join the continuing fight to oust the current leader". 

I agree that there should have been no such NEC intervention and supported Open Selection all through the Corbyn era, as you would know if you actually read my posts.  And again, the party has a different leader now, which makes anything the previous leader or that leader's allies may have done essentially a dead issue, and any continued campaigning against that past leader pointless.

So there, I've denounced that.  What the NEC did made no difference in how any constituency voted-there was never going to be any better showing made by anti-socialist candidates than socialist ones- but I condemn in on small-d democratic grounds, which is all that needs be said on the point.

I've always said no party leader should impose candidates in constituencies where Labour is trying to hold a seat it currently holds on the retirement or resignation of the previous MP, or seats currently held by parties.

I also think that the party should not intervene, except in exceedingly rare cases, such as that of a candidate being found to be guilty of criminal or other reprehensible activity.

But that is not the only issue here:

Under the present set-up, a sitting Labour MP essentially can never be held to any degree of accountability by her or his constituency party, and is basically guaranteed re-selection at every general election that MP wishes to fight, until such time as the MP either stands down, dies, or loses the seat.  

Would you not agree that this needs to change?  

That a constituency party should have SOME means of holding the MP they elected to some degree of accountability.

If that MP is moving further and further to the right, they should be able to push him to either stop, or to be able to remove him as candidate.

The same if that MP is taking a view on the leadership they don't hold-whether it be the MP being part of a plot to force out a leader the CLP supports, or keep in place a leader the CLP has turned against.  

And if the CLP has reached the conclusion that a particular MP, for whatever reason, needs to be replaced, they should be able to do that, right? 

An MP should not be treated as a parliamentary aristcrat, above the party rather than of it.

 

The same if that MP

Ken Burch

BTW, nicky, would you be good enough to send me a list of the constituencies where the NEC was said to have imposed a socialist candidate when the CLP wanted a nonsocialist?

NDPP

Sir Keir Must Outlaw Use of 'Zionist'...

https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1262024531365036034

"...The UK gov't adviser on 'anti-semitism' is telling the Labour Party's new Blairite leader to ban the term 'Zionist'..."

As with Apartheid South Africa's it is past time to ban Apartheid Israel's pernicious and overweening Zio lobby instead.

Ken Burch

This would be an absurd suggestion.  There is nothing bigoted or illegitimate in the use of the word "Zionist".  The term simply refers to those who support the nationalist movement whose work culminated in the creation of the State of Israel.  Zionism had socialist roots as a movement, but is now overwhelmingly and unchangeably right wing and ethnic-supremacist.  The State of Israel's survival is not in any sense challenged, though there is little real reason for it continue to exist, as its existence no longer does any good for the people it purports to exist for.

There are an increasing number of Jewish people, especially in North America who do not identify as Zionist-or, at most, identify as supportive of Israel's existence but no longer feeling obligated to give unquestionint support to everything that state does to Palestinians.

Not only that, but there are an increasing number of people who identify as "Zionist" who are not Jewish-especially those who identify as "Christian Zionist" and support Israel not out of any fellow-feeling with or solidarity towards the world's Jewish communities, but mainly because they want to create the conditions for the "Last Days", which require them to support Israel in the hopes of causing the Reconstruction of the Temple, which would set off a chain of events culminating in, among other things, every Jewish person in the world being forced to choose between conversion to Christianity or...death.

It surely can't be antisemitic to condemn Christian Zionists.  Nor can it possibly be antisemitic to accept people saying "I simply cannot support what is now a permanently reactionary nationalist cause, and since that cause has prevailed, there is no reason I should be compelled to support it".

Why should THIS particular nationalist movement be given any more deference than any other-especially since this nationalist movement has won and its victory will never be in question?

So really, there is no possible valid reason to ban the use of the term "Zionism"-it is not a synonym for Jews or Judaism and the utterance of the word is not antisemitic.  The only thing that would come of banning the word would be restrictions on the ability of people of will to speak out against the Occupation of the West Bank, the illegal settlement expansion programs, the relentless use of collective punishment against ordinary Palestinians, and all the steps Netanyahu, who is now for all practical purposes prime minister-for-life- nobody in Israel or Palestine actually thinks he'll step down in eighteen months or that it would make any meaningful difference if he did- is taking to make the creation of anything even vaguely resembling a Palestinian state completely impossible, and therefore also making the end of the Israel/Palestine conflict impossible.

What possible point is there in forcing everybody in the Labour Party to be a Likudnik, to be against doing what is needed to end the conflict and create a situation in which everyone in both national communities can finally live in peace and justice?

nicky

Pages