United Kingdom 2

1322 posts / 0 new
Last post
nicky

You just called me a Tory, Ken.

I have never called you anything worse than that

nicky

You just called me a Tory, Ken.

I have never called you anything worse than that

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

You just called me a Tory, Ken.

I have never called you anything worse than that

You've repeatedly implied that I saw Corbyn was some sort of messiah and that everyone who supported the guy was doing so out of some sort of irrational hero-worship.  And you keep using the term "Corbynite" which is associated with the absurd claim that supporters of the ideas associated with Corbyn- again, it was about ideas, not any one person- were a sect.

And I didn't say you WERE a Tory- to be precise, I said that, in supporting Starmer's pointless insistencewon moving Labour sharply to the right- a strategy that can never win Labour a general election, as the 2010, 2015 May 6th local & Hartlepool results proved and as even the Batley result SUPPORTING Toryism- the comment was about political views, not you as a person.  That's all The Third Way ever was- Harold Macmillan Toryism with trendy designer suits.

nicky

I have re-read my last posts, Ken and don't see anything in them that can be described as negative. 
One of your fellow Corbynites claimed that Labour did so badly in the by-election because it ran a "right-wing" candidate. I pointed out that most commentatirs, to the contrary, ascribe the unexpected victory to the candidate herself whose winning attributes included distancing herself, as did her well-remembered sister, from the Corbynites.

In fact if there was any vituperation in our latest exchange it was in your posts. You do understand what "projection" is, don't you?

Ken Burch

Again, please stop using the term "Corbynite".  It is a slur.  What happened in 2015 was never about adulation of a person-it was about ideas- Corbyn was elected simply because 50% of the paid Labour membership wanted a complete break with austerity and war.  

There was practical justification for a clean break- the 2010 and 2015 results had proved Labour could never win as a centrist party again.

There is no good reason to keep attacking Corbyn as a person- he is simply a human being- OR to treat what Labour's policies were as leader as if they were alien to what Labour's values are.

There was never worship of Corbyn- there was never any such ideology as "Corbynism".  There were simply those who want Labour to be different than the Tories, and those who opposed him because they wanted the party to keep being indistinguishable from the Tories.

The term "Corbynism" has no reason to exist.  There was no cult and there was no bloody sect.  It was just good, honest, level-headed people who were sick of the country's official opposition refusing to OPPOSE.  It was just people who think that Labour only has a reason to exist if it is wants a clearly different future for the UK.

There is no justification to treat anything like that as nefarious.

Ken Burch

And there is nothing you can stand for in "distancing" yourself to the right of Corbyn that's different than Toryism- there is only Blairism, and Blairism has no answers to any of the UK's present problems or any support out in the country.

Voter turnout is massively down because the voters in the UK don't WANT Labour to be another party of the status quo.

Why can't you admit that it's time for the war against the Left?
And how can you imagine Labour can win if it knocks the Left totally out in the cold, when it can't win without the votes of the Left and, under Starmer, when it has no right to even ASK for those votes after the brutal way Starmer has treated left activists?

It's been a year and a half of vengeance, when there was nothing to avenge and no one deserving punishment.

Ken Burch

I'll tell you what, nicky- I'll stop saying you're a Tory if you'll admit there is no such thing as "Corbynism" and that what Corbyn stood for as leader was not illegitimate or alien to what Labour is about as a party- and if you'll admit that there is no good reason for Starmer ever to spent the last year and a half perpetuating the AS Smear and doing indefensible things like having his totally Gentile-controlled disciplinary bodies suspend and expel Jewish Labour Party members for antisemitism- a prejudice it is impossible for a Jewish person to be guilty of.

And I'd like to ask you this about the AS Smear:

When Corbyn was leader, the Jewish Chronicle ran an article claiming that, if elected, Corbyn would launch a campaign to drive Jews out of the UK as the Stalinist leader Gomulka did in Poland in the late 1960s.  Simon Heffer, supposedly a respectable columnist, wrote a column in which he actually accused Corbyn of wanting to "reopen Auschwitz".

I know you dislike Corbyn, but would you not agree that any person with any level of human decency would have to agree that Corbyn did nothing whatsoever to deserve anything even remotely like that, and that claims like that pretty much vindicate his contention that the incidence of AS in the Labour Party was "exaggerated for political gain"?  

Can you possibly, in any universe, defend the issuance of despicable, demagogic lies like the claims Heffer and the Chronicle made there?

JKR

Maybe Labour's illness is terminal and it's time for the left in the U.K. to create a new party much in the way the left transformed the CCF into the NDP?

Ken Burch

JKR wrote:

Maybe Labour's illness is terminal and it's time for the left in the U.K. to create a new party much in the way the left transformed the CCF into the NDP?

It might be time for that.  It doesn't look as though Starmer is trying to get Labour elected, for one thing- if he cared about that, he'd only attack the Tories and stop treating Corbyn supporters-Labour can't win a general election without their votes- as if they are the enemy and as if they not only have no right to have any real say in what the party stands for, but essentially no right to be in the party at all.

If Starmer is going to move the party further right, he can't still claim that there's any good reason to try and get it elected.

nicky

Ken, you have written by my count 311 times that "there is no such thing as Corbynism." I always thought this was a curious statement so I looked it up.

After 0.61 seconds Google reveals 129,000 sites that mention Corbynism. For example:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/03/meaning-corbynism

https://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/what-was-corbynism/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1369148121996252

https://www.amazon.ca/Corbynism-Critical-Approach-Matt-Bolton/dp/1787543722

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i-was-heart-corbynism-heres-why-we-lost/

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i-was-heart-corbynism-heres-why-we-lost/

https://www.compassonline.org.uk/what-was-corbynism-and-where-now-for-labour/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.13001

etc., etc., etc.

Although the definition of Corbynism may vary, it seems that only you deny it exists, or at least existed.

I suspect you get your inspiration from Margaret Thatcher's dictum, "There is no such thing as society."

I acknowledge that some definitions are more benign than others. I will provide one more ( one with which you may not be in total agreement):

"Corbynism: an infintile disorder introduced into the British Labour Party to make it irrelevant and unelectable. It was promoted by a combination of MI5, the CIA, Vladimir Putin and the British Conservative Party. A major tenet of Corbynism is that its proponents deny it exists."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ken Burch

Why can't you accept that what happened was simply that most of the party wanted a clear break with the Third Way, because the 2010/15 results proved it couldn't ever win again as a Third Way party?  That it wasn't alien to Labour but reflects the party true core values?

It's not as it Corbyn-the only candidate proposing any meaningful change, didn't win in a landslide, even among fully paid Labour members-he got as many votes in that group as all the right-wing candidates took .

Also, why do you persist on seeing this as hero-worship of Corbyn, when it was actually about sincere commitment to a set of positive, transformational ideas?

And what, of any of the ideas Corbyn was associated with, do you actually find intolerable?  It's not as though there's any way to run water, electric and the rails without putting them into public ownership, without ceasing to run them solely for private profit.

Ken Burch

BTW, that plot you suggested of all those groups---MI5, the CIA, AND Putin?, Really?-is simply impossible.  It wasn't illegitimate that the Labour rank and file, which Corbyn carried, put someone in the leadership whose ideas had no popular backing.  

If most of the party had accepted your "nothing must ever change- Labour must be Continuity Blair for the rest of eternity!- dictum, Burnham, Cooper or Kendall would have won.  There was nothing diabolical in the fact that none of those people were able to convince the members, let alone the lower-fee supporters that they should be leader- they just plain didn't make a convincing case.  Since none of them were anti-austerity and most of the Labour grassroots are passionately anti-austerity, how COULD any of them have made the case?  And how is it that nobody put out any polling showing that any of the "change is impossible, we MUST stay the course" candidates would pull Labour ahead in the polls if elected leader?  Are Putin, MI5 and the CIA somehow responsible for that?

You have no idea how ludicrous your "great conspiracy" theory sounds, nicky.  There is no way that Corbyn's election was the result of a nefarious anti-Labour plot- and, as the polls now prove, the "we'd be twenty points ahead with ANY OTHER LEADER" canard was and is delusional.   

None of the other leadership candidates was ever capable of inspiring any level of enthusiasm or hope from anybody, since none of them offered any reason for ordinary people to believe that political involvement could possibly matter-nobody works to get candidates elected solely because those candidates back tiny, trivial unnoticeable increments of change, for god's sakes- there was no valid leadership election process that could possibly have elected any of them- would you prefer the party totally discredit itself and go back to the reactionary, antidemocratic process of only letting the PLP elect leaders?  The PLP chose Ramsay MacDonald and Callaghan, if you've somehow forgotten that.

And, for the first time, will you actually say what policies you think Labour SHOULD support?  The polls prove that it can't win by going back to Blairism, so what DO you think the party should stand for?

Or is it just that you think Labour's leader, whoever that leader is, should run it like David Lewis ran the NDP...caring more about enforcing obedience and suppressing grassroots energy than winning- as Lewis did when he refused to allow the party to do what it would have HAD to do to make a breakthrough in Quebec in his era and support self-determination, sneering at everyone who brings any sense of a passion for justice and equality into politics, accusing everyone to the left of that leader's comfort zone of being a Communist-this in an era when Large-C Communism had been extinct in Canada for years- and going on, as your later hero Mulcair did, to lost half the party's seats at a federal election- in Lewis' case, by forcing a federal election at a time when there was no sane reason to do so- or like Mulcair, whose sole focus as NDP leader was reassuring people to the party's right that, essentially, that he would enforce his balanced-budget pledge as a means to guarantee nothing would change- while making sure that the vast majority of the NDP rank and file who want the election of a federal NDP government to be a complete break with the status quo that they would be voiceless and irrelevant, and that nothing they ever wanted would possibly happen on his watch, just as Romanow did when he destroyed the Sask NDP by completely and permanently breaking faith with its rank and file.

The supporters of the policies offered in the Corbyn era are not  apologists for Stalin, or followers of Trotsky- The As to Militant, the group that helped inspire the "People's Front of Judea" sequence from The Life of Brian could never have pulled off the election of a Labour leader who would never have been acceptable to most of the current Labour membership of that time- and those people are neither a hotbed of AS-there was no more of that under Corbyn than at any other time in Labour's history and his supporters were no more AS than anybody else in the party-and Corbyn could not have been elected were there not a massive dissatisfaction with the status quo at most levels of the party.  

And it is absurd for you, at this late date, to continue to rail and rage at Corbyn, to continue to act as if Labour needs to erase every vestige of what it stood for in that era- a change that could only mean Labour becoming Tory, since there is no difference between going centrist and being a totally unquestioning defender of all parts of the status quo- because Corbyn has been out of the leadership for a year and a half now.  

And Corbyn will never seek the leadership again.

So kindly retire your irrational hatred for the man and your pointless obsession with delegitimizing him as leader- he was elected because most of the people who had the right to vote preferred him, and that has nothing to do with any intelligence service.

But Labour cannot win if you drive all of Corbyn's supporters out of the party- nobody who's actually going to work to elect Labour candidates at the next GE has come in to replace them- so is it not time to admit that Starmer needs to stop treating them as the enemy, stop going out of his way to make them unwelcome, and start keeping his pledges never to move the party to the right of the 2017 manifesto and to expand, rather than crush internal democracy?

What YOU and the Tories call "Corbynism" was and is simply a legitimate grassroots movement for democratic socialism.  It isn't run by any foreign or outside forces, and nothing it advocates would harm the UK or the people who vote Labour.

BTW, I assume you'll concede my point that Corbyn never deserved to be accused of planning to preside over a hate campaign to drive all Jews out of the UK, OR of wanting to "reopen Auschwitz".  You do agree that those two slanders were indefensible, right?

 

 

nicky

Ken, I was unaware that anyone accused Corbynof applauding the Holocaust or whatever. I suspect because it never got any play because it is so ridicuolus. If it was said i certainly think it is ndefensible.

you repeatedly ask me why I do not accept that Corbyn won th3 leadership fair and square. I have no doubt he had majority backing in the Labour Party at the time, although man6 of the MPs who gave him a complimentary nomination bitterly regret it.

May I ask you whether you accept thatStarmer won the leadership fair and square with a large majority of Labour Party members realizing what a tragic mistakethey made in choosing Corbyn.

Ken Burch

BTW, it's no worse to say you support Toryism than for you to imply that everyone who supports the policies associated with Corbyn- NONE of which are unpopular- is part of a conspiracy between U.S. and British intelligence and the Russian police state.  You knew that definition was a despicable lie when you printed it.  Are you really going to argue that the intelligence services of the U.S. and the UK would go out of their way to prevent Labour from being led by it's RIGHT WING, by the people who have been unquestioning defenders of everything ever done by "The West" in the Cold War?  Are you really going to argue that MI5 and the CIA would be desperate to keep Labour's current leader- the man who helped persecute Julian Assange for committing truth about what Western militarism does to the world- out of 10 Downing Street?

Are you seriously going to argue that they'd have colluded to keep robotic cold warriors Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham out of the Labour leadership?

That is basically like arguing that these same agencies, in the Labour leadership contest of 1955, would have conspired to make Nye Bevan leader and keep right-wing militarist Hugh Gaitskill out of the job at all cost.

Do you not see the illogic in all of that?

And why, in a world where large "C" Communism no longer exists, do you still seem to see international affairs through the lens of an "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" type from 1961?

Ken Burch

And yes, I recognize that the word "Corbynism" exists...the right-wing press repeat it endlessly...but there was never a sectarian ideology that could be described by that term.  The policies Corbyn advocated were never sectarian...they obviously weren't Trotskyist- Corbyn supports mass mobilization, not antidemocratic sectarian takeover tactics, in many respects his support for things like popular assemblies and democratizing the workplace- things people like nicky oppose- place him closer to libertarian socialism than anything else- and he has never encouraged confrontation or intimidation tactics against anyone.

It was never insidious or sectarian to say that Labour needed to break from the cynical, dismissive antisocialist elitism of the Blair/Brown era- it was actually sound pragmatic politics; the 2010 and 2015 elections had proved that Third Way politics was no longer a basis for electing Labour governments.

And I've asked this numerous times:  why does anyone think it was in any way reasonable to expect Corbyn to just stand aside as leader, at any point, without the PLP and the party bureaucracy promising there'd be no purge of his supporters and no massive swing to the right of his policies?  Why would anyone ever have thought it was valid to EXPECT him to do that, especially since the indefensibly vicious and antidemocratic behavior of Starmer as leader has vindicated all the fears he would have had that his supporters, a large group of good, decent people whose only real crime was having a vision of a better world and defending it under withering and nasty attack, would not only be purged but SLANDERED with false accusations that they were a hotbed of a form of bigotry virtually none of them had ever come close to holding?

I WANT Labour to win the next election.  But it CAN'T win it if Starmer drags the party back to Blairism as he now seems committed to doing.  NO one under 45 will vote Labour if it goes back to Blairism- there's no such thing in the UK as any significant number of young prowar, pro-austerity antisocialist centrists- and the overwhelming majority of bitter, spiteful, cynical, idealism-hating "we don't like peace campaigners 'round here" types are never going to vote anything but Tory, Farage, or BNP.  People like the kind of people Starmer is trying to appease with his right-wing nastiness have never agreed with anything Labour stands for and would never vote Labour- and he's not going to make people in the North who deserted the party solely over Starmer's pointless push to make the party go Remain- a position that will always outrage the vast majority of Red Wall voters- are not going to be won back by a purge of young socialists or making a fetish of the flag OR acting as though AS is the most prevalent prejudice in the UK when it's actually the least-held, or that AS is the only form of prejudice that matters.

The reason Labour almost lost in Batley & Old Spen was that Keir refused to speak out against Islamophobia, and refused to denounce the Labour staffer who slandered Muslim voters by claiming, with no justification at all, that they OPPOSE the idea of fighting AS.  THAT is why Galloway, a reactionary opportunist who had no previous connection to the constituency, took 20 percent of the vote.  If Galloway hadn't run, it goes without saying that that vote would have been cast for essentially any party OTHER than Labour, and the fact that it is is all Keir's fault.

If Keir wants to win, he needs to admit that the Left isn't the enemy, needs to stop pushing the party to the right- again, the 2010/15 results prove that the voters don't want Labour to be anywhere close to the Blair zone- and he needs to stop treating idealism and passionate commitment to social change as if those concepts are reprehensible.  They aren't, and they aren't hated.  And the voters now care solely about what Labour will stand FOR- not how much longer Keir carries on his pointless, unjustified vendetta against his predecessor.  Keir hates Corbyn...you hate Corbyn...but it's time to move on and admit that Corbyn isn't the point.

Labour is not going to be rewarded at the polls by moving right and returning to antidemocratic elitism.

nicky

Oh Ken, you have no sense of irony do you?
 

It is doubtful than there was any coordinated plot by the Cons, Mi5, the KGB successor and the CIA to install Corbyn. 
 

What is absolutely clear is that the enemies of the Labour Party were delighted that Labour chose such an unelectable nonentity. Greater damage could not have been done to the Labour Party were there such a plot.

In fact, you will remember that there was much evidence that many Conservative members temporarily joined Labour to vote for Corbyn as leader and thereby cripple Labour's prospects.

In the meantime, you have not answered my question to you:

May I ask you whether you accept that Starmer won the leadership fair and square with a large majority of Labour Party members realizing what a tragic mistake they made in choosing Corbyn.

 

nicky
josh

Nothing new.  Labour's right would rather fight other Labour members than fight the Tories.

NDPP

Detective Sgt Nick Bailey has announced not another word on Novichok and the Skripal Case

http://johnhelmer.net/detective-sgt-nick-bailey-has-announced-not-anothe...

"Following a 74-minute podcast published on June 25, and then a 51-minute podcast on June 30, in which Bailey provided surprise evidence that he had not been poisoned by Novichok at all, he announced last Friday, July 1, that his tongue is tied, lips sealed. There is more evidence in what Bailey said in the two broadcasts, which directly contradicts the official British narrative of a Russian assassination attempt using a nerve agent..."

NDPP

George Galloway, MOATS, (Ep 107)

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1411745675008749571

"Labour in total chaos..."

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Oh Ken, you have no sense of irony do you?
 

It is doubtful than there was any coordinated plot by the Cons, Mi5, the KGB successor and the CIA to install Corbyn. 
 

What is absolutely clear is that the enemies of the Labour Party were delighted that Labour chose such an unelectable nonentity. Greater damage could not have been done to the Labour Party were there such a plot.

In fact, you will remember that there was much evidence that many Conservative members temporarily joined Labour to vote for Corbyn as leader and thereby cripple Labour's prospects.

In the meantime, you have not answered my question to you:

May I ask you whether you accept that Starmer won the leadership fair and square with a large majority of Labour Party members realizing what a tragic mistake they made in choosing Corbyn.

 

Starmer didn't run by arguing that Corbyn should never have been leader, OR by arguing that Corbyn's victories in the leadership contest didn't count.   On policy and party governance, he ran as "continuity Corbyn".  Also, in case you've somehow forgotten this, half of his votes in the leadership contest came from people who had voted for Corbyn- THOSE people weren't agreeing with the idea that their votes had been a tragic mistake.

And for the record, I never REFUSED to accept that Starmer had been elected.  He obviously was-though his margin of victory was narrower than either of Corbyn's, which means there is no justification for acting as though Starmer's victory counted and neither of Corbyn's did- by pledging never to move the party to the right of the 2017 manifesto and pledging to expand internal democracy-both of which he has betrayed.

I have never argued that Corbyn himself should be restored to the leadership, and you know it.

All I've said is that Starmer has no mandate to erase the policies the majority of the party put in place under Corbyn- none of which are unpopular- and no reason to be obsessed with driving Corbyn's supporters- people who have just as much right to be in the party as Starmer- and no justification for the heartless ugliness he has displayed as leader.

The only other thing I've said- and election results under Starmer bear me out on this- is that Labour has nothing to gain from treating Corbyn's election as leader as something that was a disgrace and as if the policies associated with it have no place in the party.   Labour cannot win if voter turnout is massively lower at the next election at the last, and it cannot win if Labour support and involvement among people under 45 largely vanishes and if voter turnout among people in general who identify as "Left" vanishes.   What happened in Hartlepool, in most of the 6th May locals except for Wales and Preston(the only two places where Labour didn't totally abandon socialism, egalitarianism and idealism) proves that Labour cannot win a general election as a party of bitter, dismissive over-45 cynics.

Labour can only win if it is going to be the party of sweeping, transformational change- if it is the party that gets as close as possible to rejecting military intervention in other countries- if it is categorically and permanently anti-austerity.  

That's what the lesson of the 2010 and 2015 campaigns, the lesson you keep refusing to acknowledge, teaches:  Labour can't go back to being a party that treats dreams as rubbish, that defers to the wealthy and the State Department and the Forces and the police, and win.  Corbyn was chosen as leader in '15 NOT out of any sort of hero-worship, but because more of the Labour rank-and-file than all the other leadership candidates combined agreed with the vision of the party his campaign proposed.

It's not as if, were it not for some outside anti-Labour plot, most of the party would have been perfectly content with the right-wing failures Burnham or Cooper or Kendall- or as if anything but a tiny, dying right-wing minority thought that Owen Smith, the man who got NO CROWDS at any of his leadership rallies and therefore could never at any time have gained personal popularity.

Corbyn's never coming back- but Labour cannot win if his massive number of supporters are permanently driven away.  Nobody to their right is ever going to come in to replace them, let alone outnumber them.

And it is clear that Labour cannot win the next election, or any future election, by reducing its message to "it's enough to just get THEM out!".  There isn't anybody who'd swing away from the Tories, but only if they were promised that nothing the Tories have done since 2010 would be changed.  

Labour cannot win without the young, and it can't GET their votes if it says "to hell with dreams, and 'we don't like peace campaigners round here'".  

I think you'd have to concede that Starmer can't treat Corbyn's supporters as he has and still do anything radical or even progressive if he ever somehow DOES get into power.

A couple of questions:
1) What do you actually WANT Labour to stand for.  You know it can't ever lower itself to the essentially Tory 1997 policies again, and that none of those policies would do anybody but the wealthy in the UK any good- do you think Labour needs to be fundamentally different than the Tories on the issues at all?  

2) How do you imagine that Labour can win without a massive turnout of voters under 45, when voters over 45 are never going to vote anything but Tory or Farage again?

3) Who would you rather have seen as leader in 2015?  You've always refused to answer that question, and Starmer's dismal poll ratings do totally discredit the "Labour would be TWENTY POINTS AHEAD WITH ANY OTHER LEADER!" canard.  

4) Why can't you admit that there is no reason to stop obsessing on and vilifying Corbyn?  It's not as if the man was evil, and it's not as if Labour can't gain any votes by treating him like the Church treated Galileo.  Seriously...why can't you move on on that?  

With great confidence in its liklihood and with great sadness at the thought, here is the prediction I make for what Starmer will have done to Labour by the next GE, if he is still leader by then:

If Starmer completely anathemizes everything even vaguely related to what the party stood for under Corbyn-and moves massively to the right on policy- i.e., becomes Tory, as Blair did- AND if Starmer accompanies this change by making the party just as internally authoritarian and antidemocratic as it was under Blair, you will see this result:

Just as the overwhelming majority of Labour voters in Scotland switched their allegiance, likely permanently, to the SNP in 2015-because Labour's Westminster leadership in that era refused to allow Scottish Labour to adopt the kind of policies an anti-austerity, pro-egalitarianism electorate wanted and refused to allow Scottish Labour to control its own internal governance or even choose its own candidates based on its own needs and convictions- There is an excellent chance that the vast majority of voters under 45, and the vast majority of people who believe that politics SHOULD be about working from below for structural, radical change- will switch their support, as a bloc, to the Greens.  The Greens more than doubled their support in the last local election and it is likely that that trend will only continue.

Through everything he has done, Keir has made it impossible for anyone to argue that there is any reason for any voter undfer 45- there is no such thing as any large group of centrist, militarist, police-worshipping voters under 45- to continue to support Labour.

There is nothing he can do now to GET any significant number of voters in that age group to give their votes to Labour.

And if those people aren't voting Labour now, they will never start voting Labour when they get any older- assuming the party can survive without them, which the 2010 and 2015 results strongly suggest it can't.

This isn't about Corbyn.  It isn't about sectarianism.  It is about whether the current official opposition party of the United Kingdom can survive for any significant length of time in this century.

It damn sure can't survive if it pitches its appeal solely to voters who are closing in on death.

kropotkin1951

This thread shows why what we call democracy is totally broken as a governance model. Our politicians are not thinking about solutions to our problems but rather how to get elected, first inside their party and then generally. Getting elected is the goal of Western democracies and the thing that drains almost all the political resources of a nation. Nothing much left over to solve the problems that might lead to humanity becoming extinct.

Ken Burch

BTW, when Starmer was elected, I actually started a positive thread about him- I was simply offering constructive suggestions that would have helped him unify the party and hold the support of the young, while creating his own distinct identity at the same time.  Why was your response to that thread just to piss on everything I was saying and to continue to attack Corbyn when the man wasn't leader anymore and therefore there was no good reason to keep attacking him?

Why didn't you just engage what I posted there?

It's hardly as if Starmer's refusal to be the sort of leader he was elected to be- a unifying but still clearly socialist-and therefore left-wing- leader has done the party any good in or at the polls.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

A left-wing view of developments in the Labour Party:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/04/labour-batley-and-spen-byelection-keir-starmer

 

The argument there is largely valid.  Starmer would have Labour in a much stronger position in the polls if, rather than obsessing on driving out socialists and anathemizing his predecessor, he had focused mainly on articulating a socialist vision of the future-most people neither love NOR hate Corbyn, most people AREN'T obsessed with seeing all Corbyn supporters kicked out of the party- and they aren't basing their choices on the next election on how pointlessly nasty Starmer is willing to be towards his party's own core supporters.

Starmer HAS to start articulating a vision soon, if not yesterday- and the vision has to be radical, transformative and inspirational.  The voters want to know what he's going to DO, not what he's going to renounce or who he's going to punish.  And they don't want a Starmer government to be the political equivalent of a Tony Blair tribute band.

NDPP

re: #1223

And some enthusiasts among their favoured political party's respective fandoms, quite deliberately close their eyes to their 'team's all too obvious demerits and  openly opine the best strategies to fool the rest of the citizenry into getting them elected. It's a further sign of a deep political corruption in western bourgeois politics and akin to watching livestock cheering on the meat farmers. Of course it all becomes easier when you have no 'skin in the game.'

Ken Burch

kropotkin1951 wrote:

This thread shows why what we call democracy is totally broken as a governance model. Our politicians are not thinking about solutions to our problems but rather how to get elected, first inside their party and then generally. Getting elected is the goal of Western democracies and the thing that drains almost all the political resources of a nation. Nothing much left over to solve the problems that might lead to humanity becoming extinct.

True.  Just getting "our side" into power is never an answer for anything.  

Ken Burch

Jess Phillips, the face of the new, far-right British Labour Party, the one that cares about nothing but what reactionaries who'd never vote anything but Tory support, spreads a transphobic lie on social media:  Jess Phillips MP Helps Spread a Transphobic Conspiracy Theory | by Gemma Stone | An Injustice! (aninjusticemag.com)

 

nicky

Not great but on the mend and still way better than you know who:

Mike Smithson

@MSmithsonPB

·

8h

For the first time in months Johnson drops below Starmer in the latest

@OpiniumResearch

approval ratings Johnson Net -8 Starmer Net -7

 

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Not great but on the mend and still way better than you know who:

Mike Smithson

@MSmithsonPB

·

8h

For the first time in months Johnson drops below Starmer in the latest

@OpiniumResearch

approval ratings Johnson Net -8 Starmer Net -7

 

It's time for the war against Corbyn's supporters to end.  Whatever shortcomings he may have had, nothing justifies driving away tens of thousands of people whose only crime was rejecting the idea that war, greed and austerity things Labour HAS to embrace as permanent facts of life.

Starmer has not only alienated the Left-half the Left members of the party voted for him in the leadership race- but he has now alienated Muslim voters- without whom Labour cannot win, just as it cannot win if it drives everyone who identifies as a socialist out of the party-leaving behind only those who don't care about creating a decent life for working class people and who don't disagree with the Tories on the idea that the poor should be shamed and blamed for their own condition.  He has also lost the party the support of many if not most voters of colour, and Labour can't win if THEY stay away from the polls.  Now, for some bizarre reason, he has alienated voters of Irish descent in the UK(there are about 500,000) and needlessly stirred up tensions in Northern Ireland by coming out against Irish reunification and doing so over the weekend of the "Marching Season" in N.I.- a weekend in which fanatical, bigoted "Pro-British" Ulster Unionists hold pointless, arrogant, marches in support of the Protestant victory in the Battle of the Boyne in the late 17th Century.

He's not only not gaining any new support for the party by telling the Left to go to hell, he is not gaining any new support by letting his party's senior advisors falsely accuse Muslim voters of not opposing antisemitism, he is not gaining any new voters by making it clear to Muslims or other voters of colour that he considers antisemitism, a form of bigotry that's been virtually extinct in the UK for decades and one that all the groups he has alienated Labour from oppose just as much as he does, is the ONLY form of bigotry he cares about and the only one he will allow Labour to speak up against.

By the next election, Labour won't be supporting nationalization of water, electric or the rails(in other words, its position on utilities will be identical to the Tories) it won't be in any sense antiwar (in other words, it's foreign policy will be identical to the Tories) it won't be anti-austerity(it will support balanced budgets and therefore be identical to the Tories on poverty and all other domestic issues) and it will lower itself once again to pledging to keep Thatcher's antiworker laws on the books-and those won't be a separate party from the Tories on anything.

The result of all of this is that, by the next election, no one who currently votes Labour will have any valid reason for continuing to do so-as a centre party, Labour will not be distinguishable from the Tories- it will have abandoned its long-standing core value that the party should be a place where the voice of the party membership actually matters- and there is a good chance that the party will die out.

Why do you want that, nicky?

Why do you want the UK to be a country where no change from the status quo- no aspect of which can be humanized in any way at all- is possible?

And why do you keep lashing out at Corbyn when you've got no good reason to do so?

He's not coming back...and as I've repeatedly pointed out, the 2010 and 2015 results prove that Labour will never win another election on the kind of policies you'd have it stand on-policies that are not in any sense different from the Tories at all, because there is no difference between anything Jess Phillips or Tom Mulcair supports and what Boris Johnson or whoever succeeds him supports.

Are you EVER going to move on from your utterly pointless obsession with Corbyn?
From blaming him for everything that happened on his watch, including the endless sabotage his right-wing MPs inflicted on him, including Starmer's bloodyminded revival of the already-settled issue of Brexit when there was no decent reason to bring that back and no chance that the allout Remain(and therefore allout anti-worker) position could ever have produced a Labour victory?

Why can't you admit that it's enough that Corbyn stood aside over a year and a half ago?

Why can't you admit that there is no chance Starmer's war against Corbyn's supporters can ever win any increase in support for the party?

And why can't you admit that the votes Labour needs to win are to be found in the groups Starmer has gone out of his way to alienate and distance the party from- that there is no chance Labour could ever get the votes of people who hate those groups-who hate not only leftists, but all people of colour and apparently the Irish as well?

What is the point of trying to win the votes of people who would never vote Labour and never did in the past?

 

nicky

I only pointed out that Starmer's numbers have started to improve.

Ken, I am beginning to think that you actually believe that Corbyn was not a huge electoral liability for Labour. Do you actually believe that?
 

You may even disagree with me that Labour's route back to power involves establishing substantial distance from Corbyn, the architect of the worst Labour defeat since the '30s.

It is no coincidence that Labour made up substantial ground in the Batley by-election by running a candidate who opposed Corbyn's leadership

 

nicky

I only pointed out that Starmer's numbers have started to improve.

Ken, I am beginning to think that you actually believe that Corbyn was not a huge electoral liability for Labour. Do you actually believe that?
 

You may even disagree with me that Labour's route back to power involves establishing substantial distance from Corbyn, the architect of the worst Labour defeat since the '30s.

It is no coincidence that Labour made up substantial ground in the Batley by-election by running a candidate who opposed Corbyn's leadership

 

JKR

Starmer: PM comments on racism following footballer abuse “ring hollow”; Labour List; Elliot Chappell; July 12, 2021

----------------

Keir Starmer has declared that Boris Johnson’s comments on the racist abuse of England football players following the Euros final defeat on Sunday “ring hollow” after his failure to condemn fans booing the squad taking the knee. 

In an interview this afternoon, the Labour leader described the racist abuse received by Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka, as “absolutely appalling” and said it should be “called out in the strongest possible terms”.

----------------

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

I only pointed out that Starmer's numbers have started to improve.

Ken, I am beginning to think that you actually believe that Corbyn was not a huge electoral liability for Labour. Do you actually believe that?
 

You may even disagree with me that Labour's route back to power involves establishing substantial distance from Corbyn, the architect of the worst Labour defeat since the '30s.

It is no coincidence that Labour made up substantial ground in the Batley by-election by running a candidate who opposed Corbyn's leadership

 

Here is my point:

If substanstial differences needed to be established, they were established by electing someone else as leader- there never needed to be a purge of everyone associated with Corbyn and the policies- none of which were unpopular and all of which Starmer pledged to keep- didn't need to be abandoned- and the May 6th and Hartlepool results prove that Labour can't gain votes by moving to the right on policy and treating those who elected him leader- a number which included 50% of paid party members in 2015 AND an increased majority of the Labour selectorate overall- as the enemy.

The fact that Starmer has a personal approval rating that is one percent LESS negative than Boris is hardly a ringing endorsement of the year or relentless, unjustified nastiness Starmer has inflicted.

Yes, Corbyn did not lead Labour to victory in 2019-though even you would have to concede he did better than any of the militarist austerity freaks who stood against him in 2015 and in the unnecessary, unjustified second leadership race in 2016 would have done- and yes, Labour lost solidly in 2019 and Corbyn was leader-though that cannot be blamed entirely or even mainly on him; the sabateurs and the spreaders of the completely unjustified AS Smear had a lot to do with it, as did Starmer's inconprehensible and reactionary decision to push for Labour to go allout Remain-including his insistence on fighting for a second referendum before the election when he KNEW there were never going to be the votes for it in parliament and when he KNEW that oushing for the second referendum could only guarantee a wipeout in the Labour heartlands, with no gains for the party anywhere else under any leader, no matter when the next election was held- all played major roles in causing the defeat.

Yes, Corbyn did not win- no one denies the obvious.

But for the love of god, he hasn't been leader for a year and a half now and, unlike you, most of the British electorate are NOT obsessed with turning Labour into the party it would have been if Corbyn had never been leader- a party that was no longer distinguishable from the Tories- as has been repeatedly proved, Toryism and Blairism are only different on a handful of trivial side issues that make no difference in anyone's lives- and a party that, as the 2010 and 2015 elections proved, was never going to be electable on the policies YOU want it to revert to.

There is no reason for you to keep demanding that everyone agree Corbyn should never have been leader, so stop demanding that.  Supporting him was not the equivalent of a medieval heresy and he and his supporters NEVER deserved the five years of unrelenting misery, vilification and sabotage those of you on the far right of whatever "social democracy" even means anymore- essentially, it means nothing but the delusion that austerity capitalism can somehow be made humane without asking the wealthy to pay anymore taxes- inflicted on them.

Also, in case you've forgotten, Labour's vote share fell in Batley & Old Spen from the last elections in which Corbyn led it- so no, the candidate who narrowly held it did not make gains at all.  She simply held onto just enough of the Labour vote to just barely scrape through.

Ken Burch

These are the two key facts:

1) Labour has no justification for its existence if it once again ceases to be socialist and once again becomes indistinguishable from the Tories on spending, economic policy, and defense;

2) It is clear that, even though the polls, the byelection results and the May local/Scottish/Welsh elections prove that the voters don't WANT Labour to swing massively to the right- to what quasi-Tories such as Phillips and Mandelson want- btw, can you explain to me why Jess Phillips hasn't just crossed over to the Tory bench and had done with it?  She has clearly never supported any of Labour's core socialist values- and yet Starmer, in defiance of reality, seems to be bound and determined to turn Labour into the second Tory party no one in the actual UK wants it to become;

3) It is clear that, since though the majority of the party- a majority which including the half of all left-wingers who voted to elect him leader, never wanted a massive swing to the right on policy, and that Starmer, having only been elected by promising no massive rightward swing- his 10 pledges were clearly a commitment to keep the party socialist and antimilitarist- he has an obligation to respect the convictions of that majority(It is also clear that the half of all left-wingers who voted for Starmer, who ran for the leadership promising to keep the party left-wing- were not voting for him as an act of repentance for having supported the policies associated with Corbyn);

4) It is clear that Keir cannot lead Labour to victory by carrying on a campaign of scorched earth vengeance against not only Corbyn himself- who never did anything to Starmer to justify his personal treatment of the man- but against Corbyn's SUPPORTERS.  It is clear that it wasn't evil for people to support Corbyn's leadership campaign, and it's not Corbyn's fault that the PLP- if they were that bound and determined to get Corbyn to stand down before the 2019 election- even you would have to concede there was no reason for them to KEEP trying to force him out before the 2017 election, especially since it is clear they had no better alternative leader to offer and there wasn't going to be any surge to Labour in the polls if the party once again lowered itself to the 1997-2010 policies- that they refused to do the three things that would have been most likely to persuade him to do so- 

A) Promise there'd be no swing to the right on policy-remember, the 2010 and 2015 results prove there were no policies to the right of those associated with Corbyn's supporters that would have won more votes for Labour at the polls, and remember also that none of the actual policies themselves were unpopular;

B) Promise there'd be no purge of Corbyn's supporters and no fight to drive Momentum out of the party- Momentum was not Militant- it was and is a broadbased democratic socialist organization and none of what it supports is actually unpopular or electorally damaging;

C) Accept Open Selection for all sitting Labour MPs- there is no reason, after all, for MPs who are only in their seats because they were imposed by Kinnock or Blair decades ago- and that's every "moderate" Labour MP right there- should be able to simply count on automatic re-selection for life no matter what their constituency party thinks of them or whether they show any respect for what that constituency party stands for or the work it does to keep the MPs in office- and every MP depends on that work; there is no right-wing Labour MP anywhere in the UK who holds their seat solely out of personal popularity or is the ONLY possible person who could win their seat as a Labour candidate.

5) It is clear that Labour cannot win if it drives away, as Keir has successively driven away-

- The vast majority of socialist voters and activists(many if not most of whom will vote Green, SNP, Plaid Cymru or TUSC as long as Keir is leader);

- A growing number, probably a majority of Muslim voters, who will either vote for oppotunists like Galloway;

- A growing number of voters of colour in the UK, who Keir has alienated by refusing to speak out against any prejudice other than AS-the least prevalent and slowest growing form of bigotry in the UK and which should not even be an issue anymore because everyone, including Corbyn, has already worked together to completely put to rest;

- Most of the votes of peope of Irish Catholic descent in the UK(all of whom Keir just alienated by coming out in support of the bigoted, right-wing extremist position that Northern Ireland should continue to be part of the UK- a position no British prime minister would ever be allowed to take under the Good Friday Agreement, btw, which mandates British government neutrality on that issue);

And in distancing Labour from ALL of the above groups, Keir has added to Labour's previous totals the votes of ...no one.  No one at all.

therefore

6) It is clear that Keir can never create the conditions for a Labour victory by distancing the party from large chunks of its own core vote, because there are no significant number of voters who would START voting Labour, but only if Keir treats all the people in the above-mentioned groups as the enemy.

The question is, then...if Keir actually wants to win-my view is he actually doesn't, he just wants to punish everybody the nastiest, most out of touch and most ultraconservative sectors of the PLP want punished, and doesn't care if he loses the next election as a result...what is the POINT of carrying on?

I know you have it in for Corbyn...but why can't you accept the fact that, on the basic level of pragmatic politics, Labour cannot win by anathemising not only him but everyone and everything that might possibly have something in common with him? 

And while we're at it...would you be willing to say, for the first time ever...what it is you actually WANT Labour to stand for?  Where you want it to be on the political/ideological spectrum, whether or not you want it to be significantly different than the Tories, whether or not you want Labour to offer any real break from the status quo at all?

 

nicky

Sigh...

It is very simple Ken.

1. Corbyn did worse that any Labour leader since 1930.

2. He was simply REVILED by the public

3. No other leader, particularly one more moderate than him, could possibly have done worse.

4. Labour cannot win an election unless it puts substantial distance between itself and Corbyn.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Sigh...

It is very simple Ken.

1. Corbyn did worse that any Labour leader since 1930.

2. He was simply REVILED by the public

3. No other leader, particularly one more moderate than him, could possibly have done worse.

4. Labour cannot win an election unless it puts substantial distance between itself and Corbyn.

They chose a different leader over a year ago.  That is more than distance enough. 

Corbyn was made unpopular-he wasn't unpopular at the start and he did very well in the 2017 campaign-by smears and lies.  He wasn't unpopular about anything he ever actually did or said.  

And since Corbyn's policies weren't unpopular, they don't need to move sharply to the right of what the party was supporting in those years- and the voters aren't demanding that either those policies or Corbyn's supporters themselves be rejected or made unwelcome by the party.

Labour can't win, in fact, if it DOES treat those supporters as Neil Kinnock treated socialists in his era- it needs those voters and it needs their participation actively campaigning for the party if its to win- Leadbeater scraped through in Batley because left activists campaigned for her- and even though they had to grit their teeth to do so.  What we now know is that Labour can never win another election if it reduces its message to "ANY Labour government would be an improvement".  

Labour needs to expand its vote total- but its mathematically impossible for Labour to do that if it not only makes all socialists unwelcome-there was never any such thing as a self-identified socialist who despised Corbyn in the party-but keeps smearing Muslim voters as NOT opposed to antisemitism- in truth, they oppose it as much as anyone else in the UK does, just as much as Starmer himself supposedly does- if it sends the message to voters of color that it doesn't care about any form of bigotry OTHER than the nearly non-existent form of hate(in the UK) known as AS, and if, as Starmer, it alienates all voters of Irish Catholic descent in mainland Britain by coming out specifically in support of keeping Northern Ireland part of Britain.

There simply aren't any large blocs of voters who hate ALL of the above groups who are non-reactionary enough to vote Labour, so there's no point in trying to appease people who are that nasty.

Corbyn is never going to be leader again...but Labour cannot win if Keir distances the party from not only all of his supporters but all the other groups I listed above.  The groups I mentioned there together comprise something like 15%-20% of the UK electorate- and they are a sector Labour cannot win without-especially since we already know Keir cannot make any gains in Scotland by moving the party back to Blairism and by keeping it in the right-wing "Better Together" alignment on nationalism vs. Unionism rather than allowing Scottish Labour to take a distinctly Scottish AND distinctly Labour set of positions.

The voters aren't demanding that Labour show that it despises Corbyn...what they actually want to know is what Labour will do if elected- and they will never be satisfied with meaningless phrases like "what a Labour government can do".

Get Corbyn out of your head already, nicky- he isn't the point and he hasn't been the point for over a year and a half now.  The point is what Labour is going to stand for- and the polls prove the voters don't want Labour to move to the right on the issues- if they did, Labour would actually have the "Twenty Point Lead!" we were promised would exist if any other leader took over.

And I'm not even anti-Starmer.  I just want the man to be the leader he promised he'd be- the one who pledged he'd never move the party right and would not do Kinnock-style purges.

Why couldn't he be that leader, nicky?

How could anything have been worse if he had been?

Quite frankly, YOU are the one who is obsessed with punishing Corbyn and punishing his supporters, not the actual voters there IN the UK.  They wanted Labour to move on from that a year and a half ago.

 

NDPP

What Lies Beyond Labour's Red Wall?

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/what-lies-beyond-labours-r...

"...Red wallers denounce the class composition of the Parliamentary Labour Party. And on this it is manifest the party has a real problem. Between 1945 and 2017 its proporition of working class MPs declined from 42 percent to 1.5 percent. Uncompromisingly stated, red wall voters want their MPs to be working class. Aware of this though she must be, Mattinson is a leading player in a team that shows no intention of changing the composition of the PLP."

 Like the NDP, a completely uninspiring circle-jerk. Mushy, middlin mediocrity not nearly up to the critical historical challenges of the time. And so now deservedly irrelevant, probably permanently.

josh

From the article above:

In this respect it’s clear to be seen from Mattinson’s research that Labour’s change of Brexit policy in 2019 was for them the consummation of that disregard.

The biggest difference between 2017 and 2019 was establishment Labour forcing the party to call for a new vote.  Even more so than the smear campaign against Corbyn.  

Ken Burch

josh wrote:

From the article above:

In this respect it’s clear to be seen from Mattinson’s research that Labour’s change of Brexit policy in 2019 was for them the consummation of that disregard.

The biggest difference between 2017 and 2019 was establishment Labour forcing the party to call for a new vote.  Even more so than the smear campaign against Corbyn.  

And Starmer took the lead on that, never caring how much damage he was doing to the party by not only pushing for a second referendum position, but then refusing to be satisfied with a pledge of a second referendum after the next election- which he knew full was as far as any Labour could go- but insisting on pushing to try and get a second referendum BEFORE the next election when everyone already knew there were never under any circumstances going to be enough votes for a second referendum in that parliament and that there was no point in trying to get something through that could never get parliamentary approval.

After doing all that, after guaranteeing that Labour would lose the next election in an equally large landslide with either Corbyn or any possible replacement for Corbyn in the leadership-including himself-  Starmer, once he'd deliberately caused the 2019 Labour defeat, then abandoned his Remain position entirely- proving, in abandoning it, that he had never pushed for the unattainable second referendum for any other reason than to destroy his own party's chances of winning the election WHENEVER it was going to be held.

So, no, it has never been true that the 2019 result was either all Corbyn's fault OR that that result proves that no one other than a right-winger, er I mean "moderate"-as if there's a difference between a Labour moderate and a Thatcherite now- can ever be allowed to lead the Labour Party- the wishes of its grassroots membership be damned.

nicky

Some revisionist history here. Some of you forget:

1. Two thirds of Labour supporters voted Remain

2. within a year of the referendum, Remain achieved a solid majority in public opinion, roughly 55% in the polls.

3. many people switched to Remain after the referendum because they came to understand the lies propagated by the Leave forces and had a better idea of the consequences.

4. Starmer and th3 Remainers represented the majority of Labour voters and, eventually a majority of the electorate.

5. A large majority was in favour of a second referendum. So those who criticize the Remainers within Labour ignore the fact that they stood in favour of giving the majority what it wanted.

6. after the election polls of Labour switchers showedthat 4 times as many people said Corbyn was the reason they switched as said it was Labour's Brexit policy.

7. Of those who cited labour's Brexit policy as their reason for switching half said it was because Labour was not unequivocally for Remain. Corbyn's incoherence on the issue was what cost Labour.

8. the Conservatives only gained about 1% of the vote. The clearly Remain parties, the LibDems and the SNP, gained most in the popular vote. The LibDems did poorly in seats won but they gained 4% of the popular vote.

I guess some of you guys also believe that Trump won the election "by a lot."

Ken Burch

1) Most of the constituencies Labour held going into 2019 had voted Leave- ANY swing towards Remain was going to cause massive losses in Labour's already-held seats.

2) If you lose dozens of seats you already have, that, by itself, makes it impossible for you to win a general election- it isn't possible to lose dozens of seats you already hold and not only gain enough seats elsewhere to hold your ground, but to win enough more to come anywhere close to defeating the party you are trying to defeat.

Points 1 and 2 prove that a hardline, right-wing Remain policy of the sort you and the essentially Tory Keir Starmer demanded was always going to guarantee an even larger Labour lead than actually occurred.

3) There was no way for Labour to fight an election on a clear Remain policy without also abandoning anything remotely socialist or even "social democratic" in its platform- Labour would have had to reduce itself to Blair-style quasi-Toryism to abide by EU rules and reducing Labour to quasi-Tory centrism would have made a Labour victory impossible because the voters would have concluded that a Labour victory, since the party would have to reduce itself-as your hero Starmer is reducing it now- to something close to the utter futility of the 1976-79 policies- would be meaningless.  

Why was it so important to you that Labour adopt a policy that would guarantee it would have done even worse in 2019(or at any later time, since no Red Wall Leave voter was ever going to forgive the party for abandoning it by adopting a position on the EU that couldn't benefit anyone but multimillionaires in London and the Home Counties?

Why are you extending your irrational hatred of Corbyn the vilification of essentially everything and everyone remotely associated with him?  Do you really think that Labour lost because it had a leader who generated enthusiasm among the young?  Do you really think that the defeat was the result of the party offering people a sense that electing it could actually make a different future possible?  Have you actually come to the point where you hate HOPE?  

It's not as though the party would have done any better but treating the young like dirt and treating the PLP as if THEY-the only sector of the party that actually wants Labour to reduce itself to bland, militaristic centrism again- are the only voices that should matter? 

It was that sort of a party that produced Ramsay MacDonald- the reactionary who singlehandedly caused Labour's humiliating defeat in 1931.

It was that sort of a party that frittered away the chance of a longterm realignment in UK politics in the 1940s by placing an absurdly high emphasis on austerity and dreariness.

It was that sort of a party that pissed away the Wilson landslide of 1966 by once again, and for no reason, abandoning most of the program it was elected on for useless measures like incomes policy and cuts.

And it was that sort of a party that guaranteed the rise of Margaret Thatcher by agreeing, again for no valid reason-Denis Healey later admitted he was wrong to do it- to a completely unnecessary IMF bailout and essentially starting Thatcherism three years before Thatcher herself got in.

And it is the sense that Starmer wants to reduce Labour to being that sort of a party now- a bland, dreary centrist mess of useless nothingness- that is the main reason Labour is losing to the Tories now.

Understand this about me- 

I do not want Corbyn back as leader.

There is no chance he would ever TRY to become leader again.

But Labour cannot win if the people who supported him as a leadership candidate and who still support the policies associated with that era- policies which were all popular in the polls and which Keir promised never to move to the right of, and especially not SHARPLY to the right of- are made unwelcome and if the things they stand for-things the majority of the rank-and-file still support, btw- are treated as anathema.

If Labour pledges itself to balanced budgets and to continuing to treat people on benefits as if they are scum- and that's what it sounds like Keir is wanting to make it do- it will no longer be Labour.  You can't claim to care about the poor AND treat them as though they can't be trusted to actually need the benefits they are on

If Labour pledges to keep spending at Tory levels- which, again, it sounds like Keir wants it to do, even thouh the voters are not demanding that- it can't do anything Labour at all in power.

If Labour pledges not to nationalize water, electric, and the rails, it is agreeing to continue to run all of those services on purely Thatcherite lines.  It is impossible run utilities on Labour values and still keep them in private sector, profit-driven ownership.

And if Labour goes back anywhere close to Blair's discredited "humanitarian" intervention policies, it will lose the young forever without adding the votes of anyone else from any other age group- there IS no broadbased support for any further UK military intervention anywhere, and especially not for barbaric, imperialistic ideas like bombing Iran and Syria and doing "regime change" on either state.  We already know, based on Iraq, that it is impossible for the use of UK military force or any military force from "The West" to create any positive change anywhere in the non-European world.   There is no possible use of Western military force in any non-European country that can ever be out of any non-reactionary, non-fascistic intent.  

As to Corbyn himself, the voters are not demanding that Keir make a nasty, arrogant show of treating him and his supporters as a medieval heresy to be crushed.  It's the PLP who are insistent on that and NO ONE ELSE.  

Let it go already.

If Labour goes into the next election with all of the Corbyn policies revoked, and bland, tightfisted centrist policies put in its place, NO ONE who didn't vote for it before is going to vote for it, because no one would think there'd be any point in replacing one Tory party with another Tory party- and nobody there thinks there's difference between centrism and Toryism.  That's something you and Keir and the PLP believe, but no one out in reality does.

josh

nicky wrote:

Some revisionist history here. Some of you forget:

1. Two thirds of Labour supporters voted Remain

2. within a year of the referendum, Remain achieved a solid majority in public opinion, roughly 55% in the polls.

3. many people switched to Remain after the referendum because they came to understand the lies propagated by the Leave forces and had a better idea of the consequences.

4. Starmer and th3 Remainers represented the majority of Labour voters and, eventually a majority of the electorate.

5. A large majority was in favour of a second referendum. So those who criticize the Remainers within Labour ignore the fact that they stood in favour of giving the majority what it wanted.

6. after the election polls of Labour switchers showedthat 4 times as many people said Corbyn was the reason they switched as said it was Labour's Brexit policy.

7. Of those who cited labour's Brexit policy as their reason for switching half said it was because Labour was not unequivocally for Remain. Corbyn's incoherence on the issue was what cost Labour.

8. the Conservatives only gained about 1% of the vote. The clearly Remain parties, the LibDems and the SNP, gained most in the popular vote. The LibDems did poorly in seats won but they gained 4% of the popular vote.

I guess some of you guys also believe that Trump won the election "by a lot."

The only ones acting like Trump are the ones who refused to accept the outcome of the referendum and insisted on calling for a new vote.

Polls are not elections.  If they were, why bother having elections.

The reference was to seats in the north.  Where undisputably Labour's call for a new referendum cost them a bunch of seats they had won in 2017, when they pledged to respect the results of the referendum.

nicky

Ken, like you (apparently), and the huge majority of Labour MPs, I would dearly like never to hear anything about Corbyn again. Would that we never heard anything about him in the first place.

I am not "obsessed" by him as you claim over and over in your cutting and pasting of your thoroughly discredited excuses for him.

I referred to him only in response to the dubious claim posted above that Brexit was chiefly responsible for Lanour's debacle. This poll and several others place the major blame on Corbyn himself.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-result-jeremy-corbyn-brexit-labour-boris-johnson-a9246046.html

You should stop trying to whitewash him. Your state of denial is very similar to Trump's delusion that he really won the election.

As it says in the classics, "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

That is why Labour must have an objective view of the damage Corbyn did to the party and not absolve him, as you do, by deceit and myth.

NDPP

Declassified UK: Britain backs most of the world's repressive regimes

https://t.co/YOnvVU1NoK

"More than half of the countries in the world rated as 'not free' are ruled by regimes that the British government supports."

 

Social Imperialism in the 21st Century

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1026739765838786560

"I wrote this about Owen Jones and Paul Mason, and how they are reflective of broader, systemic problems with a UK 'left' that is neither anti-imperialist nor anti-capitalist..."

A reality check on a western 'democracy'. Canada is similar.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Ken, like you (apparently), and the huge majority of Labour MPs, I would dearly like never to hear anything about Corbyn again. Would that we never heard anything about him in the first place.

I am not "obsessed" by him as you claim over and over in your cutting and pasting of your thoroughly discredited excuses for him.

I referred to him only in response to the dubious claim posted above that Brexit was chiefly responsible for Lanour's debacle. This poll and several others place the major blame on Corbyn himself.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-result-jeremy-corbyn-brexit-labour-boris-johnson-a9246046.html

You should stop trying to whitewash him. Your state of denial is very similar to Trump's delusion that he really won the election.

As it says in the classics, "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

That is why Labour must have an objective view of the damage Corbyn did to the party and not absolve him, as you do, by deceit and myth.

Nothing I'm saying is about personally absolving Corbyn of anything- what I'm saying is that a clear distinction needs to be made between whether Corbyn was an flawless or exemplary leader-something neither I nor anyone else ever claims, btw- on the one hand, or whether Labour MUST renounce everyone and everything associated with his time as leader- including not only Corbyn himself- he distanced the party enough from himself by standing down as leader,  so the question of the rest of the party's relationship to Corbyn asa person has already been put to rest- but the policies and values his supporters stand for and those supporters themselves.

My argument is that all that needed to be done was for Corbyn to stand down after the 2019 result- he could not have stood down before that election, because he had an obligation to protect his supporters from anything remotely like the brutal and unjustified purge they've been subjected to under Starmer and to protect the policies that most of the party supjor ports from being abandoned, as Starmeris abandoning all major differences with the Tories now.  Corbyn, largely due to the smears and lies, became personally disliked-none of the policies associated with his  era were or are disliked and there are no policies to the right of Corbyn's, whatever you can say about him as a person, other than becoming Tory- any objective observer would agree that Blair's policies are indistinguishable from the Tories.

So, because the policies themselves aren't unpopular, and because Labour was doomed to never rise above the 32% vote share Ed Miliband led them to on a centrist platform in 2015, or the pathetic 29% the party took under Gordon Brown- it is clear that Labour wilk be doomed to perpetual, eternal defeat if if does go well to the right of the 2017 manifesto.

And because Labour has been stagnant in the polls throughout the time of Keir's vindictive and pointless purge of Corbyn supporters, we know that Labour cannot win the next election if Starmer doesn't stop purging them and doesn't accept that he needs to treat them as partners deserving respect within the Labour coalition.

We already know that the Labour can never make itself popular again by becoming a socialism-free zone or a socialist-free zone, so, whatever anyone thinks about Corbyn- btw, you don't really think it's intolerable for anyone in that party simply to not DESPISE the man, do you?- why keep banging on about "distancing" when all the "distancing" is achieving is the distancing of Labour from any possible chance of victory?

If Labour goes back to Blairism, it will vanish.  The polls prove that, and they prove that the voters don't want Labour to ever again be a party that's just barely not Tory.  If they did, Starmer would HAVE that "twenty  point lead".

You should want Labour to win- and you should accept the fact that it can't ever win again if it makes young left activists, BAME voters and the Irish unwelcome.  Labour must find a new radical  identity, or it will die- for it can never win by doing what YOU want and reducing its message to "it's enough to have US running the status quo; it's enough to have the party of the welfare state and the NHS being the ones to kill the welfare state and the NHS".

Ken Burch

If Starmer keeps up the purges, no socialists will be Labour members anymore.  That means no one who wants Labour to fight for the working and kept-from-working-by-capitalism poor will be part of Labour anymore, which means the party will lower itself to the nothingness the Australian Labor Party stands for, and keep losing anyway.

The 2010 and 2015 results prove that there are no votes to be gained from moving further right and making left activists unwelcome.

That's just reality, nicky.

And the results of Starmer's "strategy" will be identical to the David Lewis strategy of 1974 and the Thomas Mulcair strategy of 2015- both of which were elections where the stubborn control-freakery of a pointlessly anti-Left leader ended up costing the NDP at least half of its seats.

That's what always happens when a left-0f-centre party makes activists unwelcome and treats the idea of having a transformative vision as bullshit.

That's what has to happen if Keir stays the course, attacking his party's supporters will endlessly bowing to its wealthy enemies and the Murdoch press.

NDPP

'It's the Labour Party that did this to me!' Marc Wadsworth (and vid)

https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1418721761584164864

"It's the Labour Party that did this to me' Marc Wadsworth says of the racist institution that ejected him on false grounds without due process. Jewish Chronicle has been forced to pay damages and apologise for smearing pro-Palestine activist, by the British High Court."

A malevolent and powerful Zionist lobby and a  weak propitiating social democrat leadership  is a deadly combination. NDP, Green pro-Palestine activists beware - you too can be thrown under the bus if political expediency and Zionist pressure requires it.

nicky

Ken, remind me.

1. how many elections did Corbyn win?
2. How many elections did Blair win?

josh

How many illegal wars did Blair take part in and support?  And how many did Corbyn?

How many neo-Thatcherite policies did Blair support?  And how many did Corbyn?

It's no trick to get elected if you run as a Tory.

nicky

It is quite a trick to get elected, as I am sure you agree Josh, if your leader is someone as woeful as Corbyn

Pages