The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[darrenm]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think that could do with some serious caveating. Maybe there are some idealistic voters out there who are as you describe. But politicians? Labour members? Union leaders? Commentators? Sorry no. It’s ludicrous.  Whether it’s Mark Steel’s columns (seeing as he was mentioned), John McDonnell, Len McLuskey, Derek Hatton, Militant, Ken Livingstone, Tony Benn...an endless list of the not naive.  And amongst them plenty of not playing fair and not pulling in the same direction...

I'll reply in full later when I'm on the laptop. Most of the people you've described above are completely irrelevant to the Labour Party 2015-2020. Len and John McDonnell excepted. Most of the left in that time were people like me (even though I don't consider myself left): SJWs and overexcited liberals. No-one had any appreciation of the history of leftist politics and almost everyone was very naive. You can't look at how Corbyn gave positions to his political opponents in the party where they could hurt him (and they did) and not call that naive. Especially when you look at Starmer's brutal routing of the left in comparison. Anyway, full reply later because I know I'm right on this

[darrenm]

As proof I also used to think it was just 2 factions before I was exposed to how ruthlessly calculating and organised the Blairites are

since then, daily attacks on the leader from MPs from the right. Intentional sabotage of the 2017 election. Staged adverts in the Guardian attacking the leader specifically over antisemitism by the Blairite general secretary who was actually in charge of and did nothing about dealing with antisemitism. Compare that with how the left have treated Starmer. The left members who voted him in cheered him on until he started suspending them over nothing and started rowing back on all of his pledges. The same with the PLP.

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I’ve not been paying attention lately, and I’ll confess I’d seen the stuff about dressing smartly and having flags, but I’d presumed it was just this week’s joke, like calling him Keith. I hadn’t realised there was an actual internal paper, suggesting making more use of the union flag. What is it with bloody flags? You can have all the policies you like on taxation or health or international trade or equality. What really matters, is your flag.

The sooner I’m installed as benign dictator the better for all of us as far as I can see.

It's something to talk about, in the almost total absence of any policies.

(I agree with your point, to be clear)

[hippo]

17 hours ago, darrenm said:

This is an outlier but it's causing some consternation on Twitter

It's getting towards the 2019 general election result and I'm sure everyone can agree that Starmer has had an easy ride off the media so far.

Personally I think he's picked the wrong side to use to seize control of the party because their ideas are stuck in 2010. But that's just me.

I don't get why people are surprised by a Tory bounce in the polls.

1.In a time of crisis - wars / plagues people want to muck in and support the govt who lead us through such times.

2.the UK vaccine rollout by numbers is probably the 2nd in the world.

I don't get what Starmer is supposed to do at this point. Laying into Johnson day in day out - Imo would be a turn off for voters 

Although personally I despise the Bloke. Johnson has a lot of support in the UK. People have fallen hook line and the sinker for the bumbling buffoon image. When a leader has such popularity - attacking him head on - only serves to make yourself unpopular.

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

... You can't look at how Corbyn gave positions to his political opponents in the party where they could hurt him (and they did) and not call that naive. Especially when you look at Starmer's brutal routing of the left in comparison. Anyway, full reply later because I know I'm right on this

Hmmm. Corbyn had basically no support in the PLP - he only got nominated for leadership because some fools thought that they should give him their vote (second him) so a lefty got on the Leadership ballot.

So with few if any naturally supportive MPs, he couldn't populate his shadow cabinet and PPS roles with only supportive Corbynite MPs - it was choice between empty posts and (even more) ineffective opposition, or appointing people who didn't share his outlook and hoping they'd knuckle down. It wasn't naive, it was Hobson's choice. They didn't (mostly) knuckle down, of course and he pretty much knew/suspected they wouldn't. He even drew up a list of them all and their likelihood of rebelling and so on.

The whole lot were a shambles, with a few exceptions. The principled ones who refused roles, fine. The ones who took roles and then schemed - nobbers. The ones he stiffed, I have a modicum of sympathy for, perhaps.

Has Starmer "brutally routed" the left? Obviously Corbyn and RLB got themselves into hot water, for AS reasons, but beyond that my sense is of him trying to unite the LP, while being fought against and schemed against by angry Tramps. see https://twitter.com/search?q=%23StarmerOut&src=typeahead_click for examples.

[dAVe80]

2 hours ago, darrenm said:

As proof I also used to think it was just 2 factions before I was exposed to how ruthlessly calculating and organised the Blairites are

since then, daily attacks on the leader from MPs from the right. Intentional sabotage of the 2017 election. Staged adverts in the Guardian attacking the leader specifically over antisemitism by the Blairite general secretary who was actually in charge of and did nothing about dealing with antisemitism. Compare that with how the left have treated Starmer. The left members who voted him in cheered him on until he started suspending them over nothing and started rowing back on all of his pledges. The same with the PLP.

 

One of the biggest criticisms I have of Jeremy is his lack of a ruthless streak. He had opportunities to clear the party staff out who were loyal to the "New Labour" cause, and he let them stay, believing he could win them round. I've been told by several people close to his first leadership campaign that a lot of them had even cleared their desks up, expecting to go. There was also a chance to purge if he wanted to. There were enough Blairites shouting up to get themselves suspended, but again his beliefe that he could win them round stopped him. As is apparent now, Keith is more than happy to over see that happening now it's the other way round.

I know that originally when there was talk of getting a leftie on the ballot for leader, John McDonnell was approached first. He recognised that there was little chance of that happening, so he suggested Jeremy. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he'dgone for it though. 100% the left would have been much more ruthless under McDonnell. I suppose the argument would have been that he wouldn't have drawn people in like Corbyn did, so maybe we wouldn't have seen the same surge in grass roots activity. I'm under no illusion the media and internal attacks on McConnell would have dwarfed anything that happened to Corbyn, but I do believe he wouldn't have been above mixing it and giving it back. 

[chrisp65]

I actually preferred John McConnell.

He could say very left leaning things and make them sound utterly fair and straightforward. He could wear a suit and sit and talk comfortably to business people and agree we needed to grow business and agree we need exports or tax rationalisation or an equal playing field on employment law.

To me, he came over as Corbyn, disguised as Starmer.

Which might have been close to ideal. The sort of guy that could happily say his idea of equality would be everyone owning a Ferrari.

OK, deep down what he was saying was he’d nationalise Ferrari and the steelworks and Halfords, and his plans to tax petrol would make the fuel the most expensive thing about private transport not the badge on the steering wheel. But he’d sit there in a suit, tell you he came from an everyday working class background just like you, promise you a Ferrari, and sound so damned calm and reasonable doing it.

I’d quite like to replay history with McConnell as labour Leader.

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

18 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

One of the biggest criticisms I have of Jeremy is his lack of a ruthless streak. He had opportunities to clear the party staff out who were loyal to the "New Labour" cause, and he let them stay, believing he could win them round. I've been told by several people close to his first leadership campaign that a lot of them had even cleared their desks up, expecting to go. There was also a chance to purge if he wanted to. There were enough Blairites shouting up to get themselves suspended, but again his beliefe that he could win them round stopped him. As is apparent now, Keith is more than happy to over see that happening now it's the other way round.

Completely agree on the lack of ruthlessness, it was a huge missed opportunity for the left. Look at the way they chickened out of mandatory reselection, and instead went for the hopeless not-even-a-halfway-house of trigger ballots. Never took advantage of having complete control of the NEC, and now the rules have been changed to ensure they can never win it again.

One way or another, a lot of the absolute worst ghouls are no longer in the parliamentary party I guess.

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’d quite like to replay history with McConnell as labour Leader.

He's mostly a far smarter operator than Corbyn was. As shadow minister for money, he actually courted business and the City. He's canny too. I think your assessment is right, basically. There's still more than a suspicion that he'd have been a disaster too. The (or one of many) problem with these hard left types isn't their economic outlook, or fairness agenda, or standing up for the little guy - these are all apple pie things. The difficulty is the mentality that attracts them to the likes of the IRA, South American socialists, Russia and so on. There's obviously elements of Republicanism, of South American socialism (as preached, rather than practiced), of anti-imperialism and Russian solidarity (as preached, rather than practiced), which can hold appeal to a wide number of folk, but the massive difficulty is the tendency to overlook the flaws, the corruption, the murders, the brutal regimes suppression of human rights, the election rigging and all the rest of it because their (the left) guiding principle is just "anti-America" it's an instinct that overrides caution or rational appraisal. An aircraft goes down in Iran and the instinct is "it must have been the yanks". Which I guess is fine for a voter, or a citizen, but not for a politician. The twin towers are destroyed and the instinct for (some of) them is to somehow be gladdened, or to think "the USA had it coming". And these background, largely hidden from the main public eye, instincts are horribly dangerous in national politicians were they ever to get into government. Basically those folk cannot ever be trusted.

[chrisp65]

18 minutes ago, blandy said:

He's mostly a far smarter operator than Corbyn was. As shadow minister for money, he actually courted business and the City. He's canny too. I think your assessment is right, basically. There's still more than a suspicion that he'd have been a disaster too. The (or one of many) problem with these hard left types isn't their economic outlook, or fairness agenda, or standing up for the little guy - these are all apple pie things. The difficulty is the mentality that attracts them to the likes of the IRA, South American socialists, Russia and so on. There's obviously elements of Republicanism, of South American socialism (as preached, rather than practiced), of anti-imperialism and Russian solidarity (as preached, rather than practiced), which can hold appeal to a wide number of folk, but the massive difficulty is the tendency to overlook the flaws, the corruption, the murders, the brutal regimes suppression of human rights, the election rigging and all the rest of it because their (the left) guiding principle is just "anti-America" it's an instinct that overrides caution or rational appraisal. An aircraft goes down in Iran and the instinct is "it must have been the yanks". Which I guess is fine for a voter, or a citizen, but not for a politician. The twin towers are destroyed and the instinct for (some of) them is to somehow be gladdened, or to think "the USA had it coming". And these background, largely hidden from the main public eye, instincts are horribly dangerous in national politicians were they ever to get into government. Basically those folk cannot ever be trusted.

Countered, in a two party system, by the tendency for the other side to sell bombs to Saudi because if our bombs don’t bomb Yemeni weddings, French ones will.

It’s also worth pointing out that it actually was the U.S.S. Vincennes that shot down Iran Air Flight 655. So a presumption the yanks are to blame, would have about a 50/50 chance of being correct.

But yes, I agree on your point, way too many lefties in this country have wanted to prove their credentials by getting a selfie opportunity with the likes of Castro eat al. When so many of these regimes are actually same shit, different flag. They become the useful idiot of team B once they’ve persuaded the public we shouldn’t be the useful idiot of team A.

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Countered, in a two party system, by the tendency for the other side to sell bombs to Saudi because if our bombs don’t bomb Yemeni weddings, French ones will.

It’s also worth pointing out that it actually was the U.S.S. Vincennes that shot down Iran Air Flight 655. So a presumption the yanks are to blame, would have about a 50/50 chance of being correct....

Indeed. My point wasn't that "only nasty Commies do bad things" - it's about automatically leaping to a verdict based on ideology, not information - "well it must have been them wot done it, because they're evil imperialists/evil commies/evil Muslims/..."

[Chindie]

Corbyn couldn't  remove the right wingers because it would have quickly been derided as a Stalinist purge.

When the right of the party does it its good leadership removing the 'angry tramps' and 'loonies'.

The pitch isn't flat, and the rules aren't fair.

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I actually preferred John McConnell.

He could say very left leaning things and make them sound utterly fair and straightforward. He could wear a suit and sit and talk comfortably to business people and agree we needed to grow business and agree we need exports or tax rationalisation or an equal playing field on employment law.

To me, he came over as Corbyn, disguised as Starmer.

Which might have been close to ideal. The sort of guy that could happily say his idea of equality would be everyone owning a Ferrari.

OK, deep down what he was saying was he’d nationalise Ferrari and the steelworks and Halfords, and his plans to tax petrol would make the fuel the most expensive thing about private transport not the badge on the steering wheel. But he’d sit there in a suit, tell you he came from an everyday working class background just like you, promise you a Ferrari, and sound so damned calm and reasonable doing it.

I’d quite like to replay history with McConnell as labour Leader.

 

 

I'm a huge fan of John McDonnell. He's a really clever bloke. His economic knowledge is up there with the best of them and he's a very smooth operator. The whole reason he wouldn't stand for leader was because Jeremy was considered a bit of a joke but McDonnell was considered dangerous so there's no chance they'd let him through. As always though, the Blairites misjudged the mood of the public.

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

One way or another, a lot of the absolute worst ghouls are no longer in the parliamentary party I guess.

Presumably you didn't mean this guy?

[HanoiVillan]

22 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Presumably you didn't mean this guy?

You're correct, I didn't.

[bickster]

One minute it's the left of the party were fair and tried to be inclusive and the next it wasn't ruthless enough and should have had a Stalinist Purge whilst at the same time claiming the left of the Party don't do that it's the right

Bloody People's Front of Judea

[HanoiVillan]

27 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Corbyn couldn't  remove the right wingers because it would have quickly been derided as a Stalinist purge.

When the right of the party does it its good leadership removing the 'angry tramps' and 'loonies'.

The pitch isn't flat, and the rules aren't fair.

No, he could have pushed through mandatory reselection. He chose not to. That's on him.

In the end, the trigger ballot nonsense was still decried as a 'Stalinist purge', as it was always going to be anyway, but it was still implemented.

Corbyn faced a huge amount of opposition within the party, but he didn't do enough with the levers of power that he had. The *only* institutional advantage that the left has in Labour politics is that the majority of the membership are on the left, so the only chance to prevent the PLP from regaining control was by making them accountable to their constituency members. He failed to do it, and now the Labour right have cemented control of the party, as they were always going to do. A lack of ruthlessness.

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

One minute it's the left of the party were fair and tried to be inclusive and the next it wasn't ruthless enough and should have had a Stalinist Purge whilst at the same time claiming the left of the Party don't do that it's the right

Bloody People's Front of Judea

Those points aren't contradictory though are they. The left weren't ruthless enough, and the right are, so the right win. There's no contradiction there.

[darrenm]

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

One minute it's the left of the party were fair and tried to be inclusive and the next it wasn't ruthless enough

That's the same thing?

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, darrenm said:

That's the same thing?

Well it wouldn't be if you actually finished the sentence