Labour Leader: Keir Starmer V

[droodzilla]

The NEC is responsible for party policy, direction, discipline, rules and procedures. The Leader of the party is notionally at the head of the NEC, but the General Secretary of the Labour Party is the ‘real’ constitutional power to determine policy and direction.

“The General Secretary has responsibility for giving leadership and direction towards the strategic and operational management of the Labour Party organisation and the implementation of its aims and objectives at national, regional and local levels as laid down by the annual conference and the National Executive Committee. The General Secretary will uphold the constitution of the party and protect the rights of the National Executive Committee and the party throughout the country”
​

Iain McNicol was the Blairite GS at the time of Corbyn. (It should be noted that Corbyn was unable to challenge the attacks on him from McNicol until he was able to depose him by democratic vote by which time the damage was done. In this context it is also noteworthy that those who appeared on that Panorama programme, apart from McNicol himself, were mostly people who worked under McNicol in the NEC) McNicol was replaced by a Corbyn ally, Jenny Formby, in 2018. She made huge inroads into dealing with AS in Labour but was ousted in 2019. David Evans is now GS who The Jewish Chronicle described as a "staunch opponent of hard left politics" and a "fierce critic of anti-Zionism"

It appears to be Evans and his chief ally Nick Brown who have now suspended Labour Jewish groups critical of Isreal in the name of clamping down on AS.

In addition to the NEC and the General Secretary, the following are strongholds of the Labour right:

Many Labour councils
Quite a few unions (maybe most)
Regional party bureaucracy

An example of the power wielded by the latter is the ability to step in and suspend constituency level Labour Party meetings if (e.g.) motions critical of the party leadership were tabled. This has led to CLP committee members being suspended, allowing more right-wing members of the party to get elected to positions of responsibility.

It's all deeply petty, authoritaritarian, anti-democratic stuff but, unless you've seen it from the inside, you would have no idea it's happening.

Suffice to say, these authoritarian shits should be nowhere near real power.

 

[Tony L]

Their version of the ways the Tories run their party. i.e. a cabal at the top.

Thus the way 'trouble makers' can be excluded, 'de-selected', suspended, investigated, etc, etc. Generally by a 'star chamber' of some kind. This time, I guess a "Starmer chamber" would be more like it. Then the party goes back to vacuous "We're nicer than the Tories" and avoiding upsetting the Daily Hate, etc.

This is the thing I don’t understand. The Conservative Party is incredibly simple conceptually. It is the political embodiment of a wealthy elite of landed gentry and aristocracy dating back centuries and has adapted over the years to take funding from foreign oligarchs, tax exiles and other elites. It exists entirely to serve its parasitic backers at the expense of conventional workers. There is no ambiguity to the business model here, it is what it is. Just follow the money and it all becomes clear.

In comparison Labour are baffling. There is no logic to its structure and it clearly does not represent the people it claims to. In fact it seems to go out of its way to disenfranchise them and silence their voices whilst propping up and diverting attention from a corrupt electoral system designed from the ground up to return absolute power to an elite Tory minority. I actually have more respect for the Tories as they are unambiguously a criminal endeavour. They exist to take money from the poor and keep it. WTF are Labour for?

 

[ks.234]

In addition to the NEC and the General Secretary, the following are strongholds of the Labour right:

Many Labour councils
Quite a few unions (maybe most)
Regional party bureaucracy

An example of the power wielded by the latter is the ability to step in and suspend constituency level Labour Party meetings if (e.g.) motions critical of the party leadership were tabled. This has led to CLP committee members being suspended, allowing more right-wing members of the party to get elected to positions of responsibility.

It's all deeply petty, authoritaritarian, anti-democratic stuff but, unless you've seen it from the inside, you would have no idea it's happening.

Suffice to say, these authoritarian shits should be nowhere near real power.

Yes, I was an active member of my CLP until I jumped before I was pushed. Not a ‘putsch’ exactly, but it did feel like it. I can only imagine that feeling magnified several time over inside the PLP itself. As you say, difficult to describe unless you’ve been there.

 

[ks.234]

This is the thing I don’t understand. The Conservative Party is incredibly simple conceptually. It is the political embodiment of a wealthy elite of landed gentry and aristocracy dating back centuries and has adapted over the years to take funding from foreign oligarchs, tax exiles and other elites. It exists entirely to serve its parasitic backers at the expense of conventional workers. There is no ambiguity to the business model here, it is what it is. Just follow the money and it all becomes clear.

In comparison Labour are baffling. There is no logic to its structure and it clearly does not represent the people it claims to. In fact it seems to go out of its way to disenfranchise them and silence their voices whilst propping up and diverting attention from a corrupt electoral system designed from the ground up to return absolute power to an elite Tory minority. I actually have more respect for the Tories as they are unambiguously a criminal endeavour. They exist to take money from the poor and keep it. WTF are Labour for?

Follow the money applies to Labour as well. Look at Blair and Mandelson, both fabulously wealthy directly as a result of pandering to the rich at the expense of the conventional worker. Corbyn was attacked precisely because he threatened that cosy cabal of self interest.

But the real point is that we have an electorate that likes cabals. They represent stability and order. The electorate does not like any threat to the existing status quo. The electorate is deeply conservative. Not sure PR will change that significantly

 

[gavreid]

This is a good piece on the supply chain problems - I'll put it here since it's another failing of the Blair governments

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ty-shelves-covid-brexit-britain-lorry-drivers

 

[droodzilla]

Follow the money applies to Labour as well. Look at Blair and Mandelson, both fabulously wealthy directly as a result of pandering to the rich at the expense of the conventional worker. Corbyn was attacked precisely because he threatened that cosy cabal of self interest.

But the real point is that we have an electorate that likes cabals. They represent stability and order. The electorate does not like any threat to the existing status quo. The electorate is deeply conservative. Not sure PR will change that significantly

He was also attacked because he wanted to democratise the party and involve the membership more in decision-making. This was complete anathema to the right wing ghouls in charge of the party bureaucracy, and to most of the PLP, who rather like their positions of relative power. It's a pity that Corbyn didn't fight harder for mandatory reselection, but I guess he thought it would be a battle too far, given all the other shit being thrown at him.

 

[ks.234]

He was also attacked because he wanted to democratise the party and involve the membership more in decision-making.

Yes. This is central to how the right has maintained power, by disenfranchising members. According to McDonnell this morning, Labour has lost 100,000 members over the last year. It is also noteworthy that those now being expelled under the AS rules are from the left. The right it seems is immune from AS.

 

[Seanm]

That doesn't really answer Tony L's question. How has the right taken control of the Labour party? Was it a putsch, or did they achieve this power through elections? Why couldn't the left take control?

I think they've always been fairly dominant: left dominance has been rare, an interruption of business as usual

Right wing power is maintained by patronage, basically, in my view: embedded local networks of power around councils and Constituency Labour Parties, amongst MPs, within the bureaucracy - including those parts of it that select parliamentary and council candidates, which is a huge deal. The networks extend into local and national business and professional communities, and the media: Guardian, New Statesmen, parts of the BBC - these are to the Labour right what The Spectator is to the Tories, i.e. their mates.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like these networks have absolute power, and the left can break through on occasion, but it's a struggle, because it's far from a level playing field. For instance, a right wing (or even soft left) MP will surround herself with ambitious local organisers with the same politics. She'll make introductions, explain how everything works, and, crucially, give them membership data, giving them a big head start in campaigns for leadership of local branches, the executive council of the PLP, conference delegates, councillor selection committees etc.

You can have a huge surge of left wing support amongst the membership - suddenly hundreds rather than dozens coming out to vote for local officer positions etc., overwhelming these networks by sheer force of numbers, and it looks like they're done for. But unless you can get the right out of the key roles in selection committees, which are buried deep in the bureaucracy, you can't affect the make up of your representatives at council level (never mind parliament), and the right wing power base is maintained. When left surge ebbs a little, the networks re-emerge and assert themselves.

Anyway, this has been my local experience. It fits with the broader analysis of old hands and theorists. This is a good overview of Labour's right wing factions (in the context of antisemitism) if you're interested in the bigger picture:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/op...politics-of-labour-s-old-and-new-right-wings/

 

[Seanm]

Follow the money applies to Labour as well. Look at Blair and Mandelson, both fabulously wealthy directly as a result of pandering to the rich at the expense of the conventional worker. Corbyn was attacked precisely because he threatened that cosy cabal of self interest.

But the real point is that we have an electorate that likes cabals. They represent stability and order. The electorate does not like any threat to the existing status quo. The electorate is deeply conservative. Not sure PR will change that significantly

Honestly not sure about this. Part of the "red wall" problem is that electorates actually *hate* the cabals running the local councils in perpetuity. Voting for Brexit, for a local Tory, even Boris can seem like striking a blow against established power.

 

[Seanm]

This is the thing I don’t understand. The Conservative Party is incredibly simple conceptually. It is the political embodiment of a wealthy elite of landed gentry and aristocracy dating back centuries and has adapted over the years to take funding from foreign oligarchs, tax exiles and other elites. It exists entirely to serve its parasitic backers at the expense of conventional workers. There is no ambiguity to the business model here, it is what it is. Just follow the money and it all becomes clear.

In comparison Labour are baffling. There is no logic to its structure and it clearly does not represent the people it claims to. In fact it seems to go out of its way to disenfranchise them and silence their voices whilst propping up and diverting attention from a corrupt electoral system designed from the ground up to return absolute power to an elite Tory minority. I actually have more respect for the Tories as they are unambiguously a criminal endeavour. They exist to take money from the poor and keep it. WTF are Labour for?

Ultimately the electoral support base for the Labour right (both old and new) is very small. Demographically: people in the financial industries, managerial types in the third sector, older media (and especially promotional media) types. All their power lies in their ability to work the networks I mentioned above. It's why they are so, so ruthless in working these networks, and in fighting the left in their own party: they had a near miss recently, and they understand that if it ever again comes down to popular support they're screwed.

 

[ks.234]

Honestly not sure about this. Part of the "red wall" problem is that electorates actually *hate* the cabals running the local councils in perpetuity. Voting for Brexit, for a local Tory, even Boris can seem like striking a blow against established power.

This is true, but like in the USA, those who hate the cabals, or the establishment, tend to lend their support to ultra conservatives like Trump and Johnson rather than anyone who is likely to change anything too much. A conservative electorate might hate the ruling elite, but they hate the idea of political change even more. That’s why they vote for a single ‘strong man’ over a party or a council made up of a range of angsts called ‘them’. The result is much the same, a continuation of politics as normal.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

This is the thing I don’t understand. The Conservative Party is incredibly simple conceptually. It is the political embodiment of a wealthy elite of landed gentry and aristocracy (snip)

In comparison Labour are baffling. There is no logic to its structure and it clearly does not represent the people it claims to. In fact it seems to go out of its way to disenfranchise them and silence their voices whilst propping up and diverting attention from a corrupt electoral system designed from the ground up to return absolute power to an elite Tory minority. I actually have more respect for the Tories as they are unambiguously a criminal endeavour. They exist to take money from the poor and keep it. WTF are Labour for?

Given the way the 'Orange Book' cabal took over the LDP from Campbell and Kennedy you could ask much the same questions about them, with just the details shuffled.

The point is that when a party has become 'established' for many years it tends to accrue a 'crust' of peope who are 'operators'. They then 'flock' to work for *their* mutual advantage, using the rest of the party as their power-base and source of wealth, etc. They do this in ways 'The Prince' would have used.

In a decent society this is combatted by an active press. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. But we don't have that, and haven't had it for many decades. Only a minority read PE or have the slightest clue... or indeed, cynically, come to care as they join the mindset as a way to 'get on'.

Hence it become rule by those who get votes by writing fantasies on the side of a bus and dodging the real issues. Unicorns, not real change. And the non doms and tax dodgers get what they want in return for their support.

 

[Tony L]

Ultimately the electoral support base for the Labour right (both old and new) is very small. Demographically: people in the financial industries, managerial types in the third sector, older media (and especially promotional media) types. All their power lies in their ability to work the networks I mentioned above. It's why they are so, so ruthless in working these networks, and in fighting the left in their own party: they had a near miss recently, and they understand that if it ever again comes down to popular support they're screwed.

The thing I don’t understand is why, if it is “so small” is it able to exert such power against the interests of a majority? Obviously my view is tainted by recent events; Gillian Duffy, Ed Milliband’s xenophobic immigration mugs, Brexit, Corbyn going from articulate and conviction-led to gormless and fence-sitting within just two years, Starmer abandoning his pledges one by one etc. I know you see Corbyn as different (and I thought he was for a very short while), but to my eyes the same cowardice, blandness and failure to oppose that which is obviously wrong has existed for decades now. It is just what I have come to expect from Labour, i.e. nothing.

PS Last night’s QT was interesting; the Labour MP Kate Green actually came across as more complicit and accepting of the government’s brutally regressive NI increase than Andrew bloody Neil! She was unable to oppose or provide credible counter arguments, and it appeared by brief rather than ability.

 

[Seanm]

This is true, but like in the USA, those who hate the cabals, or the establishment, tend to lend their support to ultra conservatives like Trump and Johnson rather than anyone who is likely to change anything too much. A conservative electorate might hate the ruling elite, but they hate the idea of political change even more. That’s why they vote for a single ‘strong man’ over a party or a council made up of a range of angsts called ‘them’. The result is much the same, a continuation of politics as normal.

I'm not completely sure about this, although yes, the result is undeniable.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Maybe it would change if MPs were only paid the average wage in the UK (inc. the zeros for the unemployed). And they'd have to be forbidden from - directly or indirectly - using the various dodges now used to 'enhance' their income or wealth.

But don't hold yer breath as you await that. And we won't see Dennis Skinner again...

 

[Tony L]

Maybe it would change if MPs were only paid the average wage in the UK (inc. the zeros for the unemployed). And they'd have to be forbidden from - directly or indirectly - using the various dodges now used to 'enhance' their income or wealth.

That would hurt everyone bar the Tories as the vast majority (if not all) Tory ministers are multimillionaires already. Sunak is apparently worth more than the bloody Queen! It just wouldn’t deter them, plus under our electoral system no one would ever be able to enforce any regulation on ‘members interests’. Labour sure as hell wouldn’t vote for that. They aren’t as adept at till-dipping and backhander-processing as the Tories, but it isn’t for want of trying!

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

OK, add in the requirement that if someone has a lot of wealth they they have to hand most of it over to the state to help pay for the NHS and Social Care. i.e. you can't be an MP *and* 'rich'. inc, of course, close familiy, etc. 8-]

You still can't hear me holding my breath, though...

 

[Seanm]

The thing I don’t understand is why, if it is “so small” is it able to exert such power against the interests of a majority? Obviously my view is tainted by recent events; Gillian Duffy, Ed Milliband’s xenophobic immigration mugs, Brexit, Corbyn going from articulate and conviction-led to gormless and fence-sitting within just two years, Starmer abandoning his pledges one by one etc. I know you see Corbyn as different (and I thought he was for a very short while), but to my eyes the same cowardice, blandness and failure to oppose that which is obviously wrong has existed for decades now. It is just what I have come to expect from Labour, i.e. nothing.

PS Last night’s QT was interesting; the Labour MP Kate Green actually came across as more complicit and accepting of the government’s brutally regressive NI increase than Andrew bloody Neil! She was unable to oppose or provide credible counter arguments, and it appeared by brief rather than ability.

Well, those are powerful networks - party bureaucracy, councils, business, media: they might not be popular but their influence isn't really a mystery. The last few years have been a lesson in how they operate, too. I think the obstacle to understanding here is your insistence that the Corbyn moment was just a part of all that. It really wasn't (although of course there are connections and continuities). You can say Corbynism was as bad or worse if you want, but it just was objectively coming from a different place, with different people - it was a different movement. If you want to understand how the right exert such power, all you need to do is look back at how they broke that movement. If you're determined to see Corbynism as the same thing then everything they've been doing since 2015 to win back and maintain power becomes invisible, or just random gesturing.

 

[Tony L]

I think the obstacle to understanding here is your insistence that the Corbyn moment was just a part of all that.

I agree it wasn’t at the grass-roots level, but by the 2019 election all credibility had evaporated with all the focus-group fence-sitting 5d ambiguity chess shit and resulted in an inevitable and well deserved electoral wipe-out.

 

[Seanm]

I agree it wasn’t at the grass-roots level, but by the 2019 election all credibility had evaporated with all the focus-group fence-sitting 5d ambiguity chess shit and resulted in an inevitable and well deserved electoral wipe-out.

But if you want to understand who the right are, and why they're powerful, we can put all the the strategy, the ideology and even the outcomes to one side for the moment. Left and right are different factions, with different traditions, different players, different power bases, different constituencies. As an "end user" you might well decide you don't GAF which is fair enough. But I think the nature of the Labour right is key to understanding the bad place we're in, politically. The official opposition is controlled by people whose politics almost no one actually likes, and whose key objective is not to form a government but to maintain their positions in the party. How they came to be in this situation says a lot about our politics and media, so worth thinking about whether you intend ever voting for them again or not.