Keir Starmer sacks RL-B

[Jim Audiomisc]

I must admit I got tired of the old 'left-right' characterisation of a complex reality some time ago. My concern tends to be identifying what the real problems are in our society and trying to deal with them.

So, for example: We need more in the way of genuinely affordable homes of a decent quality that people can live in. To do this we can as a country invest in building them, not leave it to the 'market'. i.e. provide councils and/or new town corps with the money to build the infrastructure - and as it happens train skilled workers and employ them to do the building (properly, not bodged) so they can afford to buy things and live in the homes. In the process also acting against the relentless drive towards property costs sucking up ever more of people's income and concentrating it into the hands of a few.

It's actually a no-brainer which even the *Tories* supported decades ago. Go look to see when council house and new town building of homes at decent costs peaks. Think 'SuperMac' and that era! Have whatever mix of rent or buy as people want - so long as the price of buying covers the cost of building a replacement.

The point here is that such infrastructure is needed by the people who want somewhere to live. And also to become the infrastructure that then enables other things. e.g. having a wage and paying less in rent/mortgage means you have more to spend on other things, thus generating other economic and social activity, etc.

So instead of allowing the press to keep us chasing our own tails all the time: sort out and talk about such issues which will improve the lives of people and help our economy and society. B00ger the tory press agenda.

 

[gavreid]

Rawnsley can't help himself either in the Observer. Having cried wolf so many times he's forgotten that a wolf has four legs, a big snout and big teeth! It's lazy journalism apart from anything else, we all know the real reason for the sacking...

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ley-was-vital-to-show-that-labour-is-changing

 

[h.g.]

Arguably Corbyn should have kicked arse sooner so, in that respect, he is certainly at fault. However, for me, that means ruthlessly purging the right-wing of the party after the 2017 election when he was at his most powerful.

That would almost certainly have split the party leaving Corbyn almost certainly with the smaller part. The hard left leadership at the time seemed aware of this.

I used to be in favour of a "broad church" Labour Party but, after five years of horseshit I feel a lot less charitable.

It has been a broad church in terms of chatter but less so in terms of who held power when the party was functional/governing/doing well. The role of the hard left has largely been to lobby within the party while not holding sufficient power to do anything much. That is the choice faced today: to lobby with little power within a party that is reasonably likely to form the next government or to separate and form a hard left party. I would expect a separate hard left party to steadily shrink in support down to a few percent support by the electorate and not greatly hinder labour's chance at the next election. This assumes the centre-left get their act together significantly better than the did just before Corbyn which is by no means certain.

Would you like the the hard left to split off from the labour party to form a separate party?

 

[droodzilla]

That would almost certainly have split the party leaving Corbyn almost certainly with the smaller part. The hard left leadership at the time seemed aware of this.



It has been a broad church in terms of chatter but less so in terms of who held power when the party was functional/governing/doing well. The role of the hard left has largely been to lobby within the party while not holding sufficient power to do anything much. That is the choice faced today: to lobby with little power within a party that is reasonably likely to form the next government or to separate and form a hard left party. I would expect a separate hard left party to steadily shrink in support down to a few percent support by the electorate and not greatly hinder labour's chance at the next election. This assumes the centre-left get their act together significantly better than the did just before Corbyn which is by no means certain.

Would you like the the hard left to split off from the labour party to form a separate party?

I don't recognise the term "hard left" but yes, if the UK ever gets proportional representation, I would like to see members and MPs in favour of mainstream social democratic policies such as nationalisation of the railways form their own party. As long as we have FPTP, the Labour Party needs to hold itself together until it forms a government with a shot at implementing PR.

 

[Tony L]

As long as we have FPTP, the Labour Party needs to hold itself together until it forms a government with a shot at implementing PR.

Agree entirely. It also needs to work with the LDs, Greens and PC to push for PR as a shared flagship policy. No referendum, just a manifesto pledge to be implemented at the point of either majority government or coalition. It needs nailing down well in advance of an election. FWIW I’m certain the LDs, Greens and PC would agree to this, the resistance will be from within Labour’s ranks as far, far too many Labour MPs have ultra safe jobs for life under the current system and they won’t give that up easily.

 

[gassor]

The phrase "serious problem" is too vague. However, if you pointed a gun at my head and asked me to say yes or no, I would say no, Labour does not have a serious problem with anti-Semitism. However:

1. Labour does have anti-Semites in it. They should continue to be expelled.
2. Labour has people in it who sometimes say anti-Semitic things. They should be educated and, if they persist, expelled.
3. All the quantitative polls I've seen shows anti-Semitism is no more prevalent in Labour than in society generally.
4. It is dwarfed by the racism in the Tory Party (50%+ of members are not comfortable with the idea of a muslim PM, etc.).
5. As ever, the greatest incidence of anti-Semitism is found on the far-right.
6. The issue of anti-Semitism has been cynically and recklessly exploited by the right of the Labour Party.
7. Accusations of anti-Semitism were not dealt with quickly, but the leaked report shows that right-wing members of the party machine deliberately obstructed the process.
8. The situation improved significantly when Corbyn finally got control of the internal bureaucracy.

All of these propositions can be true and I believe there is good evidence that they all are true. But they are importantly different and demand different actions from us in response.

Arguably Corbyn should have kicked arse sooner so, in that respect, he is certainly at fault. However, for me, that means ruthlessly purging the right-wing of the party after the 2017 election when he was at his most powerful. I used to be in favour of a "broad church" Labour Party but, after five years of horseshit I feel a lot less charitable.

I've said all of this before and I'm not going to get sucked into another futile debate.

You seem to cherry-pick the leaked report, but I'll just say that I expect that the ERHC will make interesting reading for a lot of people.

 

[gavreid]

I don't recognise the term "hard left" but yes, if the UK ever gets proportional representation, I would like to see members and MPs in favour of mainstream social democratic policies such as nationalisation of the railways form their own party. As long as we have FPTP, the Labour Party needs to hold itself together until it forms a government with a shot at implementing PR.

One of the Chartists' demands was for annual elections "since members of parliament when elected for a year only, are not able to defy and betray their constituents as now". Plus ca change...

 

[droodzilla]

You seem to cherry-pick the leaked report, but I'll just say that I expect that the ERHC will make interesting reading for a lot of people.

No I don't. I fully acknowledge the report contains details of genuine anti-Semitism in significant numbers. My position is precisely as stated before - no more, no less.

I agree that the EHRC report will make interesting reading and I urge everyone here to look at the report itself (or at least the management summary) rather than rely on (e.g.) reports in the Guardian which I guarantee will be cherry-picked.

If the leaked Labour Party report is accurate, the party did sit on complaints about anti-Semitism and this is a form of institutional anti-Semitism. The fact that matters only improved when Jennie Formby took over as General Secretary will be lost in the noise.

 

[gavreid]

I agree that the EHRC report will make interesting reading and I urge everyone here to look at the report itself (or at least the management summary) rather than rely on (e.g.) reports in the Guardian which I guarantee will be cherry-picked.

It's already discredited I'm afraid with the EHRC commissioner being an undeclared Tory (I linked to it yesterday). Wasn't there criticsm of the Chair too for having a confilict of interest working for Pinsent Mason? I doubt we'll get an impartial report.

 

[droodzilla]

It's already discredited I'm afraid with the EHRC commissioner being an undeclared Tory (I linked to it yesterday). Wasn't there criticsm of the Chair too for having a confilict of interest working for Pinsent Mason? I doubt we'll get an impartial report.

Yes, that does bother me. I'm not aware of the Pinsent Mason issue (or its relevance).

 

[gavreid]

Yes, that does bother me. I'm not aware of the Pinsent Mason issue (or its relevance).

I think it was the large amount of legal work he was involved in with government. There was opposition to his appointment as I recall.

As you imply, Starmer will jump on the sections that suit him and those will become the headlines, regardless of subtlety or caveats. In my experience of these kinds of things, there's normally something for everyone.

 

[Kirk]

Encouraging to see the Observer poll today. Early days obviously but Starmer seems to moving in the right direction. It's a shame about RLB - a victim of Corbyn's legacy.

 

[droodzilla]

I think it was the large amount of legal work he was involved in with government. There was opposition to his appointment as I recall.

As you imply, Starmer will jump on the sections that suit him and those will become the headlines, regardless of subtlety or caveats. In my experience of these kinds of things, there's normally something for everyone.

On balance, I'm quite philosophical about this. I'm sure the EHRC report will be exploited by factional interests and that this will be galling, but...

If nothing else, the leaked Labour report spells out in huge capital letters that, as an organisation, the Labour Party is a dysfunctional mess, riddled with cronyism and factional conflict. The process for dealing with complaints was not immune to the general malaise, and was especially vulnerable to exploitation by one faction or another (in this case, the Blairite rump, represented by Ian McNicol and other senior figures). Thus, during a period when complaints about anti-Semitism became the focus, Jewish members were disproportionately affected by organisational inertia.

I'd be amazed if the EHRC report doesn't criticise this mess one way or another, and I hope it makes good, fair recommendations for improvement - which Labour should then implement. If Starmer does that in good faith and sorts out the rat's nest that is Labour HQ once and for all, I'll be happy to give him credit.

 

[kendo]

It's already discredited I'm afraid with the EHRC commissioner being an undeclared Tory (I linked to it yesterday). Wasn't there criticsm of the Chair too for having a confilict of interest working for Pinsent Mason? I doubt we'll get an impartial report.

I'm sure it'll be as impartial as the decision not to investigate another party's alleged anti-Islamic behaviour...despite complaints from within that party...

 

[gassor]

On balance, I'm quite philosophical about this. I'm sure the EHRC report will be exploited by factional interests and that this will be galling, but...

If nothing else, the leaked Labour report spells out in huge capital letters that, as an organisation, the Labour Party is a dysfunctional mess, riddled with cronyism and factional conflict. The process for dealing with complaints was immune to the general malaise, and was especially vulnerable to exploitation by one faction or another (in this case, the Blairite rump, represented by Ian McNicol and other senior figures). Thus, during a period when complaints about anti-Semitism became the focus, Jewish members were disproportionately affected by organisational inertia.

I'd be amazed if the EHRC report doesn't highlight criticise this mess one way or another, and I hope it makes good, fair recommendations for improvement - which Labour should then implement. If Starmer does that in good faith and sorts out the rat's nest that is Labour HQ once and for all, I'll be happy to give him credit.

Can we agree to agree on this?

 

[droodzilla]

Can we agree to agree on this?

Yes, happy to. I want the Labour Party to be better.

 

[gavreid]

On balance, I'm quite philosophical about this. I'm sure the EHRC report will be exploited by factional interests and that this will be galling, but...

If nothing else, the leaked Labour report spells out in huge capital letters that, as an organisation, the Labour Party is a dysfunctional mess.

Absolutely - a stinking cesspool. But it won't lay the blame were it deserves to be laid i.e. at the door of the Blairites in control of the machine, and the large chunk of the PLP that they were facilitating on the qt. Starmer has no intention of implementing a fair and balanced restructure

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Agree entirely. It also needs to work with the LDs, Greens and PC to push for PR as a shared flagship policy. No referendum, just a manifesto pledge to be implemented at the point of either majority government or coalition. It needs nailing down well in advance of an election. FWIW I’m certain the LDs, Greens and PC would agree to this, the resistance will be from within Labour’s ranks as far, far too many Labour MPs have ultra safe jobs for life under the current system and they won’t give that up easily.

I'm dubious that would actually achieve what we need as a country TBH. To get to it they'd asking the public to "Vote for us so we can change the rules so you'll always get a government that then argues over what they think you voted for. And which will be much the same whoever you individually choose." You can bet the UK press will tell people this. If they all agree they're 'all the same' so far as voters are concerned. So can be lumped into a binary Tory vs not-Tory decision with a specific set of promises on one side and a promise to 'sort something out' on the other.

i.e. it misses the main political flaw in the UK. That the press largely drive what people 'know' and 'think'.

Note also that being 'liberal' means quite different things to different people, or if you're talking about economics or social arrangements.

Having PR and coalitions may be fine after that is fixed. But I doubt it deals with the main hurdle to getting anywhere. Convince me...

 

[Woodface]

Yes, hence my thread on proportional representation. Labour needs to keep its fissile internal coalition together long enough to form a government (supported by SNP, Lib-Dems etc.) and then push for PR. Contrary to the doomsayers, I think this is quite feasible if Labour is willing to make a clear offer to the Lib-Dems before the next election. Getting public approval might be another matter (AV was rejected 2:1 in the 2011 referendum) but must be attempted.

I'm not sure how I come across here, but I want to emphasise my commitment to the "broad church" idea was sincere. I've always wanted the various factions of the Labour Party to work together to defeat the common enemy. To be honest, I wouldn't even have considered myself on the left of the party a few years ago, and I still try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But the last few years have been totally demoralising and I think it's time for change.

I actually think you come across very well, you are never aggressive or patronising like some. You are probably to the left of me but that is perfectly fine, I don’t have to agree with everything you say.