This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[JimJamUK]

Its the 2014 Euro election campaign (if it can even be described as such) that rankles most with me. In some ways a dry run for Labour's nemesis in Scotland a few months later.

What was particularly bad about it (it’s just before my time and all I can remember is that there wasn’t really a Labour campaign)?

[CumbrianLefty]

Well it avoided actually mentioning the EU at all, for one thing. The actual inspiring (non)-slogan was "Hardworking Britain Better Off" - the sort of thing with Dougal's fingerprints all over it.

(big Bob Shrum vibes, and Alexander was known to be quite pally with him)

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

Well it avoided actually mentioning the EU at all, for one thing. The actual inspiring (non)-slogan was "Hardworking Britain Better Off" - the sort of thing with Dougal's fingerprints all over it.

(big Bob Shrum vibes, and Alexander was known to be quite pally with him)

Is that even grammatically correct? I'm genuinely confused as a non-native speaker.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Well it avoided actually mentioning the EU at all, for one thing. The actual inspiring (non)-slogan was "Hardworking Britain Better Off" - the sort of thing with Dougal's fingerprints all over it.

(big Bob Shrum vibes, and Alexander was known to be quite pally with him)

Is that even grammatically correct? I'm genuinely confused as a non-native speaker.

No. One can only assume that assumption was the using a verb would make us look too radical.

[Blair]

He’s very much from the political tradition that seems to take the worse parts of THIGMOO- the economic timidity of Blairism, the technocratic managerialism of brownism and the policy desert that was Milibandism at times.

It’s a long running trend in the party to have slogans that make no sense!

‘Think positive, Think Labour’ was one in 1983 I believe.

[WD]

https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1625785532037865474?s=46&t=dbXIMF...

[Coldstream]

Rubicon crossed, be interesting to see how many of Corbyns comrades in the SCG are brave enough to stand with him now at the cost of their own careers (I bet none).

[Torrain]

Rubicon crossed, be interesting to see how many of Corbyns comrades in the SCG are brave enough to stand with him now at the cost of their own careers (I bet none).

I mean, when Starmer threatened to withdraw the whip over that Stop the War letter they all signed last February, they all recanted within the afternoon. Doubt any of them are willing to have their membership revoked over this.

Wonder what Momentum ends up doing. Do they end up proscribed for backing a non-party candidate? Do they try and disaffiliate from the party, and rebrand as a general left-wing group, outside the party? Or do they have too much invested inside the party, and snub Corbyn too?

[Coldstream]

Rubicon crossed, be interesting to see how many of Corbyns comrades in the SCG are brave enough to stand with him now at the cost of their own careers (I bet none).

I mean, when Starmer threatened to withdraw the whip over that Stop the War letter they all signed last February, they all recanted within the afternoon. Doubt any of them are willing to have their membership revoked over this.

Wonder what Momentum ends up doing. Do they end up proscribed for backing a non-party candidate? Do they try and disaffiliate from the party, and rebrand as a general left-wing group, outside the party? Or do they have too much invested inside the party, and snub Corbyn too?

The invested argument might have worked a year or two ago, but given the number of people who are just affiliated with momentum who’ve been blocked from standing I don’t see what they’d have to lose at this point - unless being Labour councillors is so important.

[Blair]

Rubicon crossed, be interesting to see how many of Corbyns comrades in the SCG are brave enough to stand with him now at the cost of their own careers (I bet none).

I mean, when Starmer threatened to withdraw the whip over that Stop the War letter they all signed last February, they all recanted within the afternoon. Doubt any of them are willing to have their membership revoked over this.

Wonder what Momentum ends up doing. Do they end up proscribed for backing a non-party candidate? Do they try and disaffiliate from the party, and rebrand as a general left-wing group, outside the party? Or do they have too much invested inside the party, and snub Corbyn too?

I expect a lot of office holders in the party will complain publicly and perhaps do some activity they can get away with (it is possible to doorknock without taking a selfie!) but Corbyn will not be short of non-labour activists or money.

The issue I imagine will be for Islington Councillors and CLP members

[EastAnglianLefty]

It's not really new information - the previous line was that Corbyn had to apologise to get the whip back, and that was never going to happen.

[Coldstream]

It's not really new information - the previous line was that Corbyn had to apologise to get the whip back, and that was never going to happen.

It is important, because until now the SCG/Momentum could get away with the “restore the whip” argument, now they have to make a choice between Corbyn or Labour.

[CumbrianLefty]

Of course, they *should* be urging him not to stand - and also trying to persuade the leadership to enable a Labour candidate selection that would make that more likely.

[Torrain]

Corbyn has a response, but doesn’t seem to really be saying anything, yet:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1625918105439404033

[LabourJersey]

Corbyn has a response, but doesn’t seem to really be saying anything, yet:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1625918105439404033

This might expose my ignorance, but don't "party leaders" typically decide who the candidate is in a particular constituency? Or at least alongside the local party member? That was my impression of how the selection (or deselection) process works.

If I'm wrong please let me know. 

[Torrain]

This might expose my ignorance, but don't "party leaders" typically decide who the candidate is in a particular constituency? Or at least alongside the local party member? That was my impression of how the selection (or deselection) process works.

If I'm wrong please let me know.  

Tbh, I don’t have enough knowledge to give you a detailed answer, our longstanding Labour posters could probably do that better than me. But from what I’ve observed over the past year of Labour selections, I can give you the following:

In seats with an incumbent MP, they are assumed to be the defacto candidate, unless a certain number of local party branches voice their dissatisfaction in a “trigger ballot”. If an MP is “triggered” (yes, that’s what it’s called), the party opens up selection, and the incumbent had to fight a full selection battle.

In open seats, a long list of candidates is drawn up, and these are vetted by HQ (with leadership sometimes veto-ing candidates they distrust, as we’ve seen in 2022-23), and require nominations from local party branches. The resulting shortlist is then voted on by local members.

MPs can therefore be deselected via a trigger ballot, or by leadership veto-ing a candidates progression to the long/short list. Corbyn is a weird case because he had his party membership restored. Typically, if leadership dislikes an MP who’s broken the rules, they can just be turfed out of the party (membership revoked), making them altogether ineligible.

As Corbyn is a member (but doesn’t have the whip), I’ve heard suggestion that he’ll be able to apply for the Islington North long-list, but then be subject to an NEC vetting interview, that he’ll auto-fail.

The last part appear to be wrong - see Filuwaúrdjan below.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yeah the wisest action would be to get someone like Sam Tarry to stand.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Whipless MPs are automatically excluded as eligible candidates for selection, and the Whip is the purview of the Parliamentary Party and therefore the Party Leadership directly rather than the National Executive. In this particular case the already faint possibility (because it would have required an apology and he doesn't do those) of Corbyn regaining the Whip had been ended by the stances he has taken and the comments he has made about the Russian invasion of Ukraine (which would have resulted in disciplinary action on their own anyway), so yesterday's announcement wasn't much more than a confirmation of what everyone already knew to be the case.

[Blair]

My assumption is that the NEC has the powers of a monarch over selections; there are rules and processes that must be followed though but they are broad enough.

It has been a long standing gripe of councillors that they are required to appear before a panel every four years to get re-selected and you can find a reason to get rid of a lazy councillor or someone who has bought the Labour group into disrepute- whereas MPs never really faced this.

There’s been cases of Labour MPs being barred before- Roger Godstiff was at the last election over his errrr actions around the anti lgbt protests in Birmingham.

The working assumption (despite DA interview yesterday) is Corbyn will stand and only when formally rejected would he then run as an independent.

I really don’t understand why he doesn’t call a by election to force the issue as it would be a lot easier to win than a general- there’s a long list iirc of independents who win one election but then get crushed in a general election.

[CumbrianLefty]

Corbyn doing a by-election to run as an Independent might well be seen as an unwelcome distraction and self-indulgent even by many in the more sensible wing of his support (ie not the online cultists) He surely has more chance if he can convincingly portray himself as the wronged party to a sufficient number of people, and it might also get him 5 more years in parliament rather than 18 months.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Analysis of a possible run by Corbyn as an Independent Labour candidate* is a tricky area as it's hard for people's judgment not to be influenced by their views of the man (mine are no secret) and as dissident candidatures as a phenomenon in Britain are often misunderstood due to basically romantic sentiment, but I'll try my best anyway. It helps that I certainly don't share the latter.

Firstly, in order for a dissident candidate to even poll well, let alone actually win, they need to have either a strong local profile or to be associated with a powerful issue that puts them into disagreement with their party, either locally or nationally and to be skilled enough to be able to capitalize on it. This can include being clearly screwed over when they have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the local electorate, but the threshold for this is a lot higher than screwed-over MPs often think it must be. When neither conditions are met, the candidate will not poll in excess of 10% of the vote and will often struggle to poll above the 5% needed to retain their deposit, even if they are the incumbent MP and even if they have been so for a long time.

Secondly, in order for an dissident candidate to be competitive or to win, then they need to be able to convince the local electorate that, other than the dispute that has seen them run against their party, they are essentially still a proxy vote for that party, or (and this is especially true in constituencies that are not absolute strongholds for the party in question and is less relevant in said absolute strongholds) to have a substantial crossover appeal to supporters of other parties. If neither condition is met, then the dissident will not win or get close to doing so, even if they are popular locally and even if people think they have been treated shabbily: Frank Field's result in 2019 is a case in point, in that he polled a credible result - 17% - but as he was unable to honestly portray himself as a Labour candidate by proxy (and was honest enough not to try) did not come close to actually winning and would not have done so even had he been well enough for a vigorous campaign. An instructive historical example is that of D.N. Pritt: the MP for Hammersmith North since 1935, he was expelled from the Labour Party in 1940 for supporting the Soviet invasion of Finland, but was able to portray himself as a Labour candidate by proxy in 1945 and was re-elected overwhelmingly as an Independent Labour candidate. By 1950 his pro-Soviet views were no longer compatible with this image, and he was heavily defeated.

Thirdly, it is always easier for a dissident to poll well in a constituency with a stable electorate, as voters in such constituencies are more likely to have had some sort of contact with the dissident candidate, and to have just seen them around as a presence for years. In constituencies with more transient populations, a lot of the basic electoral mechanics become harder. This isn't as critical as the other two factors, but is never something to ignore as an issue. I'm not personally convinced that the quality of the official Party candidate matters much: if the dissident campaign has legs, then the official candidate will often end up seeming dreadful even if they're pretty good, and if it doesn't, then it's really just a case of mild dents to the majority.

Putting all of these factors together, I would note that Corbyn has a huge profile even if he lacks a strong issue to run on (the circumstances of his suspension and eventual disqualification are not going to be good things to run on), but that he is... er... unlikely to win the support of people who usually vote for other candidates in his constituency (especially given his very unpopular positions on Ukraine), and that he might find it harder than even last year to portray himself as a Labour candidate by proxy, even if he has the inclination to play that card, which also feels less likely. Islington North also happens to be one of the most transient constituencies in the country, which is not to his advantage: Corbyn has a reputation as a diligent constituency member, but it is worth noting that this reputation mostly comes from people who lived in Islington North for a few years and now do not. This is all suggestive of a strong second place, unless circumstances change or he's more willing than presently feels likely to portray himself as a Labour candidate by proxy, though perhaps I repeat myself. Of course, all of the things I discuss above are essentially tendencies rather than rules, and tendencies are not absolutely predictive.

It is also worth noting that the Labour Party's rules mandate the automatic expulsion of members who endorse the candidacy of anyone running against an official Labour Party candidate. This hasn't always been enforced particularly strictly in the past, but I don't think anyone should be under the illusion that it won't be in this case, were it to happen. Corbyn can be a rather vain and egotistical man, but he has always been reflexively loyal to his circle of friends and allies (this was not to his advantage as Party Leader), and may be uncomfortable with putting them in a difficult position, especially as he no longer needs the letters 'MP' after his name to attract media attention to his campaigns and public statements.

_{*Which, at present, seems to fall into the 'possible, but not likely' category.}

[YL]

Yeah the wisest action would be to get someone like Sam Tarry to stand.

My impression is that one of the leadership's primary aims here is to distance themselves from Corbyn as much as possible, and if that's right I assume they are not particularly interested in doing that sort of deal and would actually rather risk losing the seat, especially as it is far from certain that Corbyn would actually win; see Al's post.

I suppose, though, that if Tarry chooses to go for the nomination it might be quite hard to justify stopping him.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes, whilst the leadership might not actually *seek* to get a left winger in they might not actively try to prevent it given the circumstances. One mischievous suggestion has been Owen Jones btw

[EastAnglianLefty]

Yeah the wisest action would be to get someone like Sam Tarry to stand.

My impression is that one of the leadership's primary aims here is to distance themselves from Corbyn as much as possible, and if that's right I assume they are not particularly interested in doing that sort of deal and would actually rather risk losing the seat, especially as it is far from certain that Corbyn would actually win; see Al's post.

I suppose, though, that if Tarry chooses to go for the nomination it might be quite hard to justify stopping him.

I would note that Rayner has quietly made clear her unhappiness with the Leigh Drennan exclusion from the shortlist in Bolton NE. If Tarry were to put himself forward for Islington N and was rebuffed, there might be repercussions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't think a deal is particularly likely (or, really, in the best interests of anyone), but the logic for a relatively open selection seems clear enough. It isn't as if the CLP would automatically peak whichever candidate seemed closest to Corbyn's own faction anyway.