2020 Labour Leadership Election

[brucejoel99]

So Starmer wants to lead the party in a right-wards direction, disappointing but the left-candidate in the race was horrible so we're stuck with this.

To be fair, at least the 'right-wingers' aren't in major positions. And people on the left were worried about there being no left-wingers at all in any of these positions; in actuality, there are quite a few on the Starmer front bench.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The Middle East brief given to Wayne David, who broke the whip to vote for the continued Saudi blockade of Yemen.

[brucejoel99]

The Middle East brief given to Wayne David, who broke the whip to vote for the continued Saudi blockade of Yemen.

I feel like this clashes with Keir's 4th pledge.

[CumbrianLefty]

So Starmer wants to lead the party in a right-wards direction, disappointing but the left-candidate in the race was horrible so we're stuck with this.

I think a bit too much is being read into the junior appointments by some - in particular, with certain high profile right wingers its a case IMO of "now show that you *can* be loyal to things you may not totally agree with" rather than "I think the way you behaved in the last 5 years is hunky dory".

A challenge rather than a reward, in other words.

And it wouldn't be usual to give even junior posts to the 2019 intake this early, but given that they are significantly to the left of the 2017 entrants (never mind earlier) that is going to be interesting to watch in a year or two. Some may be given PPS posts now, however, so look out for that.

[warandwar]

One thing that was lost in 2015-2016 (partly as usual because there was a lot of cases involving screaming wolf) is that a lot of the fringe left parties wound up and absorded into Labour.

Whilst the numbers were small I'd still be pretty confident to say it would run in the thousands were pretty horrible but dogged activists joined Labour from groups like Left Unity, TUSC, the Socialist Party & probably even some ex-community groups- I must admit I know nothing in detail of the politics of these groups other than having gone to a few meetings where it was 2-3 ageging lefties arguining whether Chavez was a reformer- of course it was the white old bloke telling the South American trade unionist that Chavez was great but I'm going off my point.

I had someone at my CLP stand up & say 'After 30 years in Militant I'm glad to be back'- and frankly the party & the left of the party would benefit greatly from these people going back to their irrelevant & tedious petty fiefdoms.

There is a marked difference between people of the left joining and organsiing & people from organised leftist politcal parties joining with the intention of being absolutely awful to everyone.

 

First of all, anyone thinking that an alliance between the CPGB(ML) and George Galloway is a good place to do politics is denser than the Earth's core.

If you want to know more about any of these groups, I'd be happy to answer any questions. It's definitely my wheelhouse. I think there's many prominent figures in Labour and the Trade Unions that would prefer to keep them stereotyped as small clusters of crackpots and cranks, because that allows them to maintain their hegemony on leadership and representation of "the Left." Not that the stereotype isn't based on any truth, but it is certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kier Starmer would not be in the place he is in today if he hadn't been a member of one of the most obscure, and most crankish sects out there - Pabloite Trotskyism.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Good tweet

https://twitter.com/steamedhamms/status/1248582883306078213?s=19

[Blair]

One thing that was lost in 2015-2016 (partly as usual because there was a lot of cases involving screaming wolf) is that a lot of the fringe left parties wound up and absorded into Labour.

Whilst the numbers were small I'd still be pretty confident to say it would run in the thousands were pretty horrible but dogged activists joined Labour from groups like Left Unity, TUSC, the Socialist Party & probably even some ex-community groups- I must admit I know nothing in detail of the politics of these groups other than having gone to a few meetings where it was 2-3 ageging lefties arguining whether Chavez was a reformer- of course it was the white old bloke telling the South American trade unionist that Chavez was great but I'm going off my point.

I had someone at my CLP stand up & say 'After 30 years in Militant I'm glad to be back'- and frankly the party & the left of the party would benefit greatly from these people going back to their irrelevant & tedious petty fiefdoms.

There is a marked difference between people of the left joining and organsiing & people from organised leftist politcal parties joining with the intention of being absolutely awful to everyone.

 

First of all, anyone thinking that an alliance between the CPGB(ML) and George Galloway is a good place to do politics is denser than the Earth's core.

If you want to know more about any of these groups, I'd be happy to answer any questions. It's definitely my wheelhouse. I think there's many prominent figures in Labour and the Trade Unions that would prefer to keep them stereotyped as small clusters of crackpots and cranks, because that allows them to maintain their hegemony on leadership and representation of "the Left." Not that the stereotype isn't based on any truth, but it is certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kier Starmer would not be in the place he is in today if he hadn't been a member of one of the most obscure, and most crankish sects out there - Pabloite Trotskyism.

Oh I'm going to bite now.

1.) I assumed Keir's early Trotkyism & work with Socialist Alternative was quite limited & was an aside to his law work?

2.) I always thought that the branch of Trotyiskm that Keir was with was laregly just modelled on the wider social movements in the 80s; whether that was green politics, gay and lesbian rights or the various reform movements in Eastern Europe.

3.) The above explains why Paul Mason supports Keir right?

4.) How does the Alliance for Workers Libery fit in with the above? I remember reading about them first when they were accused of trying to take over CLPs in Lewisham & then they were accused of being behind the push for a people's vote/remain on the left?

5.) I assume the Workers Party is just a vehcile for Galloway?

6.) What's your general feeling about whats going to happen with momentum & the wider parts of the left which either informally or formally entered Labour's various eco-systems after 2015? Part of me is convinced that it will get it's game together marginally and present a relatively united front at least for the NEC elections but equally the tenions bubbling away during this campaign were obvious and I can see it all going insane.

[brucejoel99]

Good tweet

https://twitter.com/steamedhamms/status/1248582883306078213?s=19

NO HE CAN'T BACK A MEDAL CAMPAIGN, HE'S EXPOSED HIMSELF AS A NEO LIBERAL TRAITOR TO THE WORKING CLASS BASED ON THIS ONE HEADLINE AND COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO EVERYTHING HE'S ALREADY SAID! YOU JUST CAN'T SEE AS CLEARLY AS WE CAN???

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1.) I assumed Keir's early Trotkyism & work with Socialist Alternative was quite limited & was an aside to his law work?

2.) I always thought that the branch of Trotyiskm that Keir was with was laregly just modelled on the wider social movements in the 80s; whether that was green politics, gay and lesbian rights or the various reform movements in Eastern Europe.

That's exactly it, strangely. Pabloism in the UK by the 1980s had shifted a long way away from anything like 'normal' Trotskyite politics,* towards advocacy of Workers Self Management, environmentalism, the various social movements and so on. The man for whom all this was named was mostly involved in pro-PASOK activism (?!??) in Greece at the time, I believe.

_{*To the limited extent that there is such a thing.}

[CumbrianLefty]

Good tweet

https://twitter.com/steamedhamms/status/1248582883306078213?s=19

Its now become accepted wisdom amongst a swathe of online Corbynism that Starmer 1) said he wanted health workers to get medals off his own bat, rather than in response to a direct question from the Mirror - and 2) he mentioned literally nothing else. Neither talking point, of course, is actually correct.

Given the similar bad faith misrepresentation that Corbyn had to endure for 5 years, its ironic. And all the more so given that the man himself previously said he supported the campaign in question.

[Blair]

Good tweet

https://twitter.com/steamedhamms/status/1248582883306078213?s=19

Its now become accepted wisdom amongst a swathe of online Corbynism that Starmer 1) said he wanted health workers to get medals off his own bat, rather than in response to a direct question from the Mirror - and 2) he mentioned literally nothing else. Neither talking point, of course, is actually correct.

Given the similar bad faith misrepresentation that Corbyn had to endure for 5 years, its ironic. And all the more so given that the man himself previously said he supported the campaign in question.

The reason I've deleted twitter from my phone is that I've seen the people saying this & it's literally the same people who were doing the 'WHO FUNDS YOU' stuff & calling Keir a Blairite.

They're the loud people at the back of the CLP meeting who shout & scream and then lost their pointless votes 3-50.

Even as a more ardent corbynspectic I had hpped that by the end I was a bit less idiotic in what battles I would fight & what stuff I'd complain about but yeah as annoying as these people are as David Cameron said twitter isn't Britain. (He also said too many tweets make a twat)

[CumbrianLefty]

And as we have seen with certain people since 2015, criticising a party leader for literally ANYTHING - fair or unfair, right or wrong - is absolutely drainingly exhausting and probably not good for your mental health.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Good tweet

https://twitter.com/steamedhamms/status/1248582883306078213?s=19

Its now become accepted wisdom amongst a swathe of online Corbynism that Starmer 1) said he wanted health workers to get medals off his own bat, rather than in response to a direct question from the Mirror - and 2) he mentioned literally nothing else. Neither talking point, of course, is actually correct.

Given the similar bad faith misrepresentation that Corbyn had to endure for 5 years, its ironic. And all the more so given that the man himself previously said he supported the campaign in question.

The reason I've deleted twitter from my phone is that I've seen the people saying this & it's literally the same people who were doing the 'WHO FUNDS YOU' stuff & calling Keir a Blairite.

They're the loud people at the back of the CLP meeting who shout & scream and then lost their pointless votes 3-50.

Even as a more ardent corbynspectic I had hpped that by the end I was a bit less idiotic in what battles I would fight & what stuff I'd complain about but yeah as annoying as these people are as David Cameron said twitter isn't Britain. (He also said too many tweets make a twat)

I started quietly unfollowing people who came out with that sort of thing during the leadership campaign, and it has measurably improved my feed in the last couple of weeks.

[cp]

Good tweet

https://twitter.com/steamedhamms/status/1248582883306078213?s=19

Its now become accepted wisdom amongst a swathe of online Corbynism that Starmer 1) said he wanted health workers to get medals off his own bat, rather than in response to a direct question from the Mirror - and 2) he mentioned literally nothing else. Neither talking point, of course, is actually correct.

Given the similar bad faith misrepresentation that Corbyn had to endure for 5 years, its ironic. And all the more so given that the man himself previously said he supported the campaign in question.

The reason I've deleted twitter from my phone is that I've seen the people saying this & it's literally the same people who were doing the 'WHO FUNDS YOU' stuff & calling Keir a Blairite.

They're the loud people at the back of the CLP meeting who shout & scream and then lost their pointless votes 3-50.

Even as a more ardent corbynspectic I had hpped that by the end I was a bit less idiotic in what battles I would fight & what stuff I'd complain about but yeah as annoying as these people are as David Cameron said twitter isn't Britain. (He also said too many tweets make a twat)

I started quietly unfollowing people who came out with that sort of thing during the leadership campaign, and it has measurably improved my feed in the last couple of weeks.

Based on this, I fear it will take a bit more than a few unfollowings to repair the damage of the past few years.

[warandwar]

1.) I assumed Keir's early Trotkyism & work with Socialist Alternative was quite limited & was an aside to his law work?

As far as the evidence goes, it was limited in the sense he only spent a few years formally in any sort of organization. My point was more that you have to get politicized/radicalizaed in some way. Seeing as he joined it fairly young and while in school, I think it's fair to say that his first real formative experience with politics was within a microsect.

2.) I always thought that the branch of Trotyiskm that Keir was with was laregly just modelled on the wider social movements in the 80s; whether that was green politics, gay and lesbian rights or the various reform movements in Eastern Europe.

Not exactly. Pabloite Trotskyism descended from a split in the post WWII Fourth International. Michael Pablo was the pen name of a Greek-Egyptian who was exiled to France following his imprisonment by Metaxis, and miraculously survived the Nazi occupation. As the Secretary of the Fourth International, Pablo was faced by a movement that had been all but anhiliated over the last 20 years. And so he basically concluded that the best path forward for militants was not to form separate parties, but to practice "entryism" into the official workers movements of the times - namely Communist Parties and Unions. This led to a split in the International, the leaders of which would soon practice all of the things they accused Pablo of. Pablo soildered on, but was eventually cut out of the International in favor of a unification with some of the "Orthodox Trotskyists" that had split (chiefly the American SWP). The main sticking point? Pablo's support for national liberation movements, most prominently the FLN.
Supporting the FLN was no easy task in France in the 1950s. In fact, the Trotskyists were the only force on the Left to do so, and faced serious state repression, as well as repression within the (PCF dominated) union movement. Mandel himself was jailed in the Netherlands for his work smuggling weapons and counterfeit papers to the FLN. After his release, he high tailed it to Morocco, followed by the newly liberated Algeria, where he became a top advisor to Ben Bella.
Pablo's belief that Trotskyists should support national liberation movements would lead to his split with the International. His sect was always quite marginal, as his small band of followers were mostly based in Latin America, where they would be shortly exterminated by the forces of capital. But he continued on, fleeing the coup that toppled Ben Bella, and advising figures such as Castro, Tito, Allende, and the PLO. During this period he published a paper called "Under the Banner of Marxism," which Kier faithfully sold. In this paper, he pushed for among other things, self-management, an idea that he had first put into practice with Ben Bella, as autogestion.

So, we have self-management as a specifically Pabloite program. But what of the rest of the program. Well remember that Pablo supported entry into offical working-class movements. And he was very expansive with this, including national liberation movements when hardly anyone on the Left would see them as representitive of the working-class. So green politics, LGBT movements, and so on? All worthy of Trotskyist entryism. But Contra Al, I wouldn't say that this was a particuarly unusual position on the Trot side of things. It was pretty easy to find Trots in favor of Solidarity in Poland, most of the non-CP Left was, including some Maoists. Green politics, as well, were supported by many Trots (remember that a fear of nuclear war has been a mainstream Trot position since the 50s, and that the first "Green" movement came from rank and file building trade militants in Austrailia, which always had a decent Pabloite grouping) and seeing non-Communist movements as official representitives of the working class was a position held by, among others, Michael Gorbachev. What distingusihed the Pabloites, was 1) the broad extent to which they saw movements as being proletarian in nature, 2) the belief that there was not a need for a vanguard party to direct these movements and 3) the focus on Self-Management as a program to fight for.

3.) The above explains why Paul Mason supports Keir right?

I mean who can tell with him? I think it has more to do with staying relevant.

4.) How does the Alliance for Workers Libery fit in with the above? I remember reading about them first when they were accused of trying to take over CLPs in Lewisham & then they were accused of being behind the push for a people's vote/remain on the left?

AWL are the followers of one Sean Matgamna (sometimes known by John O'Mahoney), who you may know from back in the day as the ringleader of Socialist Organiser. Or Workers Fight. O Trotskyist Tendency. Or International-Communist League. Or Workers Socialist League.
To quote John Sullivan

it would help if we could explain the guiding ideas which have given continuity throughout so many changes of name and partners. Unfortunately this is not possible either, as there are none! That such formidable intransigence and organisational continuity has coexisted with a bewildering variety of positions goes some way to explain his former associates’ fury.
Let us leave accusations of mental instability as the last resort of O’Mahoney’s exasperated former partners, and seek to explain his conduct by its social context. Lenin was fond of quoting Tolstoy’s anecdote of the man who appeared, from the distance, to be making lunatic gestures, and could be seen as deranged. When seen from closer up, the man was engaged in the perfectly rational activity of sharpening a knife on the kerbstone.

They broadly fit into the loose category of "Third Campists." Which means they've ran out of people to ally with and are now down to ~50 members. Nowadays, they are distinguished by their determined racism and Islamophobia, their nickname "the Soggies" and "Labour for a socialist Europe." There's a false rumour that Gloria Di Pieiro was once a member, as well.

5.) I assume the Workers Party is just a vehcile for Galloway?

Yes, with a new face. Now he is the voice of the "anti-woke" worker. Very much a first as tragedy than as farce moment.

6.) What's your general feeling about whats going to happen with momentum & the wider parts of the left which either informally or formally entered Labour's various eco-systems after 2015? Part of me is convinced that it will get it's game together marginally and present a relatively united front at least for the NEC elections but equally the tenions bubbling away during this campaign were obvious and I can see it all going insane.

Presenting a relatively united front for the NEC elections seems somewhat optimistic to me. Similar to the US, most of these microsects have gotten quite weaker over the past few years and aren't picking up new members. That only bodes for more insanity.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Saw someone on twitter saying the report is like "bringing the Death Star to a knife fight". Seems like they went all out in factional terms.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Are the Corbynites just trying to burn down the party on their way out, or are they stupid enough to think this plays well for them??

[cp]

Are the Corbynites just trying to burn down the party on their way out, or are they stupid enough to think this plays well for them??

If they are, it appears they learned that tactic from the anti-Corbyn moderates. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Are the Corbynites just trying to burn down the party on their way out, or are they stupid enough to think this plays well for them??

If they are, it appears they learned that tactic from the anti-Corbyn moderates. 

Well, yes, but two wrongs don't make a right etc. etc.

[Blair]

FWIW there was an expectation of something being done as a last act of defiance to stop Keir... we just expected it before he won

[cp]

Are the Corbynites just trying to burn down the party on their way out, or are they stupid enough to think this plays well for them??

If they are, it appears they learned that tactic from the anti-Corbyn moderates.  

Well, yes, but two wrongs don't make a right etc. etc.

FWIW there was an expectation of something being done as a last act of defiance to stop Keir... we just expected it before he won

Indeed. If the Corbynites had been more sensible they would have kept schtum, spent the next few years surreptitiously sabotaging their new leader, saved the damaging internal memo leaking until the middle of a crucial election campaign, and then blame the disappointing result on the victim of their character assassination. *That's* how you do politics properly.

[CumbrianLefty]

FWIW there was an expectation of something being done as a last act of defiance to stop Keir... we just expected it before he won

Maybe it was kept back in the knowledge that a Starmer win was pretty much unstoppable, and this is now an attempt to get him do certain things and not do others. Not picking Emilie Oldknow as the new GS (as has been mooted) for a start.

And frankly, the motives of whoever leaked this are secondary. It reveals, starkly and incontrovertibly, behaviour that should not be remotely acceptable to anybody who is not a subhuman sociopath.

Such people should never have been allowed to reach such prominent positions in the party.

They must never be again.

[Zinneke]

I am no great fan of the "Trot Left" but this was worth releasing. A lot of these people shouldn't be in the party if they are willing to destroy it. It's really, pretty simple. If you don't like the leadership you can play a passive role,focus on more local politics (like Burnham), play a constructive opposition role in order to keep your faction institutionally relevant (like many soft Left) or leave the party. There's absolutely no justification for weakening your own party and putting potentially people from your own factions out of jobs to to spite its leadership.

[CumbrianLefty]

I mean, laughing at Diane Abbott crying in a toilet after she had been subjected to the most horrific death and rape threats? What's the saying - "in the end, you will become what you most despise"??

[EastAnglianLefty]

1.) I assumed Keir's early Trotkyism & work with Socialist Alternative was quite limited & was an aside to his law work?

As far as the evidence goes, it was limited in the sense he only spent a few years formally in any sort of organization. My point was more that you have to get politicized/radicalizaed in some way. Seeing as he joined it fairly young and while in school, I think it's fair to say that his first real formative experience with politics was within a microsect.

I don't think this is true at all. He'd already been involved with Young Labour for a number of years beforehand. What's more, whilst he wrote for Socialist Alternative, nobody has actually brought forward anything to suggest his writings in it were actually Pabloite - it feels revealing to me that people have put scans of the contents pages online, but not the actual articles. I find it unlikely that this is because they aren't available, and much more likely that it's because they aren't actually that interesting.

I haven't read the articles either (as I say, I haven't seen them put online anywhere and tracking down 1980s Trotskyite zines isn't my idea of fun) but from a distance it seems like it very much fits the picture of a person who is not particularly sectarian in his outlook and happily interacts with a range of tendencies, without necessarily feeling beholden to them.