This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Blair]

In a shock horror I am old enough too to vote for a youth officer, despite having left university almost two years ago!

These races are often extremely petty, hilarous, vicious and mindblowing; so god knows what the result will be. The young labour membership has historically been more right wing than the membership as a whole (it was the section other than Scotland to vote for Owen Smith) but who knows what will happen.

We're at the lucky stage where one NEC vote is no longer a matter of life & death and I expect this will be even more so after the CLP NEC election

Tis begun

[Blair]

99% sure Sheerman was told to apologise by the whips office or by LOTO; if you see his rather sheepish tweet.

This was irc the same treatment given to Abbott, LRM & Riberio-Addy after similar level infractions re AS. Starmer didn't actually say anything about these cases either but each time Labour made a comment on the record (something obvs sactioned by LOTO) & as with LRM an apology was made.
There's generally always three levels to any misconduct by an MP; something that gets you made to apologize, something that gets you sacked from internal party posts & something that gets the whip suspended.

In this case it reached the first threshold & in RLB's case it reached the second threshold- especially as she refused to apologise in full.

[Blair]

Potentially the bigger issue long-term (since Sheerman gave an apology that was grudging and half-hearted, but still recognisably an apology) is the furore over Rosie Duffield. Duffield made transphobic comments and in return got a lot of justified criticism and quite a lot of abusive tweets. Whilst a lot of MPs (the Shadow Equality minister included) have condemned the abuse, they haven't mentioned the transphobia, which Duffield has doubled down on.

One gets the very definite impression that Starmer does not want to take sides on the escalating fight within Labour over trans rights, but that it is not going to be feasible for very much longer.

The problem for Labour is that the party has a clearly defined & well supported public policy position on this- but it is becoming a cultural & Political debate rather than a policy one (why is ofc what Section 28 was)

It's worth noting that until 2018 it was widely accepted as part of the mainstream thought of both parties & previous Select Committes that you reform the GRA to allow for self-ID and introduce some sort of change for documents.

The GRA reform was set up with the expectation this would happen! But it was mothballed & delayed-and has seen a very skilled lobbying effort that has turned this debate into something it shouldn't be; endless culture war rows about who said what & what tweet said why.

The danger is that as the above happens it becomes more painful for Labour to get involded but equally in my view becomes much more so morally correct; having seen how my wing of the party absolutely botched the response to Gay Rights in the 1980s it's hilarous to see how many people seem prepared to make the mistake (no doubt to then in 20 years talk with teary eyes about the amazing work we did to support trans rights)

[Blair]

This mere days after he made a bizarre semi-defence of Ghislaine Maxwell on the same Platform. He will be eighty in a couple of weeks. Hard not to wonder if we have another case of the Kaufman's on our hands, urgh.

Was Kaufman ill for most of his last year? The only thing I knew about his last years was that the CLP has to be suspended because of the feud over who would suceed him

Barry Sheerman the latest Labour bod to commit an AS related faux pas on social media. Tbh I am increasingly sympathetic to the view that our MPs should be discouraged from contributing on Twitter beyond the absolute minimum.

Yes completely. It should be seen as a tool which they use to keep in touch with constituents, comment on national & local stories & engage in party political activty.

It was quite funny that a few days before Steve Reed put his foot in it Jenrick joked in the Chamber about Reed spending too much time on twitter; he was right! The most frustrating thing is that the tweets that get MPs into trouble never actually contribute anything.

Like if you give a really long speech in the chamber & mess up a line or an attack you can at least say 'oh well I did 95% of the speech which was fine'- a tweet contributes & changes nothing. What was to gain from Rosie Duffield making a flippant remark?

[Blair]

Sigh can you please read my post again? Specifically the part where I said the leadership have a moral need to call out anti-trans rhetoric & the GRA needs to be reformed to include self-ID.

I'm part of the LGBT community I don't need to be told how terrifying this for Trans people.

I don't see the issue with saying a factions stance is hilarous in the historical context when I'm attacking them for not doing enough on trans rights!

[Blair]

Sigh can you please read my post again? Specifically the part where I said the leadership have a moral need to call out anti-trans rhetoric & the GRA needs to be reformed to include self-ID.

I'm part of the LGBT community I don't need to be told how terrifying this for Trans people.

I don't see the issue with saying a factions stance is hilarous in the historical context when I'm attacking them for not doing enough on trans rights!

If that were the case, such comments would not be made. For the record: the issue is that calling the despicable reaction of the Labour right on this issue 'hilarious', historically contextualized or otherwise, portrays it as something amusing when it is very much not, certainly for those of us who have skin in the game. It's depressing, offensive, embarrassing, hypocritical (as you point out), and predictable. Hilarious not so much.

And fwiw you didn't say the leadership had a moral need to call out anti-trans rhetoric. You posited it was increasingly 'morally correct' for 'Labour to get involved'; that can mean anything but I'm reassured to hear it's a call for more action to support trans people. Cheers for that

Regardless, the point is Starmer's shown he's comfortable placating transphobes on this issue and isn't even getting the benefit of a poll lead out of it, nevermind being 20 points ahead like we were promised.

I'm glad we've cleared it up.

[Blair]

Not starting beef... I actually have rather unsure & contradictory views about 2017...

https://twitter.com/PeoplesMomentum/status/1291788551412158470

[Blair]

I mean the one thing that is forgotten about 2017 is that it was widely briefed by Corbyn's team during that they were aiming to increase the vote share in order to survive the expected (and prepared) leadership challenge from Yvette & Chukka; with the explict argument that if they matched Ed's vote share or gained seats he would stay.

I mean Corbyn visited York (a seat which even in 2015 irrc had a 7K majority) to do an hour long rally; the funny thing that the trip really sums up my view of the campaign.

Corbyn's team were doing something actually quite smart (getting good clips for the news, using his skills as a speaker, going where he was popular) but they were doing it for partly questionable reasons.

Besides I might just be a bit wet about it but I feel 2017 was such a weird election; it was the only snap election in the modern era, it was stupidly long, it had two unknown & untested leaders and it had local elections stuck in between it

[Blair]

The big mystery is whether there was a comprehensive review into the 2017 election; even after Iain McNicol & others left HQ in 2018?

I know it's very internalised but I can't look at the period between 2018-2019 and believe that if the team from 2019 were super-imposed back into 2017 whether we would have seen a better than expected result?

I mean can I just settle at the view that the Labour party hasn't exactly been very well ran since 2005?

[Blair]

What does that mean?

Nice tweet I saw yesterday - on the lines of "lots of people out there who are totally not racist, but whose least favourite three politicians just happen to be Abbott/Butler/Lammy"

All three also share the distinction of losing internal elections where a good chunk of people who you'd expect to vote for them didn't.

[Blair]

What does that mean?

Nice tweet I saw yesterday - on the lines of "lots of people out there who are totally not racist, but whose least favourite three politicians just happen to be Abbott/Butler/Lammy"

All three also share the distinction of losing internal elections where a good chunk of people who you'd expect to vote for them didn't.

What was Lammy's "internal election"?

The other two maybe need to be unpacked a bit as well - Abbott was never ever going to win in 2010 and her "hard leftness" was beyond much doubt a bigger deterrent then than her race. Butler indeed did poorly in this year's deputy contest, but another non-white hopeful did much better than many had expected; at least something to do with the fact she ran a good campaign, and Butler - FWIW my own 2nd choice behind Rayner - by common consent did not.

Even if there is a bit of reluctance for Labour members to vote for black candidates underneath all that - and tbf there quite possibly is - it maybe shouldn't be conflated with the outright gammony racism I cited above.

Mayoral Election in 2015. And that was the one I was inferring with Abbott too; she was obviously never going to win 2010 (and would have come third rather than 5th with the new system) but for London Mayor in 2015 she certainly could have expected to have done better; I knew a lot of Corbyn-Khan voters in London.

There's of course more to that; Khan had the backings of GMB & UNITE which was on reflection understandable as he spend years doing the work & was seen as relatively on the left back then & Abbott wasn't universally loved on the left (Red Ken backed SK)

I don't think a big problem was that Labour members were explicity rascist; but it certainly plays a big role for members in both A.) The perceived electability (something that I've heard explicity said in CLP meetings) B.) The lack of traditional support within the movement.

Its a long running problem & one I imagine is worse at local Government level; I live in a ward that is around 40% BAME yet I can count on one hand the number of BAME people who attend branch meetings which of course reduces the pool even more so...

[Blair]

Since deleting my twitter (which I only ever used for political news) it's remarkable how quickly this stuff not only literally disapears from sight but also becomes more & more irrelevant; it was summed up on the NS podcast as...

'the exact same mistake by Corbynsceptics from 2016; they're confusing getting each other angrier with more people getting angry about Starmer''.

These are, on the whole, people who never supported Starmer. They thought that Jackie Walker was treated badly, they thought that Chris Williamsons should have stayed in the party, they thought Ian Lavery was fit to run the Labour Party & they thought that RLB sold out the movement for signing the 10 pledges.

In the same way that there was a arch-blairite rump which thought that Blair didn't go far enough there is equally a large part of the Corbynite tendency which believes it didn't go far enough.

If you basically accept that there are 20,000 people on twitter who ascribe to the above view it's perfectly easy for this issue to be whipped up every time it's socialist sunday; it's honestly the same as the 4-5 people shouting at the back of the CLP meeting who then proceed to lose very single motion by double digits.

[Blair]

I'd love to see a very deep piece on the organised left (within Labour) & how it has responded to Starmer. I think the thing that Labour twitter & the never ending outrage distract from is the longer & wider project (a mistake the Labour right made in 2016) & the success that Starmer has had & could have in reshaping the party.

Within the PLP it's clear that a large chunk of the 2017 & 2019 intake have rightly seen Starmer as the best wagon to hitch their cart to; Sam Tarry is by far the best example of this.

His selection, for fear of libelling anyone, was controversial. If Corbyn or even RLB was leader he would have been expected to have had a job- he's one of the most politically connected members
member of the '19 lot from the SCG group. How has he spend his time since Starmer won? He's served as Ed Miliband's bag carrier (PPS) & has spent his time doing committee work on BA & working closely with UNITE's campaign.  What he's not been doing is leading twitter pile ons & debating NEC slates.

Even the people in the intake who I'd describe as more crankish have been very quiet. I mean the only Corbynite MP willing to go on record for stories is Claudia Webbe & Dianne Abbott; neither are rising stars & I'd be shocked if neither were still here after 2024.

I'd ignore this if it was just PLP related but within the Trade Union Movement it was a resounding & clear snub for Howard Beckett to lose the UNITED LEFT nomination when he ran such an explicity anti-Starmer campaign; I mean he was literally touting his nomination from the weird online blogs & accused Starmer of selling out the working class movement.

The funny thing is that the person he lost to (Steve Turner) is probably equally left-wing; but he had much deeper routes in UNITE & said something along the lines of 'I need to work with Keir if I win, let this race be about industrial issues' etc etc.

If the race for GMB & UNISON chairs are won by either moderates or people on the left who can read the room then it's clear that you'll see a broadly similar approach- if you add even the worse NEC result for Starmer (a 6-3 momentum victory) & then see the TU section change with Community added then you've got an even bigger NEC majority & Starmer is even stronger than where he starts.

[Blair]

Beckett's defeat by Turner was both hilarious and rather encouraging, yes.

The thing is, at least the "never Corbyn" brigade had most of the media on their side - which might provide something of an excuse for them so often misreading things. The "hate Starmer" crowd have literally nothing outside their own self-reinforcing bubble.

Cursed it as Beckett is now running.

I don't know enough about UNITE politics to know whether he'll get 10% of the vote or win some bizarre 4 way race

[Blair]

Even within said bubble, the more perceptive contributors to Novara et al. have distinctly more nuanced takes. The broader Corbynosphere isn't large enough to control Labour, but if all you've got in your court is Skwawkbox and Aaron Bastani then you are up the creek without a paddle.

Yeah I think frankly a good operation does make it a lot harder for broad based internal opposition to work without it appearing well cranky (Corbyn received historically high levels of unity from the party during the summer of 2017 because he controlled the agenda)

I still think there's a big problem with people (especially commentators, including those on the left) confusing noise with power within the Labour movement.

It's like when you see these various internal pressure groups (Labour for a Green New Deal being the most obvious example) tweet something angry &  brief against Starmer- but you then realise it's literally ran by two people & was set up to support RLBs then shadow leadership bid. It's not at all a thing exclusive to the left fwiw.

You see it on a bigger scale with Momentum; they're still able to generate articles & headlines with  'Momentum lash out at Starmer over....'. But the importance of them as an organisation gets weaker & weaker considering at best they can generate around 20K votes in internal elections & have been reduced to well just being social media warriors (whose once much feared output hasn't really be that ahead since 2017)

I should wait until the NEC elections to write their obituary but they're going to face the wilderness if Starmer gets a 6-3 NEC majority, boots out the smaller left unions from the NEC & then controls the officers group.

[Blair]

boots out the smaller left unions from the NEC

Excuse my ignorance, but what do you actually mean by this?

IIRC (I don't know the logisitics or numbers) but there's talk that the Bakers Union and the FBU might lose their NEC seats- I think the same was done with Community who use to have an NEC seat but lost it during the height of Corbyns power.

I think it's done in the weird pre-conference or autumn away day the NEC has every year which serves as a quasi AGM for the NEC.

[Blair]

Note that ASLEF will almost certainly keep their seat because the sly buggers switched sides.

Were they not part of the hilarously inept attempt at stoping David Evans from becoming GS? I hadn't noticed that they switched!

I know that TSSA are relatively neutral if not pro-Starmer; although I think that had a lot to do with the GS liking Starmer & the members being ovewhelming anti-Brexit iirc.

[Blair]

Serialised passage from the new book from Pogrund & Maguire (two of the best sourced Labour reporters) makes quite good- for those who don't have a ST suscripition the book comes out on the 3rd September.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aides-feared-jeremy-corbyn-was-sabotaging-his-own-campaign-in-labours-chaotic-ride-to-disaster-9n829p8hl

[Blair]

Well it maybe makes "quite good" reading apart from the identifiable factual mistakes that have been identified already. And that "Vauxhall was going to go Tory" headline grabber is itself a massive red flag - that wasn't going to happen if Labour had been reduced to 50 seats a la 1931, never mind 150.

(Vauxhall falling to the *LibDems*, on the other hand.....)

I can't remember who said it but it's true that the noise that comes out of histories of the Labour Party is the grinding of axes.

I tend to read this with the knowledge that a fair chunk of it is questionable but frankly I just want to find out who's trying to grind these axes.

[Blair]

fwiw for their faults Streeting & Phillips did at least get jobs that matched their parliamentary experience..

[Blair]

The funny thing is that I feel there's a distinct difference in how people who have been on the Labour left for a long time have approached Starmer & how those people who joined post 2015 approach it; a lot of the more vocal & online people are not those who have long roots in the party.

I feel the McDonnell row is a proxy for the second referedum row; which has become the comfort blanket for those on the left who hated it & feel very happy to blame Starmer for forcing Jeremy to adopt it. This was immediately settled on as the line & just like when the right tried it with 'aspiration' it felt pretty stupid.

Brexit was certainly a reason that some Labour voters switched (and how the tories frankly managed to drag out people) but there is no universe where there is a more popular/suitable brexit strategy that actually gains the parties seats; May's Deal was toxic with everyone & people forget that Labour's approach in 2019 was a fudge that no-one wanted.

LOTO kept Starmer off the TV (which was great for him; he visited 40+ marginal seats & had time to run a leadership bid) & wanted to avoid talking about Brexit.

An interesting counterfactual is how Labour would have done without an explicit second referedum promise (although irrc this shift actually came during a panic just before EU elections). The fact that the book has a lot of on the record stuff about anti-semitism & Salisbury shows that there is a real push (as we've discussed many times) to cast these two as the actual demise of JC rather than Brexit.

This is actually the part of the book that interests me the most; something went badly wrong with LOTO, HQ and the movement between the summer of 2018 & September 2019

[Blair]

Double posting but this is interesting in the context of the Forever wars; there were some rumblings that if Labours polling didn't increase by next year that they'd be 'moves'. I hate going back to the Ed M days of obsessing over a 2-3 bump in polls but this along with Starmers own relative strength is a good thing for the party- especialy with a bumper set of local elections in 2021

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1299781777163255814

On a wider point I'm thinking about trying to get some sort of idea of how I've thought the first 6 months for Starmer have gone; I've been dissapointed honestly with the strength of our economic argument & I think there's been some internal stumbles but this is midely reassuring after some worries I had earlier this month.

[Blair]

Yes there has been a marked improvement; the ending of the furlough & lack of sectoral support gives Labour a good chance to make a lot of noise.

There's certainly been some criticism of the lack of policy (both from members & non-members) although there is a huge difference between what both groups want to see; it's obvious that one of the main efforts Labour are making is to be careful with annoucements.

It's always extremely difficult being shadow chancellor during a time like this; especially when we're dealing with what emergency budgets virtually every 3 months!

[Blair]

Richard Leonard appears to be facing a coup.

Knowing the Labour movements skill at this I'm pretty certain he's safe.

[Blair]

Unless Leonard has some sort of plan up sleeve I'm very unsure what the strategy is; especially as the current path is for SLab to come third, lose seats & for him to then resign.

I'm sure part of him thinks that he could quit, give it to Baillee or Sarwar, watch them lose and at least gloat- but equally it's clear that this is now seen as a proxy battle of the right v the left. The defences I've seen of Leonard have not actually defended him; but just featured variants of 'we can't go back to the right, who do you want etc etc.''

So why give them something they want?

Are there any Scottish Labourites that would be better than this guy Leonard? It seems like their bench has been very thing for some time.

I think there are but the issue is that none are better enough to actually have a material difference on the Scottish Elections.

I just read that Gordon Brown was floated back in 2014...