2020 Labour Leadership Election

[cp]

For those of you who wish to avoid being sick in your own mouth, avoid Twitter, as Labourites are gushing over their beloved Jeremy. An incompetent old racist who destroyed their party for a generation and they are showering him with praise like nothing else. And you all wonder why I think there's no hope.

Calling Corbyn racist only reveals how deeply into mindless baseless invective one's opinion forming abilities have sunk.

Corbyn came up short in the contest of the past few years, and for that I'm always going to feel disappointed. But that's a reflection of his (lack of) political acumen and the inability of his team to respond with agility to rapidly changing events. His shortcomings were political, not ethical, and even despite them I think he's going to be the inspiration for a generation of young people who will try to make their country a better place.

[cp]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

For what it's worth, Corbyn condemned the mural and disavowed it once it was brought to his attention. The explanation he gave was that he didn't look closely enough at the image of the mural when it was sent to him on Facebook. As excuses go it's perfectly plausible, but also just convenient enough that if you're already disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt you can let it damn him without giving it much thought.

[cp]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

For what it's worth, Corbyn condemned the mural and disavowed it once it was brought to his attention. The explanation he gave was that he didn't look closely enough at the image of the mural when it was sent to him on Facebook. As excuses go it's perfectly plausible, but also just convenient enough that if you're already disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt you can let it damn him without giving it much thought.

If that’s true, it just shows how incompetent and unfit he was. He supports a mural that he knows has been taken down for bigotry by Lutfur Rahman - a man not exactly famed as a friend of the Jews - without even looking at it, at the very least it shows he lacks any basic observational ability.

He didn't support the mural. He questioned the reason for it being taken down having supposed that it was solely because it carried a leftist message, which is defensible on free speech grounds, though still kind of obtuse. Guilt by association with Rahman doesn't really apply here, as there's no reason to believe he knew who the artist was any more than there's reason to believe he gave the image itself more than a glancing look. I'm not sure that constitutes a lack of 'basic observational ability'. It seems more likely (or at any rate, just as plausible) a sign that he was a 65 year old man looking at an image on a mobile phone screen.

But, again, to my earlier point, the whole controversy, like pretty much all the altercations about antisemitism involving Corbyn's Labour, was essentially a Rorschach test for a person's preexisting views of Corbyn as a person or his policies.

[cp]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

For what it's worth, Corbyn condemned the mural and disavowed it once it was brought to his attention. The explanation he gave was that he didn't look closely enough at the image of the mural when it was sent to him on Facebook. As excuses go it's perfectly plausible, but also just convenient enough that if you're already disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt you can let it damn him without giving it much thought.

If that’s true, it just shows how incompetent and unfit he was. He supports a mural that he knows has been taken down for bigotry by Lutfur Rahman - a man not exactly famed as a friend of the Jews - without even looking at it, at the very least it shows he lacks any basic observational ability.

He didn't support the mural. He questioned the reason for it being taken down having supposed that it was solely because it carried a leftist message, which is defensible on free speech grounds, though still kind of obtuse. Guilt by association with Rahman doesn't really apply here, as there's no reason to believe he knew who the artist was any more than there's reason to believe he gave the image itself more than a glancing look. I'm not sure that constitutes a lack of 'basic observational ability'. It seems more likely (or at any rate, just as plausible) a sign that he was a 65 year old man looking at an image on a mobile phone screen.

But, again, to my earlier point, the whole controversy, like pretty much all the altercations about antisemitism involving Corbyn's Labour, was essentially a Rorschach test for a person's preexisting views of Corbyn as a person or his policies.

You misunderstood my point about Rahman. Even Rahman thought it was racist, yet Corbyn despite knowing Rahman had had it removed on the grounds of anti-semitism still supported its inclusion.

 Corbyn did know this, since that was the point of the Facebook post in question. So your defence that he didn’t look at the mural in question means that at least his instinctive reaction to an accusation of anti-semitism is to dismiss it.

Or, it means that he’s an idiot who posts in defence of a mural despite not looking at the mural or learning why it was removed. I’d expect even 12 year olds to at least do one of those things. Either way, not fit for office.

It’s a moot point now anyway. If you want to deny anti-semitism that’s your business, but it’s a settled issue for most people. But I worked for the Labour Party in the last election, and I saw on the doorsteps that the majority of the public thought Corbyn was a racist - and it’s one of the major reasons that he suffered such a brutal and personal repudiation in December.

That presumes a lot about what Corbyn did and didn't know, which frankly I don't think there is any basis for believing one way or another. Unless you're Corbyn. (Are you Corbyn?). I think it's perfectly plausible to think this was a comment Corbyn made in haste as a knee-jerk reaction to the perception of suppression of leftist dissent (not an unreasonable conclusion to jump to). It was a mistake in that situation, and when it was pointed out he repudiated it. What more would you ask for?

To your larger point, I was on the doorstep, too, and I saw nothing like what you claim. Meanwhile, however, I *did* see an astoundingly successful mass cancellation of Corbyn based on tenuous connection to the facts of the matter. To point out the deliberate obfuscation, misdirection, and know-nothing histrionics that propelled - and, evidently, continues to propel - so much of the criticism of Corbyn is not to 'deny anti-semitism', but rather to acknowledge the shameful exploitation of accusations of anti-semitism that were leveled, often disingenuously, by those who should have known better.

Whatever the semantics, it is hard to deny that Corbyn was, at best, apathetic to the antisemitism, which is damming enough for me in of itself. It's not my only moral objection to him though. His response to the Skripal Affair (you know, when the Russian government accidentally killed British citizens on British soil) being 'How dare you say such horrible things about my mate Vladimir!' was frankly sickening. Plus the seemingly never-ending list of awful people he associates with; the IRA, Hamas, anti-semitic terrorists he was happy to leave a wreath at the grave of...

This is pointless now anyway - I need to stop thinking about him and all of this, my stress levels are high enough as they are. Not long before he's gone and (with a bit of luck) I won't hear about him again until his obituary.

Not a chance

[cp]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

For what it's worth, Corbyn condemned the mural and disavowed it once it was brought to his attention. The explanation he gave was that he didn't look closely enough at the image of the mural when it was sent to him on Facebook. As excuses go it's perfectly plausible, but also just convenient enough that if you're already disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt you can let it damn him without giving it much thought.

If that’s true, it just shows how incompetent and unfit he was. He supports a mural that he knows has been taken down for bigotry by Lutfur Rahman - a man not exactly famed as a friend of the Jews - without even looking at it, at the very least it shows he lacks any basic observational ability.

He didn't support the mural. He questioned the reason for it being taken down having supposed that it was solely because it carried a leftist message, which is defensible on free speech grounds, though still kind of obtuse. Guilt by association with Rahman doesn't really apply here, as there's no reason to believe he knew who the artist was any more than there's reason to believe he gave the image itself more than a glancing look. I'm not sure that constitutes a lack of 'basic observational ability'. It seems more likely (or at any rate, just as plausible) a sign that he was a 65 year old man looking at an image on a mobile phone screen.

But, again, to my earlier point, the whole controversy, like pretty much all the altercations about antisemitism involving Corbyn's Labour, was essentially a Rorschach test for a person's preexisting views of Corbyn as a person or his policies.

You misunderstood my point about Rahman. Even Rahman thought it was racist, yet Corbyn despite knowing Rahman had had it removed on the grounds of anti-semitism still supported its inclusion.

 Corbyn did know this, since that was the point of the Facebook post in question. So your defence that he didn’t look at the mural in question means that at least his instinctive reaction to an accusation of anti-semitism is to dismiss it.

Or, it means that he’s an idiot who posts in defence of a mural despite not looking at the mural or learning why it was removed. I’d expect even 12 year olds to at least do one of those things. Either way, not fit for office.

It’s a moot point now anyway. If you want to deny anti-semitism that’s your business, but it’s a settled issue for most people. But I worked for the Labour Party in the last election, and I saw on the doorsteps that the majority of the public thought Corbyn was a racist - and it’s one of the major reasons that he suffered such a brutal and personal repudiation in December.

That presumes a lot about what Corbyn did and didn't know, which frankly I don't think there is any basis for believing one way or another. Unless you're Corbyn. (Are you Corbyn?). I think it's perfectly plausible to think this was a comment Corbyn made in haste as a knee-jerk reaction to the perception of suppression of leftist dissent (not an unreasonable conclusion to jump to). It was a mistake in that situation, and when it was pointed out he repudiated it. What more would you ask for?

To your larger point, I was on the doorstep, too, and I saw nothing like what you claim. Meanwhile, however, I *did* see an astoundingly successful mass cancellation of Corbyn based on tenuous connection to the facts of the matter. To point out the deliberate obfuscation, misdirection, and know-nothing histrionics that propelled - and, evidently, continues to propel - so much of the criticism of Corbyn is not to 'deny anti-semitism', but rather to acknowledge the shameful exploitation of accusations of anti-semitism that were leveled, often disingenuously, by those who should have known better.

Whatever the semantics, it is hard to deny that Corbyn was, at best, apathetic to the antisemitism, which is damming enough for me in of itself. It's not my only moral objection to him though. His response to the Skripal Affair (you know, when the Russian government accidentally killed British citizens on British soil) being 'How dare you say such horrible things about my mate Vladimir!' was frankly sickening. Plus the seemingly never-ending list of awful people he associates with; the IRA, Hamas, anti-semitic terrorists he was happy to leave a wreath at the grave of...

This is pointless now anyway - I need to stop thinking about him and all of this, my stress levels are high enough as they are. Not long before he's gone and (with a bit of luck) I won't hear about him again until his obituary.

Not a chance

If he didn’t know the context and if it was a mistake it’s because he’s stupid. Too stupid to recognise anti-semitism when it’s staring him in the face, too stupid to even consider questioning the context of the mural and too stupid to be involved in frontline politics. If it makes you feel better about your support for him to think he was just stupid then that’s your right. But it’s racism or stupidity, there’s no other explanation.

This mixture of incompetence and malice is why Corbyn was so personally rejected in December (if you deny that the main reason people were opposed to Labour was Corbyn then I have doubts you had enough time on the doorstep) and is why Corbynism is dead - and will likely be buried next Saturday.

My contention is that Corbyn probably didn't notice. That's neither stupidity nor incompetence. It was a mistake, for which he apologized, and for which some people will never be able to forgive him. That is their failing, not his. To call Corbyn racist only reveals the desperation and shallowness of the effort to discredit him.

Corbynism, mercifully, is neither dead nor will likely be so any time soon. The ideas he ran on - state enhancement over corporate prerogatives, wider provision of social services, skepticism toward 'western' alliances - are becoming more mainstream by the hour in the given crisis. As I alluded to earlier, like it or not Corbyn was without a doubt the most inspirational figure Labour has produced in the past 25 years. He brought back a level of integrity and chutzpah to the party that had been absent for decades. None of the current contenders for the leadership really tried to repudiate him or the direction he took the party, and rightly so as it would have doomed them with the preponderance of the membership.

[cp]

If you honestly can’t see why failing to notice something as obvious as a racist mural is a sign of stupidity or incompetence then you and I obviously have very different expectations in our public officials. If you’re trolling, fair play on your commitment to an absurd argument.

Again, my contention is that he physically didn't see the image closely enough to make out that level of detail, hence was oblivious to the racist depictions in it. I might be wrong, but there's no more reason to believe your interpretation than mine. That is what's in dispute here, not our respective evaluations of expectations of public officials.

Meanwhile, what isn't in dispute is that once Corbyn was unequivocally made aware of the content of the mural, he repudiated it. Refusing to acknowledge that is, respectfully, much more in the spirit of absurd argumentation and trolling.

[cp]

If you honestly can’t see why failing to notice something as obvious as a racist mural is a sign of stupidity or incompetence then you and I obviously have very different expectations in our public officials. If you’re trolling, fair play on your commitment to an absurd argument.

Again, my contention is that he physically didn't see the image closely enough to make out that level of detail, hence was oblivious to the racist depictions in it. I might be wrong, but there's no more reason to believe your interpretation than mine. That is what's in dispute here, not our respective evaluations of expectations of public officials.

Meanwhile, what isn't in dispute is that once Corbyn was unequivocally made aware of the content of the mural, he repudiated it. Refusing to acknowledge that is, respectfully, much more in the spirit of absurd argumentation and trolling.

Again, if you can’t see that if he did as you “contend” and failed to see the image close enough to discern its contents yet endorsed it anyway - that this is indicative of gross incompetence and stupidity then you clearly have very low standards that you hold public officials to. Most people would expect children to at least look at an image closely before commenting on it.

In case you are honestly, somehow, misunderstanding me I am not saying you’re wrong that he didn’t see the image, I’m saying if he did as you “contend” it makes him an idiot.

If it’s not in dispute as you say, I wouldn’t need to acknowledge it would I? Respectfully, I don’t need to preface something with an acknowledgement of the fact that once he was faced with mass public pressure and a large rebellion from the party - including many of his own supporters - Corbyn certainly claimed he thought the mural was racist.

See, this is exactly what I was talking about with the Rorschach Test earlier. Insisting on only attributing to Corbyn the worst of intentions for a perceived infraction is just replicating one's own existing prejudices, and then using the confected outrage as proof post facto of the alleged malicious original intent.

To your point about what standard public figures (read: Corbyn) ought to be held to, I think your 'standard' is preposterous and disingenuous. Dig deeply enough into the thousands of likes, loves, and retweets a person shoots off over the years and I guarantee you they would find something they'd subsequently find unpalatable. That's not a sign of stupidity, negligence, or low ethical standards. It's just par for the course for being a human being. The best any of us can expect is that, when a person is called out on these mistakes, they own up to them and apologize, which is exactly what Corbyn did.

To hold Corbyn to a standard that no one would be able to aspire to, let alone meet, is nothing more than a self-serving attempt to gain the moral high ground. It's the kind of dim middlebrow condescension that Corbyn turned Labour away from (for a while, alas).

[cp]

Bolded part was a joke about how you’re saying his actions are indisputable, when it’s quite easy to dispute Corbyns actions - you’re just choosing not to because you support him. Fair enough, if I followed a leader intensely I’d probably be willing to defend them on anything too.

Perhaps I, and others, do hold Corbyn to unfairly high standards - I think my standards are actually quite low and Corbyn just fails to meet them but perhaps you’re right. But perhaps it’s worth considering that the reason he is held to such standards is because his entire campaign/brand was built on his own purity/infallibility (“right side of history” “straight talking honest politics”) in contrast to the dirty, impure, compromises of the new Labour years. When it became irrefutably clear that he was, in fact, at best a deeply flawed individual with a history of (and I’m being generous to him here) association with bigots and terrorists it’s natural that he was hit hard for the hypocrisy. You probably don’t accept that, but I hope you’ll at least consider it.

One final thing; a Facebook comment requires considerably more effort than a like or retweet (which I’d agree wouldn’t be damning). I don’t think it’s believable that any reasonable, intelligent, person could make such a massive mistake. Fair enough, you obviously don’t agree. No need to get out all the debate club latin, a random guy on the internet (me) is honestly not worth it! Like I said before, we are on very different pages regarding Corbyn and anonymous commenting isn’t going to get us any closer so let’s get back to the present leadership race.

The present leadership race is all about the legacy that Corbyn leaves and how it will influence the party going forward. Eliding it and papering over it with 'agree to disagree' platitudes is just trying to stifle debate without having the guts to own up to it.

You're right that Corbyn's persona made him especially vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy, and so he was hit harder for it than other politicians who espouse no pretense of ethical superiority. However, that just proves my point that the mural controversy was confected outrage, like a great deal (not all!) of the controversies that Corbyn incurred. I think you're splitting hairs over the like/comment aspect, and, again, deliberately making a mountain out of a mole hill because it suits a preexisting desire to see the worst in Corbyn no matter what he does. Same goes with the 'bigots and terrorists' line, which is frankly closer to agitprop than a worthwhile observation.

[cp]

Bolded part was a joke about how you’re saying his actions are indisputable, when it’s quite easy to dispute Corbyns actions - you’re just choosing not to because you support him. Fair enough, if I followed a leader intensely I’d probably be willing to defend them on anything too.

Perhaps I, and others, do hold Corbyn to unfairly high standards - I think my standards are actually quite low and Corbyn just fails to meet them but perhaps you’re right. But perhaps it’s worth considering that the reason he is held to such standards is because his entire campaign/brand was built on his own purity/infallibility (“right side of history” “straight talking honest politics”) in contrast to the dirty, impure, compromises of the new Labour years. When it became irrefutably clear that he was, in fact, at best a deeply flawed individual with a history of (and I’m being generous to him here) association with bigots and terrorists it’s natural that he was hit hard for the hypocrisy. You probably don’t accept that, but I hope you’ll at least consider it.

One final thing; a Facebook comment requires considerably more effort than a like or retweet (which I’d agree wouldn’t be damning). I don’t think it’s believable that any reasonable, intelligent, person could make such a massive mistake. Fair enough, you obviously don’t agree. No need to get out all the debate club latin, a random guy on the internet (me) is honestly not worth it! Like I said before, we are on very different pages regarding Corbyn and anonymous commenting isn’t going to get us any closer so let’s get back to the present leadership race.

The present leadership race is all about the legacy that Corbyn leaves and how it will influence the party going forward. Eliding it and papering over it with 'agree to disagree' platitudes is just trying to stifle debate without having the guts to own up to it.

You're right that Corbyn's persona made him especially vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy, and so he was hit harder for it than other politicians who espouse no pretense of ethical superiority. However, that just proves my point that the mural controversy was confected outrage, like a great deal (not all!) of the controversies that Corbyn incurred. I think you're splitting hairs over the like/comment aspect, and, again, deliberately making a mountain out of a mole hill because it suits a preexisting desire to see the worst in Corbyn no matter what he does. Same goes with the 'bigots and terrorists' line, which is frankly closer to agitprop than a worthwhile observation.

Dude, calm down, I wasn’t trying to stifle debate. I was trying to say I don’t care enough to keep arguing ‘without having the guts to own up to it’ (also known as trying to be polite). Because you aren’t willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of anything I - or others - have said that goes against your preconceived notion that Corbyn is infallible and we who are critical are all motivated by bad faith. Since you think all I say is bad faith, there’s no point me offering anything else to you. And yes, I’m sure you feel the same way about me - hence why I’m saying there’s no point continuing.

I literally just acknowledged you had a legitimate point (Corbyn's vulnerability to hypocrisy) and that Corbyn made a mistake with the mural comment in the first place. What is not a legitimate point is calling Corbyn stupid, incompetent, or racist based off the flimsy evidence that the mural incident provides. It's a weak argument badly made.

I apologize if I overstated my case and implied that you personally were acting in bad faith.

[cp]

The main takeaways from this are all fairly obvious, but here are a couple of mildly interesting tidbits for those who like that sort of thing:

1. Just over 400k members voted, a little over 75k affiliates and only 13k registered supporters, so raising the registration fee for the latter seems to have almost killed off that phenomenon.

2. Starmer's figure amongst members was very close to the overall result, he stormed home amongst registered supporters (78%!) and he did slightly less well amongst affiliates (although still above 50%.) Long-Bailey did best amongst members, but bombed amongst registered supporters (only 650 votes total!) and came third to Nandy amongst affiliates. So it's fairly clear there was no reserve army of Corbynites and that Long-Bailey's union endorsements didn't have any significant effect on the votes of rank and file union members.

3. It's not clear there was an organised left bloc down the ballot. Burgon and Butler combined for more or less Long-Bailey's percentage, but when Butler was eliminated her support went primarily to Rayner, with Allin-Khan second and Burgon only just getting more transfers than Murray.

4. Conversely, there does seem to have been more of a right bloc visible in the deputy leadership election, judging by the strong transfers from Murray to Allin-Khan.

Good observations. In this respect, Starmer's open disdain for factionalism is probably a good reflection of the party at large. Right and left, there's not nearly the appetite for internecine struggles as there was in 2015-2017. That said, one could argue this is because the Corbynite insurrectionary policies of that era - acceding to departure from the EU, full scale repudiation of austerity/neoliberalism, etc. - have become accepted wisdom across the party and even in the mainstream (!).

[cp]

The main takeaways from this are all fairly obvious, but here are a couple of mildly interesting tidbits for those who like that sort of thing:

1. Just over 400k members voted, a little over 75k affiliates and only 13k registered supporters, so raising the registration fee for the latter seems to have almost killed off that phenomenon.

2. Starmer's figure amongst members was very close to the overall result, he stormed home amongst registered supporters (78%!) and he did slightly less well amongst affiliates (although still above 50%.) Long-Bailey did best amongst members, but bombed amongst registered supporters (only 650 votes total!) and came third to Nandy amongst affiliates. So it's fairly clear there was no reserve army of Corbynites and that Long-Bailey's union endorsements didn't have any significant effect on the votes of rank and file union members.

3. It's not clear there was an organised left bloc down the ballot. Burgon and Butler combined for more or less Long-Bailey's percentage, but when Butler was eliminated her support went primarily to Rayner, with Allin-Khan second and Burgon only just getting more transfers than Murray.

4. Conversely, there does seem to have been more of a right bloc visible in the deputy leadership election, judging by the strong transfers from Murray to Allin-Khan.

Good observations. In this respect, Starmer's open disdain for factionalism is probably a good reflection of the party at large. Right and left, there's not nearly the appetite for internecine struggles as there was in 2015-2017. That said, one could argue this is because the Corbynite insurrectionary policies of that era - acceding to departure from the EU, full scale repudiation of austerity/neoliberalism, etc. - have become accepted wisdom across the party and even in the mainstream (!).

Though that's not true of everybody of course - eg McTernan's recent piece

McTernan's attitude is, I think, the exception not the rule.

[cp]

A sign of things to come.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1246426974203121664

Uncorroborated rumours and rapidly deleted tweets?

[cp]

The leadership election really shows how out of touch the Labour Party is to it's working class base.

Hard Remain FBPE London millionaire Starmer vs hard-line corbynista Long Bailey. I guess labour is fine losing the working class and the next election.

Of Keir Starmer & Jeremy Corbyn, only one of them was actually born into a working-class background, & it wasn't the latter.

Neither of them are particularly good candidates, Corbyn is a pure ideological socialist who cares more about PALESTINE and ANTI-IMPERALISM than trying to further worker's rights.

Long-Bailey is a fycking corporate lawyer who is stupid enough to say 10/10 on the corbyn leadership.

Starmer represents a hardline middle-class FBPE liberal tendency which turned out so so well in the 2019 election!

Awful choices.

Agreed. And though the take that started this topic off was pretty bad, there's a grain of truth to the argument that Keir's election represents a retreat from a more radical and transformational attitude among the Labour leadership when it comes to privilege in British society and institutions. Regardless of childhood or upbringing, the incoming crew is far less hostile to (read: contemptuous of) the elitism and patronage of the British ruling caste - private schools, Oxbridge, BBC/commentariat, military brass, the monarchy etc. Corbyn and his crew were anathema to this caste, so it was easier to monster him; Corbyn returned the favour by resisting some of the niceties of decorum and offering a much more comprehensive rebuttal to the status quo in economic and foreign policy than 'respectable' politicians were supposed to.

Folk like Keir are much less hostile to that caste and the institutions/assumptions that have so far sustained it. He's quite literally one of them, hence the knighthood. That said, with circumstances being what they are now Starmer may find himself proposing - and enacting, if he wins the next election - a more revolutionary set of proposals than even the most wide eyed Corbynite would have ever dreamed of.

[cp]

The leadership election really shows how out of touch the Labour Party is to it's working class base.

Hard Remain FBPE London millionaire Starmer vs hard-line corbynista Long Bailey. I guess labour is fine losing the working class and the next election.

Of Keir Starmer & Jeremy Corbyn, only one of them was actually born into a working-class background, & it wasn't the latter.

Neither of them are particularly good candidates, Corbyn is a pure ideological socialist who cares more about PALESTINE and ANTI-IMPERALISM than trying to further worker's rights.

Long-Bailey is a fycking corporate lawyer who is stupid enough to say 10/10 on the corbyn leadership.

Starmer represents a hardline middle-class FBPE liberal tendency which turned out so so well in the 2019 election!

Awful choices.

Agreed. And though the take that started this topic off was pretty bad, there's a grain of truth to the argument that Keir's election represents a retreat from a more radical and transformational attitude among the Labour leadership when it comes to privilege in British society and institutions. Regardless of childhood or upbringing, the incoming crew is far less hostile to (read: contemptuous of) the elitism and patronage of the British ruling caste - private schools, Oxbridge, BBC/commentariat, military brass, the monarchy etc. Corbyn and his crew were anathema to this caste, so it was easier to monster him; Corbyn returned the favour by resisting some of the niceties of decorum and offering a much more comprehensive rebuttal to the status quo in economic and foreign policy than 'respectable' politicians were supposed to.

Folk like Keir are much less hostile to that caste and the institutions/assumptions that have so far sustained it. He's quite literally one of them, hence the knighthood. That said, with circumstances being what they are now Starmer may find himself proposing - and enacting, if he wins the next election - a more revolutionary set of proposals than even the most wide eyed Corbynite would have ever dreamed of.

This isn't true really.

The two people running the show in the Leaders Office where Seamus Milne who went to Winchester College (one of the most prominent public schools in the country) and then became a bigwig at the Guardian and the other was a multi-millionaire ex-communist Andrew Murray who is descended from Scottish Nobility.

I also find myself baffled about how Corbyn himself is any different; well in fact he's different in the sense that he's much more middle class that Keir ever was. We all know someone like him in the Labour movement- went to a prep (fee paying school) dropped out with no qualifications, went travelling for 3-4 years and then got a job with a trade union before getting a council seat and then becoming an MP in his 30s! I don't particularly care but I feel it's something that should be mentioned when people try and sh**t on others for petty factional reasons (not a reference to the poster I'm quoting, but the armchair revolutionary who spouted nonsense about capital as if this was a first years seminar)

Keir is a working class guy who was the first in his family to go to university; in rather a similar vein to the generation of Labour politicians like Harold Wilson who went to Grammar Schools and then did well because they were extremely talented.

Keir is one of the most respected human rights lawyer of his generation & spent his career fighting Mcdonalds over libel claims of green activists, defending striking pit workers & those at Wapping and set up the gold standard for human rights law in Doughty Chambers.

The appointment of Keir to the DPP in 2007 was a huge middle finger to the traditional legal establishment (more specifically criminal barristers) & was specifically about Gordon Brown wanting to change an institution- yes it's what the Labour party does, works inside the system & changes it.

It's called getting sh**t done; if you wish that he just became a councillor in the 1990s and spend 30 years supporting Milosevic and pushing other bizarre causes in a fight against the 'establishment' then great but frankly those opportunities aren't offered to everyone.

You're confusing origins with outlook. Coming from a working class background but aspiring to ingratiate oneself into the system (and being satisfied with the few measly tweaks possible by working 'from the inside'), as Keir did, is to adopt a fundamentally conservative outlook. Coming from a middle class background and wishing to transform the system that produces injustice, inequality, and elitism is to adopt a fundamentally radical one. Corbyn's decision to enter electoral and trade union politics to effect such change from the bottom is, if anything, a rather high-minded display of integrity and conviction.

Your point about Keir's DPP appointment is a little flaccid. Brown's reforms were paltry, only came at the last minute, and didn't really change the culture of the place. Keir's appointment was a good illustration of this: he was a high profile barrister, part of Doughty Street and Middle Temple, Oxford educated (twice!); not exactly a breath of fresh air. In any case, most of what Brown did was washed away when the Tories retook power - a good illustration of why the piecemeal approach to reform that characterized so much of the Blair/Brown years was short sighted.

Besides if you think that Corbyn & co were opposed to patronage, jobs for the boys and the quirks of the establishment then I've got a bridge to sell.

I never said they weren't, just that they're hostile to the existing systems of the British elite. As with most radical movements, a cynic could easily argue Corbyn's aim was to dismantle the existing systems of patronage, not eliminate them entirely, at least not right away. The counter to that of, course, is that considering the preposterous and democratically indefensible nature of the patronage systems in the UK today, it's still a pretty laudable goal.

[cp]

You're confusing origins with outlook. Coming from a working class background but aspiring to ingratiate oneself into the system (and being satisfied with the few measly tweaks possible by working 'from the inside'), as Keir did, is to adopt a fundamentally conservative outlook.

So it's a bad thing that Starmer grew up in a poor, working-class home & worked his ass off to become one of the top lawyers in the UK before then using that position to literally advocate for & defend workers' rights? K.

I thought leftists could/would/should at least respect him for that. Sure, he's not a cranky socialist who thinks he's in the '70s but he also isn't some nEoLiBeRaL bLaIrItE.

It's not bad, but it's indicative of his ideological positioning or temperament, at least insofar as it reveals his priorities.

I'm not going to get in a back and forth about Corbyn's efforts for the Labour Party because my opinions on the matter are well known & probably boring to those who've heard them about 100 times.

I don't think he's done much good for the Labour Party or our movement; whether that's wasting millions of pounds on a failed concert or getting us to be the only party other than the BNP to be investigated for institutional racism.

He also nearly doubled the membership and paid off the party's debts in the first place. And he never committed any war crimes.

But, you're right. Another round of back and forth probably isn't the best idea. Indeed, it would help us all to extend an olive branch. To invite good public minded people who sincerely believed in Corbyn to join, without rancour or recrimination, and help Starmer lead the Party into government and then make real changes once there, would be a good start. I'm willing to give Starmer a chance if he and his ilk are willing to return the favour.

[cp]

You're confusing origins with outlook. Coming from a working class background but aspiring to ingratiate oneself into the system (and being satisfied with the few measly tweaks possible by working 'from the inside'), as Keir did, is to adopt a fundamentally conservative outlook.

Have you read this interesting article on his background? I think it's unfair to describe Starmer's purpose in going into law as ingratiating oneself into the system.

Starmer had already decided to read law while he was still in the sixth-form. But the particular way he moved to the Bar was a more directly political choice. He applied for pupillage in the chambers headed by the former Liberal MP Emlyn Hooson because it had already attracted a group of more radical younger lawyers who were starting to reshape the legal system in ways that have endured.

“Keir’s purpose when he became a lawyer was not to make a fortune, or to build a glorious reputation,” says Millar. “Most of the work in those days was legal aid work. Some of it was pro bono. His purpose was the same as all of us in that generation who had been radicalised by Margaret Thatcher. We wanted to change the world, and we wanted to do it by using the law to entrench stronger human rights and civil liberties. That was absolutely true of Keir too.”

The radical Bar was not invented out of thin air in 1987. Radical barristers of the earlier 20th century like the Communist DN Pritt, Labour’s John Platts-Mills and Gerald Gardiner, and liberals like Louis Blom-Cooper and John Mortimer had a significant place in the firmament. But it remained a fairly isolated one. The generational movement that Starmer joined in the 1980s would go on to reshape a profession hitherto embodied by the character Mortimer created for TV, the claret-quaffing Rumpole of the Bailey. For many, this physically involved setting up new sets of London chambers outside the traditional inns of court. In 1990, Starmer was part of this exodus, joining Doughty Street Chambers, newly founded by Geoffrey Robertson and a gallery of other progressive barristerial luminaries like Ed Fitzgerald, Helena Kennedy and Ken Macdonald.

Starmer cut his teeth in things like public order cases involving the right to protest. He assisted some high-profile campaigners, including in the McLibel trial, and did a lot of unpaid pro bono work on Caribbean and East African death penalty cases in which colonial-era rights of appeal to the UK courts were still available. In the argument that was crystallising among radical barristers at the time, between those who were keen to entrench a code of human rights in the law and those who were suspicious of codes and preferred to wrest the advantage within the existing common law, Starmer was always firmly in the former camp—and he still is.

I hadn't seen that. Good article, though it does include this line which gets at what I was alluding to earlier:

“Keir has always subscribed to the view that you have to get into the system and not stand outside it” says Millar. “He would want to be on the inside, not out on the barricades.”

I see why Starmer and others who see themselves as 'radical' reformers would adopt this approach; it has its virtues. But I also think that that approach allows for far less fundamental change than its proponents realize.

Ed Miliband will be the biggest news; back in part of the department he use to run (climate is now part of Business) A very sensible move seeing as BEIS will be on the frontline over Covid & for his many faults Ed knows how to do Government & do media lines. A return was suggested under Corbyn & Ed is actually friends with Keir- having asked him to run in 2015.

To be an MP (since he was a member of the 2015 intake) or for Leader in the Corbyn/Burnham/Cooper/Kendall election?

Leader (!). It's mentioned in the Prospect article linked above.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[cp]

Starmer needs to remove the labour right from his cabinet and expel the blairites who opposed labour in 2017 and led the tories to the win. Disgusting behaviour is not to be tolerated.

There are a few people whose careers are probably dead for the next few years because of this, Iain McNichol and Emilie Oldknow* in particular. The latter could be quite significant as she was tapped for a big promotion.

More broadly, I think this will blunt the impact of the EHRC report in a few months and stymie the anti-Corbyn efforts in the party for a while. Fair or not, the behaviour revealed in this leak will make it easier for otherwise chastened lefties/Corbynites to dismiss the AS controversy as a stitch up (in extent at least; anyone denying its existence is untouchable even on the far left). Going forward, fewer will be cowed by arguments about Corbyn's electability/competence/leadership, as it's now quite easy to portray him as the victim of a conspiracy.

*Also, it seems Oldknow's spouse is Jonathan Ashworth, whose phone conversation with a Tory friend slagging off Corbyn was leaked in the final days of the campaign. Yeesh!

[cp]

More broadly, I think this will blunt the impact of the EHRC report in a few months

Once again you are deluding yourself.

Have I been delusional before?

In any case, I didn't mean to imply the report will be anything other than damning or that it will not induce the typical reactions from the usual suspects. I just think the accounts from the leak will complicate the discussion the party has about antisemitism going forward once the report is released.

Both the thread and the article it comments on are worth reading.

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1249998402563293184

I may have some of the nuance wrong on this, but I think Bush and Wagner's assertion doesn't quite hold up. As I've understood it, some of the texts in the leaked document showed funds duringt he 2017 campaign being surreptitiously directed into a semi-clandestine generic sounding fund for the purpose of shoring up the reelection of select anti-Corbyn Labour MPs who were thought to be useful allies. 

[cp]

Yeah, I struggle with him. He seems very bright and capable in his field (human rights law) but when it comes to discussing Corbyn he seems to take leave of his senses. A lot of academic twitter is like that (Glen O'Hara, ugh).

[cp]

Wow, that report is…Something. Serious chance Corbyn would be PM right now following the 2017 election if it wasn't for some of the stuff in it. I think its pretty obvious that people intentionally working to sabotage the party from the inside should be kicked out.

Unlikely they will be. Many of them are now in the shadow ministry.

This is untrue & I would be careful about making comments about a report like this.

David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Jon Ashworth and Ian Murray are all in the shadow cabinet.

Jess Phillips, Pat McFadden, Wes Streeting, Stephen Kinnock, Stephen Doughty and Lucy Powell are all in the outer ministry.

With regard to your warning, I highly doubt the UK Labour Party cares about what a random man in Australia posts on a forum.

Thank you for telling me members of the Shadow Cabinet.

No problem. I doubt I’ll be on here in 5 years when the next Labour Shadow Cabinet is sworn in, so you may have to look elsewhere for your information at that stage.

Alright, alright, enough sass y'all!

In all sincerity, Starmer's best move is probably what he's already done: treat the leak and its contents equally seriously, wait for the report before taking any disciplinary action, and count his lucky stars that this is happening during a global pandemic so the general public will barely notice.

[cp]

Iain McNichol, one of the anti-Corbyn conspirators implicated in the leaked report, has stood down from the front bench pending the outcome of the investigation.

[cp]

If you mouth stuff about ‘Zionists not understanding English irony’ then imo expect people to get a bit worried.

And if the right of the party insists on bringing up purposely misleading/inaccurate recitations of the worn out anti-Corbyn catechism even after dispatching him and his supporters from power, their loss in 2024 will be entirely deserved.