UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[Blair]

So who are the frontrunners to replace McNicol as General Secretary of Labour, and what are their factional backgrounds?

The tabloids are printing fantastical stories (which may or may not have basis to them) fear-mongering about ANDREW MURRAY (lol) or Momentum's Sam Tarry taking the role, but all serious sources indicate that the leadership is backing Unite Political Director Jenny Formby, who - fun fact! - is the mother of Len McCluskey's child.

At this rate everyone in the leadership is either related to each other, or has slept with each other.

Seriously though-the biggest story to take away is UNITE are now extremely dominant in labour. People keep talking about a Corbyn ‘take over’ but at it stands it’s basically a UNITE/CWU ran project.

I’m relatively agnostic about McNicol- I liked him and trusted him but the general secretary needs to support the leadership wholeheartley and can’t be seen as a drag on every decision. This was bound to happen after June 8th.

[Blair]

Fwiw forgot to mention  the leader doesn’t pick the general secretary’s; it’s selected by the NEC which has a ‘left’ majority but not a Corbynite one.

This is where the weird crossover of trade union politics and labour internal politics clash

[Blair]

My third and last post on this obscure Labour drama,

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/26/jon-lansman-set-to-stand-for-role-of-labour-general-secretary

Someone should really commission a TV show about what the hell is actually happening in Labour since 2015... if I was a corbynite I wouldn't mind Lansman being General Secretary, but this is certainly like when a warlord crowns himself King

[Blair]

Owen Smith was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet today for calling for a 2nd referendum, and for criticizing the party policy around Brexit.

Lots of people on the right getting extremely angry about this; but I'm not that shocked. If you're in the Shadow Cabinet you have to follow the leader; that's the whole point.  

[Blair]

Except Diane Abbott is on record as saying the same thing to a constituent. And she's still in her position.

She sent it in a letter, not a big pre-briefed article in the Guardian which essentially called Labour's entire strategy stupid (which it is!)

Labour's collective responsibility over Brexit has been a joke (it's basically trampled beyond any clear concise view)

[Blair]

Fwiw Labour hasn’t felt this well fractured since 2016.

This round of anti-semtism does feel different. It’s interesting how quiet the leadership\usual pro JC media figures (outside the fringe) have been

[Blair]

Parochial one of those articles is pretty shaky at best...

Amber Rudd being joined at a campaign event by some PPE oxford Tory who did a Nazi salute is not at all similar to the institutional antisemitism which is bubbling away at certain levels of the te left, (actually iirc lead to the Labour Oxford university club getting suspended.)

Ofc there's incidents in all parties; but there's a clear difference between isolated, and stupid incidents such as the one's you linked to, and Labour's entire cluster in dealing with the issue.

Let's not forgot that as far back as 2016 the leadership essentially held a sham inquiry into it, and then gave the author a peerage, and invited her into the Shadow Cabinet. It's actions like that, frankly which are much more concerning than stupid comments by an activist.

[Blair]

I've made my views on Shawcroft clear before on here, I think. If not I certainly have elsewhere. My only surprise is that this happened after months rather than weeks.

I'm being too lazy to google, but wasn't Shawcroft involved in Luthur Raham and the whole fiasco of Tower Hamlets?

[Blair]

We're back to the banter era of shadow ministers being able to effectively do, or say what they want.

I know it's awful to look at everything from a pseudo-strategist point of view, but Corbyn really is sh**t at handling stuff that isn't on a campaign. It's going to be a long 4 years until 2022, and we can expect this sort of fracas every 3-4 months.

And yes Christine Shawcroft should be kicked off the NEC; the argument that since she's on the NEC the leader can't kick her off is a legalistic one. If she'd said the N word, or said something extremely homophobic she'd be kicked off in seconds.

[Blair]

And yes Christine Shawcroft should be kicked off the NEC; the argument that since she's on the NEC the leader can't kick her off is a legalistic one. If she'd said the N word, or said something extremely homophobic she'd be kicked off in seconds.

She defended someone she believed to be innocent - once the facts were made plain she apologised and resigned her post. I don't see why she has to resign - she never knowingly defended someone who had denied the holocaust. A stupid mistake on her part - yes - and no doubt driven by a belief the Israel critics on the Left were being purged, but I don't think that's in the same league as personally issuing racist remarks?

Well no, that's only partly the story. As her own Facebook post shows, after seeing the post her recommendation was to give the individual 'antisemitism' training. She thought that someone who said the holocaust was a hoax should just be given 'training'; when they should be kicked out of the party for that.

Along with the fact she was given the job in the first place after the left kicked Anne Black off as Chair, it just shows what happens when you put people with awful judgement into key positions (something all factions do admittedly)

[Blair]

I agree there's more to it - the Right aren't comfortable with the Left having a majority on the NEC (hence their outrage at Black being left off the Left slate) so they've agitated for Shawcroft to go and have now achieved their aim.

I'm usually happy to play the factional game, and don't see a point in denying it when it clearly exists but this isn't about the right 'gaining an NEC seat'... the seats are up for re-election this year, there's already a clear Corbynite majority of more than plus one (so this seat 'gain' makes no difference)

I don't think someone leaked it cause they were part of some masterplan to gain an NEC seat.

[Blair]

On the topic of facebook accounts I use to be in a 'moderate' Labour one which grew out an Owen Smith 2016 campaign group; it was relatively good natured at first (and helped me get an internship) but quickly descended into a sh**tshow.

I left in April 2016, but I've heard it basically descended into a cesspit of anti-Trans hysteria, creepy comments by 40+ men, and general bile (as all facebook groups are) I'm sure you could go through the posts and find enough to show Guido.

[Blair]

Around 1994, the British Tories faced similar troubles, but were trailing by 15-20 points in the polls rather than slightly ahead thus I believe, even though some disagree, more evidence that Labour would be doing better with a more centrist leader (maybe not as centrist as Tony Blair, but similar to traditional social democratic party leaders in continental Europe not loony left like Corbyn). 

Imo loony left was a tagline often used to attack people who support gay rights, elected police oversight and race relations work. All things which are now mainstream in the Conservative Party!

This isn't 1994 though; the Tories haven't been in government for what 15 years, they're not withdrawing the whip from MPs, and they're not facing an economy where interest rates have skyrocketed to 15%.

[Blair]

Say what you like about McDonnell but he's done very very well on his brief at the Treasury. You can call him a lot of things, but he's not incompetent

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 If Pidcock became PM, UK would be on the verge of bankruptcy in five years and a worse basket case than Greece, while heading the way of Venezuela although not quite as bad.  Of the Corbynite younger members, someone like Cat Smith would probably be more electable and still fairly left wing but not complete nuts.  People like Dennis Skinner, Chris Williamson, and Laura Pidcock are off the scale nuts and even less electable than Jacob Rees-Mogg on the right.
[/quote]

Can we not post this type of rubbish on this thread?

Like where do you get the view that Cat Smith would be electable? Like she's the definition of just a bland corbynite frontbencher. At least Pidock has some ability to make a story (and I say that as someone who's not at all her biggest fan)

[Blair]

The one take away from everything to happen since 2015 is that politics in Britain is deeply divided. Just look at the Scottish indie referendum, which has managed to virtually flip decade old voting patterns.

The same with Brexit\Corbyn. No leader/party is popular within British politics; 45% of the electorate hate it, the other 45% will love it and then 10% won’t care.

It’s why assertations that higher borrowing or other corbynite polices are unpopular are questionable; all the polling shows that Labour voters e.g now 40% of the electorate support it.

Heck Corbyn said that are foreign policy causes terrorism: a position that made Westminster shriek, but one which what 40% of the public agree with.

[Blair]

There is absolutely no appetite among Labour supporters for 'The Democrats' or whatever this latest grift will be called, but obviously it would be awesome if Garrard and Franks waste a fortune on it.

Reading the article it's hilariously vague; they're not going to seek Labour MP's to defect, and they're going to look for non-ideological people to run in 2022. Almost seems similar to 'No Labels' or one of these groups that provides funding, from the looks of it. But yeah stories where they say 'up to £50 million could be provided' are often bogus.

The ultimate problem that can't be fixed is that a new party needs 40+ Labour MP's to defect, and equally needs to appeal to people like George Osborne/Nick Clegg etc. If the new party tries to only take one of these groups it will fail.

A group of Labour MP's forming their own 'Real Labour' (or whatever they call it) will appear to be extremely dated whilst only consisting of backbench MP's from the 2010, or 2015 intake. The SDP had Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams, who all represented different branches of the right in Labour, and who were all 'big beasts' to term that awful phrase. The creation of a New labour would just die in the next election; even if it gets 10% of the vote. The easiest way to change Labour party policy, as this group want to do, is to stay in the party. Both the Right, and Left have shown over the last 40 year

If you try and form this new 'Democrats' party it will have to be explicitly anti-Brexit (it's worth noting that some of the most anti-Corbyn MPs are hardly rabid remoaners- Woodcock, Flint, Kinnock etc) This would shut them out of 52% of the electorate, and would allow them to be easily parried away. On top of this they need to work out what their anti-Brexit stance is; do they oppose leaving all together because it's awful, or do they want referendum on leaving in the hope we come to our senses. Ignoring this, the party without the Labour MPs would have no real power base, beyond being the Liberal Democrats with a new name. They might get a 1-2 Tory MPs, and a handful from Labour, plus the Liberals gives them what 20 MPs.

These two halfs need to go together, but the moment they go together it's like trying to force the same poles of magnets together. Besides if the reason for this new party is Brexit, then you've only got 2-3 years before we leave, and then the sole purpose of the party is dead. If the sole reason is this idea of 'ideas above party' 'common-sense solutions' then you're just going to have the bastard child of the Cameron-Clegg years.

I say all this as someone who would have happily ditched the Socialists in France in 2017, and supported Macron, and someone who considers themselves pretty corbynspectic. The tribal nature of Labour is really difficult to explain to non-UK politicos, or even non Labour folk. The vast majority of people in the party are the children of Labour voters (if not members), the party is shrouded in nostalgia, triumphalism, self-righteousness and the idea of betrayal. Labour members see the party as a force of progress in itself.

TL;DR: A new party wouldn't work.

[Blair]

Ken Loach is vile. Not only did he fund the far left party 'Left Unity' (which took a grand total of something like 300 votes in 2015) to run against Labour but he has a history of absolutely awful comments.

He's got Michael Moore's talent for making films that openly propagate leftist causes, albeit in a completely different film style. 'I, Daniel Blake' was a brilliant film; but he's still a prick.

On Powell...

I love that they've got Palpatine to read the rivers of Blood speech; I studied it in history and was shocked at how much worse is it than I thought. The line about the 'foaming tiber' isn't even the worse part; it's his claim that one day 'the black man will be holding the whip' over white people, which is by far the most disgusting.

I'm not that upset about the BBC doing this; at least I'll wait to listen before giving a judgement. I don't think Radio 4 showing a speech at 8PM on a saturday will have an effect on terms of race relations. People who have these views already have them; they don't need a speech from 40 years ago (which touches on a completely different set of tropes around immigration) to make them any more racist.

Of course, if if was the BBC doing 50 minutes of the Norman Tebbitt, Baroness Young or some other homophobe ranting about 'the perils of sodomy' I might have different views on it being shown.

[Blair]

Re posting my rather long (but still good to brag) thoughts on a 'centrist party'

There is absolutely no appetite among Labour supporters for 'The Democrats' or whatever this latest grift will be called, but obviously it would be awesome if Garrard and Franks waste a fortune on it.

Reading the article it's hilariously vague; they're not going to seek Labour MP's to defect, and they're going to look for non-ideological people to run in 2022. Almost seems similar to 'No Labels' or one of these groups that provides funding, from the looks of it. But yeah stories where they say 'up to £50 million could be provided' are often bogus.

The ultimate problem that can't be fixed is that a new party needs 40+ Labour MP's to defect, and equally needs to appeal to people like George Osborne/Nick Clegg etc. If the new party tries to only take one of these groups it will fail.

A group of Labour MP's forming their own 'Real Labour' (or whatever they call it) will appear to be extremely dated whilst only consisting of backbench MP's from the 2010, or 2015 intake. The SDP had Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams, who all represented different branches of the right in Labour, and who were all 'big beasts' to term that awful phrase. The creation of a New labour would just die in the next election; even if it gets 10% of the vote. The easiest way to change Labour party policy, as this group want to do, is to stay in the party. Both the Right, and Left have shown over the last 40 year

If you try and form this new 'Democrats' party it will have to be explicitly anti-Brexit (it's worth noting that some of the most anti-Corbyn MPs are hardly rabid remoaners- Woodcock, Flint, Kinnock etc) This would shut them out of 52% of the electorate, and would allow them to be easily parried away. On top of this they need to work out what their anti-Brexit stance is; do they oppose leaving all together because it's awful, or do they want referendum on leaving in the hope we come to our senses. Ignoring this, the party without the Labour MPs would have no real power base, beyond being the Liberal Democrats with a new name. They might get a 1-2 Tory MPs, and a handful from Labour, plus the Liberals gives them what 20 MPs.

These two halfs need to go together, but the moment they go together it's like trying to force the same poles of magnets together. Besides if the reason for this new party is Brexit, then you've only got 2-3 years before we leave, and then the sole purpose of the party is dead. If the sole reason is this idea of 'ideas above party' 'common-sense solutions' then you're just going to have the bastard child of the Cameron-Clegg years.

I say all this as someone who would have happily ditched the Socialists in France in 2017, and supported Macron, and someone who considers themselves pretty corbynspectic. The tribal nature of Labour is really difficult to explain to non-UK politicos, or even non Labour folk. The vast majority of people in the party are the children of Labour voters (if not members), the party is shrouded in nostalgia, triumphalism, self-righteousness and the idea of betrayal. Labour members see the party as a force of progress in itself.

TL;DR: A new party wouldn't work.

[Blair]

Karen Bradley is useless. She stumbled into the Cabinet and got lucky to be one of Mays junior ministers when she became PM.

Sajid Javid would make sense.

At least this shows the poison is back in the chalice of the home office.

[Blair]

I always see the 'Global Brexit' crowd (who want lower tariffs on African agriculture, free trade, a very liberal migration system, etc) as no different to the old Bennites who want to leave the EU so that they can reenact the Alternative Economic Strategy and get around EU regulations, which stop you the most socialist tendencies.

Both see the EU as a block to their desired political mission, but both are deluded in thinking that either the British Public, or the British state is going to get it there. Brexit was sold on the basis of stopping the Turkish coming into Britain, giving the NHS a massive injection of cash (whilst keeping all the benefits because we buy cars from Germany)

[Blair]

Sajid Javid would make sense.

Javid is rather interesting. Was first regarded as an devout Thatcherite, who made a fair bit of money as an investment banker, and who rose up as one of George Osborne's supporters (as did Rudd). I always thought he was quite right wing, but he was Crabb's deputy in his 2016 leadership bid.

Was talked about as a future leader in 2015/2016 era but soured a bit after nearly backing Leave, but then reluctantly supporting Remain in the hope of getting a better job (the irony being he has became Home Sec because he was a remainer). Was then demoted to Local Government when May won, and has been quite vocal in Cabinet about the governments shortcomings.

He pissed off a lot of Shire Tory types by talking about some quite radical housing policies, and wanted £50 Billion+ in funding to sort out the crisis. Is certainly a more interesting character than was I first assumed.

Will no doubt now be talked about as a future leader again, however we could return to the New Labour standard of Home Secretary's lasting for about 9 months

[Blair]

It's so plainly obvious that Stephen Yaxley (his actual name, rather than his EDL hooligan name) doesn't give a sh**t about grooming, or sexual violence against women- he's just a thug who's convictions include entering the US illegally, using a fake passport, assaulting an off-duty police officer and so on.

He's not a free speech activist, and he hasn't been imprisoned for reporting about a grooming trial, but rather for breach of the peace

[Blair]

Worth seeing these tweets from someone who's prosecuted grooming cases... (much like with any criminal trial, without legal knowledge we're all really falling around in the dark)

https://twitter.com/nazirafzal/status/1000120177843941376

[Blair]

Insert joke about DD going bust.

He’s been threatening to do this for months; but has effectively shat in the bed just before a very big week for the PM.

Theresa May has a Big Crunch meeting with her backbencher later

[Blair]

May had about 15 chances to sack him; will easily go down in History as the worst foreign secretary in British History (which is an achievement in a sense)

Rather than leading to a certain type of Brexit, or a leadership change, this will basically just pour a barrel of sh**te over May, and the Tories heads. It certainly feels like June 2016 again.