This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Should have been Bridget as Health- but she’s been very good at Education and is finally getting attention from the lobby.

The one drawback of having people who really are very good is that they can only hold one major post at any one time...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Stuff like this is a major reason why I don't think Streeting will ever be Labour leader.

He's a bit too much of A Young Man In A Hurry and is also a little bit... er... feet first when it comes to communications sometimes: the latter reflects the truth that though he has a Student Politics background, he's fundamentally an East London Labour figure with all that that implies (and always has...) in terms of style.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My view would be that if people from the Brown Cabinet and the Miliband Shadow Cabinet who have since left the stage wish to re-enter frontline politics, then that's absolutely fine and they should not be blocked from doing so. However, a) they should have to win selections off their own bat and not expect to have them gifted by the leadership (which, and they have to understand this, owes them nothing), and also b) they should also not expect automatic appointment to the Cabinet if elected, but should have to make their case to earn a place like everyone else.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

TSSA is tiny: membership of just under 18,000 at last time of counting (and no reason to believe the figure has increased, put it that way), as opposed to over 600,000 for the GMB. But, yes, it's the old railway clerks union, though it does have some random members outside the industry these days. And has certain... um... internal difficulties that might make a merger attractive.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though the response will be partly due to Streeting's aggressive positioning.

This is the point at which (and maybe it's for the best that this has been suggested for the first time so relatively deep into opposition) with a more... er... emollient tone than Streeting should go around quietly and carefully pointing out that, actually, given the way things work now, the effective nationalization of GPs would actually work out to the advantage of a majority of GPs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If I speak I'm in big trouble.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Already talk she may stand in Islington North (I would be wary of that personally)

She's now flatly ruled this out. About running elsewhere, she's said she's not ruling it out, but isn't absolutely set on it: seems to be no more than a 'maybe'.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

An interesting thing about the Labour Party (and one that tends to be missed by a lot of people) is that unless a substantial change in views either around the time of the defection or later has taken place, most MPs who leave the Party either return to it or obviously wish that doing so were possible. The proportion of SDP defectors who returned is higher than widely realized (and would likely have been higher still had more survived into the 1990s), for instance, and then we have cases like Bob Mellish, who (if Tam Dalyell's obituary of him is accurate on this point, and there's no reason to believe otherwise) was incredibly miserable in old age as he wasn't able to face the act of rejoining as he was in the Lords and would have done so otherwise. And we're already seeing that in this case: those that have more-or-less the views they always did and don't face any extra obstacles (and it probably remains the case that being in the Lords is one, as rejoining would entail another physical floor-crossing, but back to a group where not everyone will necessarily be pleased to see you) have either rejoined or are gearing themselves up to doing so, but those for whom defection either crystalized (or was the culmination of a longer period of) a substantial shift in attitudes, obviously, won't.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The thing is, the report was careful to avoid personal criticism of Johnson (it was not an independent report, but an internal one), but instead criticized the culture of the working environment he ran at No. 10 heavily: Johnson himself insisted that the report cleared him and accepted (he said) the criticism about working practices. I imagine that the process of putting it together was not very pleasant, especially as it was not an independent report.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mason is an odd character who goes through phases. The 'Mid Life Mason' phase was rather embarrassing, but he's moved beyond that now, a process clearly sped up by him getting (rightly, obviously) very cross about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's always been an odd publication. It goes through good phases and, well, shit phases, and we are no longer in a good phase.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I always think of it as being essentially recreational outrage.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Comrades, it's Easter Sunday. Log off, don't text or DM journalists, get a life.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The thing with Alan Johnson is that random ordinary people really do quite like him and so other people in politics noticed and thought 'we have a star here!', but, alas, he is genuinely personally unambitious, which places a pretty hard cap on quite a few things. So people sometimes nudged him into running for this or that and he's an affable chap with a certain sense of public duty, and thus generally said yes... but then didn't really put much effort in afterwards as he lacked the person (egotistical?) drive necessary. An Alan Johnson with normal levels of ambition and self-importance for a politician would have been an absolute political titan, but that Alan Johnson does not exist and never could have.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A sign of this was the fact that irrc he only got his seat in ‘97 at the last minute- I can’t recall the circumstances but he wasn’t someone who was seat shopping in ‘87 and ‘92 like most of his cohort were.

Yes. Stuart Randall retired at the very last minute (contrary to what has sometimes been claimed this was a genuine surprise to everyone: Randall had a bad relationship with certain figures in the CLP and decided to fuck them over by making sure they couldn't pick his successor), and Johnson agreed to be subbed in on an 'oh alright' basis.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yep

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Quite an old-fashioned 'veteran MP says something offensively stupid; gets in trouble' sort of story really: an actual letter sent in to a newspaper rather than something idiotic on social media. Other than that there's really not much to say as the published letter is so obviously offensive that there's nothing to debate or discuss.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, the legislative framework now makes it completely suicidal as a course of action and effectively instantly as well, which is the difference with how things used to be.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Serious allegations made against a shadow minister of sexual harrassment and/or assault. As long as it is all rumour, though, hard to say what is the best course for the leadership.

If no formal complaint is made it's difficult to know exactly what can be done in a situation like that. Bolsters the case for stronger oversight from Commons officials over things like this, I think.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Unless the geography has changed radically (which I doubt) the old Valleys CLP with the unusually large membership is the Rhondda, though none had small memberships. I doubt that the Upper Rhymney Valley had a particularly disproportionate share of Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney members, and I doubt that Aberdare does with respect to Cynon Valley members.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

McGovern must believe she can win, and Whitley isn’t exactly projecting strength, but I’m surprised that she’s so confident - Birkenhead CLP never struck me as a progress friendly place.

Well, the previous MP was Frank Field and the one before him was Edmund Dell, so historically at least it isn't averse to selecting people on the right-wing of the Party. My general observation would be that most CLPs can pick someone of most factional positions in a reasonably fair selection context, and that the tendency to see this or that CLP as a fiefdom of a particular faction is usually wrong.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, this is a case where stereotype occludes reality somewhat.