2020 Labour Leadership Election

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Here lies the Labour Party of the UK, who through trying to get rid of the Blair disease succumbed from a multi-pronged assault by Capital. (1900–2020)

oh come on

One can not deny the truth when a knighted multimillionaire is running the show.

Clement Attlee was literally an earl by the end of his life but go off I guess.

[brucejoel99]

Here lies the Labour Party of the UK, who through trying to get rid of the Blair disease succumbed from a multi-pronged assault by Capital. (1900–2020)

oh come on

One can not deny the truth when a knighted multimillionaire is running the show.

If you can't recognize the working-class & socialist roots of Keir Starmer, then there's nothing that can be done.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here lies the Labour Party of the UK, who through trying to get rid of the Blair disease succumbed from a multi-pronged assault by Capital. (1900–2020)

oh come on

One can not deny the truth when a knighted multimillionaire is running the show.

good f**king grief this is dumb

Yeah, no sh*t, there are plenty of Labour politicians with titles of nobility and have been for almost a century (including, as pointed out, the hero Clement Attlee). The UK loves to shower prominent people with silly titles - I don't like it any more than you do but that's not Starmer's fault.

And if being a multimillionaire is disqualifying, then I guess Corbyn was also a fake leftist (as was Bernie).

[Intell]

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.

[brucejoel99]

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.

[morgieb]

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.

In fairness I think Intell was criticising the choice between the two, not Starmer winning. He said he was a Nandy backer.

[brucejoel99]

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.

In fairness I think Intell was criticising the choice between the two, not Starmer winning. He said he was a Nandy backer.

My mistake

[Intell]

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.

[brucejoel99]

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 on Corbyn, though it's not so much socialist policies that have turned the working-class away so much as it is whatever "revolutionary socialism" LARP that Corbyn, McDonnell & his hardline supporters are keen on.

But with regards to Starmer, if he can bring socialist policies to the table without feeling the need to fetishize authoritarian left-wing governments & halts the party's descent into coo-coo woke politics (which looks promising - maintaining their economic policies, etc.; he's obviously intelligent enough to know that capitulating to the centrists too much will be a recipe for disaster that would only foster further division), then he'll have a much better time with the electorate than his predecessor.

[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.

[Blair]

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.

[Blair]

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.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

For what it's worth the incoming Shadow Cabinet is a lot less "London-centric" than before, where a healthy walk could have taken you through the constituencies of Corbyn, Starmer, Abbott and Thornberry; in addition to McDonnell basically all the top jobs were taken by Londonders.

[EastAnglianLefty]

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.

In fairness I think Intell was criticising the choice between the two, not Starmer winning. He said he was a Nandy backer.

That doesn't make the take any less fundamentally moronic. Nandy's dad was a lecturer and then became the chair of a thinktank, whilst her maternal grandfather was a Liberal MP.

That shouldn't be read as a criticism of her, as I don't think anybody can claim she's used her background to climb the ladder. It's just a complaint that if people are going to try and play prolier-than-thou, the least they could do is spend 30 seconds checking Wikipedia first.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I liked Trickett tbh: one of the more underrated members of the Corbyn team.

Yes, I figured if one of the core Corbynite ministers was going to survive (aside from Long Bailey) it would be him - if only because Burgon is a fool, Lavery is a crook and Gardiner's fondness for Narendra Modi is only the start of the problems with him. That said, he's seventy years old and most of his time in the Shadow Cabinet has been spent in back office roles. Starmer isn't going to support somebody who he doesn't trust to one of those and there's no reason to prefer him in one of the substantive portfolios to a junior shadow minister with a longer career ahead of them.

The thing that was missed from these three is that Starmer had the biggest falling outs with them over Brexit; although with Trickett always handled it a lot better than Lavery and Gardiner who were pretty poor at hiding their disdain for Starmer (a favour that was happily returned). The stuff below no doubt didn't help though

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jon-trickett-hits-out-at-undemocratic-keir-starmer-amid-leadership-donations-row

Interesting point, though I read that one as Trickett making the attack because he had least to lose, since he's entering the twilight of his career anyway. It felt a lot more like "this is the chosen line" than something with real invective behind it. I do wonder if he'd be sticking around even if Long Bailey had won.

[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.

[Blair]

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.

[brucejoel99]

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.

[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.

[Intell]

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.

In fairness I think Intell was criticising the choice between the two, not Starmer winning. He said he was a Nandy backer.

That doesn't make the take any less fundamentally moronic. Nandy's dad was a lecturer and then became the chair of a thinktank, whilst her maternal grandfather was a Liberal MP.

That shouldn't be read as a criticism of her, as I don't think anybody can claim she's used her background to climb the ladder. It's just a complaint that if people are going to try and play prolier-than-thou, the least they could do is spend 30 seconds checking Wikipedia first.

That was not my point, I know that Nandy is from a privileged background, I am just saying that Nandy would represents working class communities/connect to working class voters much better than Starmer who represents a socially liberal, 2nd referendum remain constituencies and Long-Bailey who represents a continuation of Corbynism which cared more about being ideologically pure, talking about #Palestine, protest movements and being #anti-imprealist then advocating for revitalisation of towns and worker's rights.

[Blair]

Richard Burgon & Christina Rees both sacked this morning; both of these shows that the overriding factor is the need for get competent people into the top jobs.

[Hnv1]

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.

Milne is the the prime example of London elite. he went to Oxford and faked a Palestinian accent...his name is Seamus

[MABA 2020]

That was not my point, I know that Nandy is from a privileged background, I am just saying that Nandy would represents working class communities/connect to working class voters much better than Starmer who represents a socially liberal, 2nd referendum remain constituencies and Long-Bailey who represents a continuation of Corbynism which cared more about being ideologically pure, talking about #Palestine, protest movements and being #anti-imprealist then advocating for revitalisation of towns and worker's rights.

I get what your saying, but Brexit isn't going to be as relevant of an issue in 2024 (this virus has made sure of that) and Starmer has indicated his priority is the unifying of the party. He's hardly going to be pursuing an FBPE agenda. And outside of Brexit are Nandy and Starmer really all that different?

I personally preferred Nandy but will happily support Starmer now he's the leader

[America Needs R'hllor]

Milne is the the prime example of London elite. he went to Oxford and faked a Palestinian accent...his name is Seamus

Lmao I just read his wikipedia and it's hilarious:

he stood in a mock election in 1974 as a Maoist Party candidate,[13] and read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Balliol College, Oxford, and Economics at Birkbeck College, London University. While at Balliol, Milne was so committed to the Palestinian cause that he spoke with a Palestinian accent and called himself Shams, Arabic for sun.

Do you have any other source to his story? It sound like a fun read.

[Blair]

and of course it's these very people who can afford to not have a competent Labour Party; and haven't had any interest in one for the last 30 years.

I respect people like John McDonnell and heck even Jon Lansman who have spend years organising in the party & have supported Labour- Milne never did & simply saw Corbyn as a chance to push his absolutely appalling views on foreign affairs.