This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[CumbrianLefty]

No guarantee that these proposed changes will pass, according to some informed comment.

Some pro-Starmer spinners putting it about that even a defeat would "strengthen" him.

I - for now at least - will refrain from further comment.

[Pericles]

No guarantee that these proposed changes will pass, according to some informed comment.

Some pro-Starmer spinners putting it about that even a defeat would "strengthen" him.

I - for now at least - will refrain from further comment.

Labour needs to appeal to swing voters for sure but they can't keep showing this stupid disunity. Get your act together or it'll be another term of recriminations about an election you should have won.

[CumbrianLefty]

And the vast majority of the party agree with you, that's the tragedy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just for fun and maybe to make a point, but there have been four significant changes to the system used to elect the leader of the Labour Party. The first was the switch from the PLP ballot to an Electoral College with a 40/20/20 split between the Affiliates, the CLPs and the PLP. OMOV only existed for the PLP section: both Affiliate and CLP sections used block votes. The intention of the system was that it would lead to the election of a candidate from the Bennite Left: the actual result was Neil Kinnock. The second was the reform of the EC to equalise the EC to 33.3/33.3/33.3 and to introduce OMOV for the Affiliates and CLPs. The intention here was to reduce the influence of the General Secretaries and of CLP Execs in favour of ordinary TU/party members, and also to make it very difficult for the Affiliate section to swing things on its own. In this case the new system did not backfire initially (Tony Blair, of course, was the first leader elected through it), but the assumption that the Affiliate section would not be able to tip the balance proved unfounded (2010). The third was the replacement of the EC with an OMOV ballot of party members, Affiliate members who had specifically registered for any given election and 'Registered Supporters'. The intention in this case was to make it easier for candidates without much support from TU bureaucracies (such as David Miliband) to win anyway. The actual result was Jeremy Corbyn. The most recent change was the introduction of a second stage of the nominations process requiring candidates to win the support of either three Affiliates (two of which must be TUs, the total membership of which must be at least 5% of Affiliated membership) or 5% of CLPs. The intention was to make it very difficult for candidates without significant institutional support outside the PLP to make the ballot. This is what did indeed happen in 2020, except that it backfired as not having that sort of other candidate to kick around influenced the tone of debate in a way that was not helpful for the candidate of the official Left.

[Blair]

Can we get out the ‘everyone needs a holiday’ Klaxon. I don’t think things are this bad yet!

https://mobile.twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1440639016978636801

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Grifter's gotta grift.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

https://twitter.com/MarkSeddon1962/status/1440690333323436034

Knock off the glue Mark, solvent abuse is very dangerous.

[Blair]

I speak on behalf of the Labour right in saying we don’t want David Miliband back.

The reports and briefings seem to suggest after the TULO meeting today unions are well doing what always happens- not saying much and trying to find a solution that pisses off everyone but let’s everyone pretend they won. (See the battle of the trigger ballot threshold in 2018)

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Why can't the labour party just be a normal party ? why does it insisit on shoving all it's dirty laundry in public ?

[Blair]

Why can't the labour party just be a normal party ? why does it insisit on shoving all it's dirty laundry in public ?

All three main political parties have quirks that mean that dirty laundry gets aired. We had the hilarious situation in the past where those opposing Theresa May couldn’t count to 48 and launched a leadership bid for a race that hadn’t been triggered.

[Blair]

My hunch is that we get non EC changes through this conference and the electoral college reforms are kicked to a special conference where some new weird hybrid system is invented.

At this stage I’d happily take the Conservative method; top two from the PLP go to the members. This would benefit the centre and would allow certain people from all factions to be blocked. It’s worth noting that when the PLP use to vote alone for leader the right of the party often lost for this reason!

It feels very 2016 with arguments about who better knows the country- the PLP or the membership. Despite very material changes in both the PLP and the membership neither side has bothered to actually see if anything has changed since 2016.

I think I’m going to go outside and enjoy the sun.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why can't the labour party just be a normal party ? why does it insisit on shoving all it's dirty laundry in public ?

All three main political parties have quirks that mean that dirty laundry gets aired. We had the hilarious situation in the past where those opposing Theresa May couldn’t count to 48 and launched a leadership bid for a race that hadn’t been triggered.

It's worth noting that more than half the time no one not 'in politics' even notices. In this case, for instance, although every detail has been feverishly reported on the twitter accounts of those journalists who do a lot of THIGMOO gossip and drama, it's been barely covered elsewhere: minor items on television and online news services, not many column inches in the papers.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

https://twitter.com/MarkSeddon1962/status/1440690333323436034
Knock off the glue Mark, solvent abuse is very dangerous.

I am shocked that someone who once lost an election to Rob Flello might not have the most finely-tuned political antennae.

Anyway, while I can't say I have much of a problem with the proposed changes in principle, the bull-in-a-china-shop way they're being pushed certainly gives the impression that the right's most bone-headed factional operatives have fallen in love with the (mythical, impossible) idea of swift and final victory as much as their left-wing equivalents have, and whoever originated the 'even if conference votes them down, we still win because we're being seen to fight the loony left' spin that's been going around is quite, quite mad.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

I wasn't previously a fan of his, but I have to give Starmer credit here. The way to win those crucial votes in Hastings, Blyth and Ipswich is to change the Labour Party's leadership election rules. Other insignificant issues such as health, education, tax and general aspirations need not be considered.

[cp]

Even for the Labour Party, this argument is stupid. How anyone could support such a democratically indefensible idea in the first place, never mind while simultaneously arguing for PR, more local control, and upgraded equality legislation, is baffling. The only people more witless than the supporters of these reforms are the ones who assert, apparently with sincerity, that it's something other than a factional power grab.

It does have the virtue of distracting attention away from the just released Starmer's missive, which is certainly to his benefit. I read "The Road Ahead" and, well, it's certainly well-meaning. Lots of pleasant sounding fluff and a distinct effort to avoid saying anything contentious. Mentions of Brexit/EU relations, foreign policy generally, racism/Islamaphobia/antisemitism, trans rights, or economic inequality at the upper end of society could be counted together on one hand. (He does find time to engage in culture war style fearmongering about crime and spends paragraphs condescending about nationalism, especially in Scotland; not a peep about Northern Ireland, of course).

The really telling part, to me, was the sycophantic passages about business and the concomitant patronizing about working class people 'unlocking opportunities'. If this is a real reflection of Starmer's views (I doubt it is; 'Sermon on the Mount by focus group' seems right on the nose), he seems to not understand where economic inequality is most obscenely skewed - at the top - or have any sense of why that is the case. He explicitly avoids discussing the dismantling of the postwar consensus by Thatcher and, less surprisingly, the complicity of (New) Labour in cementing that revolution. Consequently, nothing in the document portends a real reformist program. It's just more tinkering around the edges. A distinct lack of ambition - it could almost read as cowardice - about what a Labour party in power could or should do.

One last thing: twice Starmer talks about getting Britain ready for the '2030s'. I know it's meant to sound like sagacious long-term planning, but it comes off like he's resigned to the fact that Labour won't be back in power until then.

[CumbrianLefty]

Its pretty much a generic Fabian-type essay, with all the strengths and weaknesses that suggests.

[afleitch]

Its pretty much a generic Fabian-type essay, with all the strengths and weaknesses that suggests.

Boris may as well throw on the towel now.

[Blair]

Hahaha oh god being briefed Wes Streeting is running for leader because he’s declared outside funding for staff.

What is it about this party that rots everyone’s brain! And I haven’t even started on the essay discourse where everyone seems angry.

This is getting to May levels of excitement. The Harold Wilson stagecoach quote should have been put on the back of the membership card.

[Blair]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1441063346288070658

[Cassius]

So, if we acknowledge that Owen Jones is a 16 year old trapped in a 12 year old’s body, where does that leave him in terms of legal liability?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've read the Starmer pamphlet (for reasons some of you are aware of, I have a lot of free time on my hands right now). It's pretty standard Labour Party stuff almost to the point of cliché, with a very big emphasis on social solidarity which is probably the most 'Labour Party' idea of all, at least historically. The prose is reminiscent (I suspect not entirely accidentally) of Harold Wilson's, which is to say that reading it does carry a mild risk of lead poisoning - however it does mean significantly less jargon than has been normal for things written by Labour politicians in recent decades.

[CumbrianLefty]

News nobody will find particularly surprising, surely - Angela Rayner has made clear her misgivings about Starmer's proposed rulebook changes. Maybe he will try to sack her again

[Blair]

News nobody will find particularly surprising, surely - Angela Rayner has made clear her misgivings about Starmer's proposed rulebook changes. Maybe he will try to sack her again

Only MPs I’ve seen back it have been from the Blairite right of the party. Even people like Anwas Sarwar and Sadiq have said it’s rubbish.

An anorak Q- could Keir have had a normal conference and then just asked for a special conference afterwards? There is a package of reforms that are possible and could get consensus it’s just been handled with the same logic as we saw in May.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes of course he could have done that. But it wouldn't give the superannuated NOLS types around him the "HEROIC HAMMER OF THE EVIL LEFT" headlines that literally appear to be their sole aspiration.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's pretty clear that the basic problem here is suddenly springing the idea on everyone out of nowhere, which is generally a terrible idea as everyone high up in THIGMOO has a massive ego and like the sense that they're being respected. It's all starting to seem very like the attempt to abolish the Deputy post back in 2019.