This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

She emerged as an actual political force quite suddenly and out of 'nowhere' during the Deputy contest and o/c that will always knock a few noses out of joint.

Which is, without doubt, one of the most admirable things about her.

Her biggest problem is her biggest opportunity, she’s not beholden to anyone so she can say/do what she likes - but she’s also not got a power base within the party to deploy to defend her when she’s attacked.

To copy something I wrote elsewhere:

There's been a tendency around here since the last leadership contest (where, yeah, the imagery of the world's most boring man sweeping aside an otherwise almost all-female field was pretty striking and not in a good way) to meme the Labour Party as a kind of implacable wall of misogyny. Obviously that's not wrong in the sense that society is like that and the Labour Party keeps reminding us that it isn't immune from society's prejudices. It also provides both catharsis for RLB and Nandy supporters and a good measure of how a lot of people have, without really acknowledging it, kinda fallen out of love with the idea of the membership-led party once it became clear it wasn't bound to reflect their priorities. But I'm not sure it really gets us closer to understanding what the obstacles are (and ideally dismantling them, not that anyone here can do that).

We've commented so much on Starmer sweeping aside RLB and Nandy that I think we've missed the really telling fact, which is that Thornberry and Phillips' potential support was just silently submerged into Starmer's even though they theoretically had a lot of it. I think that really illustrates what we all know, that the way high-level UK politics works most of the time is that you're expected to relentlessly cultivate a closed group of stakeholders. The only movement to really recognise how ed this could get was, to its credit, Corbynism, but it was so focused around one man and the rag-tag cadre around him (and their grudges) that it never got past the basic bitch solution of changing the names of the stakeholders and shutting out the ones you can't change, and never specifically clocked that obviously that's the kind of arrangement that has screwed over women since the dawn of time.

There are ways around it, of course. You can try to play the game the usual way, benefit from some parallel network, git really gud at building coalitions in a relatively brief space of time, or hope for a Corbyn-esque random outpouring of support around some dedicated sections of society. #1 is how Reeves or Cooper can be relentlessly and uncritically tipped for Greater Things. If we look at the other side of the aisle, it's also what we're actually saying when we talk about how Theresa May is the sort of person who unironically enjoys doorknocking and will happily turn up to every single party conference fringe event or village fete. #2 is RLB being supported by what was left of Corbynism (and if you recall, she had to see off whispering campaigns in favour of some of the most obviously unsuitable men available), #3 was Nandy talking round a specific sort of MP, impressing the GMB and cultivating random legacy organisations with three members, and Phillips sort of tried to combine #1 and #4 and got nowhere in the end. (Obviously I'm glad we don't live in the TL where Mumsnet entryists took over Labour and changed it so trans people get graphic hate mail instead of the emails reminding us to vote for the NEC, but I don't think she failed for the right reasons). Once you've gotten past all those barriers to entry, the actual campaigning stage is much less mediated - the male contenders could flop and you can impress at the hustings or whatever. Worked for Ed M and Corbyn, right? We can say the membership won't stand for it but I'm not really sure that's true - Thatcher being an unquestionable #girlboss is going to make things easier for any Tory woman who can push the correct buttons, but even with that in mind, is your average Labour member really more sexist than your average Tory member? I'm not sure that's true. The bigger problem is achieving that nebulous status of 'credible contender' in the eyes of the people who decide whether you even get a chance to find out.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I really do think we've made progress. There was once a time when it would have been unthinkable for Labour to elect a woman leader. Now it's possible, as long as she's made friends with all the right MPs, journos and trade union secretaries, is willing to put up with streams of online abuse and the strong possibility of failure, ideally has kids because it would be weird not to but also doesn't let them get in the way of her touring CLPs and so on, isn't too middle-class because otherwise you're a wine-sipping elitist but also isn't too working-class because then you're a slag, isn't too young, doesn't have too high a voice or anything like that, etc etc. Also there can't be a man who "we" have decided wants the job more.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

How do they know they’ve never kissed a Tory 👀

Can't speak for Lucy Powell, but if you're in your early 20s at the moment, there aren't that many Tories in the set of people you probably want to be kissing, and most of the remaining ones are desperate to tell you all about their politics.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

His article was also awful with that weird china reference.

I know someone who worked in Lewis' office for a while shortly after he got elected for the first time. He told me that Lewis told him that infamous joke about Ed Miliband and the goat, asked him if it was funny, and then had to watch in horror as Lewis took his awkward 'haha, I guess' as license to tell it in an actual interview with the New Statesman.

I found out today Lewis will apparently be attending a panel talk in London on the Ukraine war organised by Razem, the Polish left-wing party I'm a (paper) member of. I'm somewhat concerned that my party apparently can't find any better allies in the UK.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

Though you have to ask why somebody with no real previous did something so silly.

I think I've heard somewhere she's one of those MPs with absolutely outrageous staff turnover...

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

https://twitter.com/LabBeyondCities/status/1577727239046795304?t=WaBb1urbeCQvRRX...

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

I was going to say a lack of posts on this thread usually shows Labour is doing alright!

Lots of (mostly adverse) comment on the Reeves immigration comments the other day.

Tbh the main thing for me is why was she talking about it anyway, rather than Cooper? Who seems to have been almost invisible more generally ever since her much fanfared re-entry into the SC.

I assumed she was doing the round on the economy and got asked about it and gave the answer- it’s why imho she’ll never be leader as she’s always had quite right wing views on immigration even for the Labour right.

I agree re Yvette. She had some good hits against Patel over Ukraine visas but hasn’t been a lot of outwards facing stuff on crime- which is still a hugeeeee issue.

Both are of course overpromoted.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

Must say that the amount of people descending on Kensington now that it's seen as a marginal is a bit on the nose.

https://twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1576518381053755392?t=8dHSaUVG7WkshR29J_...

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

[

What, because he’s so famously a team player renown for compromise?

If he doesn’t run it’s because he doesn’t want to be an MP anymore. He will not be moved by trivialities about other peoples memberships of the Labour Party. Jeez, I don’t like the guy, but even I can see he’s got more principles than that.

I seriously question how anyone whose ever visited Islington could write off Corbyn winning as an independent, George Galloway - who is a far more toxic, unpleasant and less well known figure - did it twice without the home field advantage Corbyn has in Islington.

It’s not like a random back bench MP running as an independent after being thrown out for an ethics scandal, it’s Jeremy Corbyn, thrown out for - as the majority of his constituents will see it - taking a moral stand for the Palestinians. It is wishful thinking to dismiss his chances.

Not to comment on how personally popular Corbyn is in his seat or how bothered your average voter there is by Palestine because I honestly don't know, but you do understand that Galloway is very particular about the seats he stands in for a reason, right?

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

[

What, because he’s so famously a team player renown for compromise?

If he doesn’t run it’s because he doesn’t want to be an MP anymore. He will not be moved by trivialities about other peoples memberships of the Labour Party. Jeez, I don’t like the guy, but even I can see he’s got more principles than that.

I seriously question how anyone whose ever visited Islington could write off Corbyn winning as an independent, George Galloway - who is a far more toxic, unpleasant and less well known figure - did it twice without the home field advantage Corbyn has in Islington.

It’s not like a random back bench MP running as an independent after being thrown out for an ethics scandal, it’s Jeremy Corbyn, thrown out for - as the majority of his constituents will see it - taking a moral stand for the Palestinians. It is wishful thinking to dismiss his chances.

Not to comment on how personally popular Corbyn is in his seat or how bothered your average voter there is by Palestine because I honestly don't know, but you do understand that Galloway is very particular about the seats he stands in for a reason, right?

Yes, and are you seriously implying Islington North…isn’t a good fit for Jeremy Corbyn?

No, I'm suggesting that Corbyn being a long-time incumbent in a seat that happens to be a good or even very good cultural fit is not the same thing as Galloway honing to perfection a very particular brand of demagoguery that is only even intelligible in a few places in Britain. There are enough examples in British politics of voters sticking up for a local (or as good as local) man they think has been mistreated by party machines that I don't see the value of reaching for that comparison. If anything I am being charitable to Corbyn!

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

[

What, because he’s so famously a team player renown for compromise?

If he doesn’t run it’s because he doesn’t want to be an MP anymore. He will not be moved by trivialities about other peoples memberships of the Labour Party. Jeez, I don’t like the guy, but even I can see he’s got more principles than that.

I seriously question how anyone whose ever visited Islington could write off Corbyn winning as an independent, George Galloway - who is a far more toxic, unpleasant and less well known figure - did it twice without the home field advantage Corbyn has in Islington.

It’s not like a random back bench MP running as an independent after being thrown out for an ethics scandal, it’s Jeremy Corbyn, thrown out for - as the majority of his constituents will see it - taking a moral stand for the Palestinians. It is wishful thinking to dismiss his chances.

Not to comment on how personally popular Corbyn is in his seat or how bothered your average voter there is by Palestine because I honestly don't know, but you do understand that Galloway is very particular about the seats he stands in for a reason, right?

Yes, and are you seriously implying Islington North…isn’t a good fit for Jeremy Corbyn?

No, I'm suggesting that Corbyn being a long-time incumbent in a seat that happens to be a good or even very good cultural fit is not the same thing as Galloway honing to perfection a very particular brand of demagoguery that is only even intelligible in a few places in Britain. There are enough examples in British politics of voters sticking up for a local (or as good as local) man they think has been mistreated by party machines that I don't see the value of reaching for that comparison. If anything I am being charitable to Corbyn!

How many have there been this century? Blaenau Gwent in 2005?

My point was, if someone as repulsive as Galloway can do it, someone less repulsive in more favourable circumstances like Corbyn is certainly can. If you don’t like the analogy take it up with the public for not electing more independents.

But what you are missing is that, regardless of how well / badly Corbyn would do, Galloway is a terrible comparison. His vile-ness is irrelevant, people vote for him because of his particular, impenetrable brand of communal politics.

I don’t recall saying the two are identical. I said that Galloway was able to win *without a national party backing him* that is the comparison to Corbyns situation.

Although, whilst this wasn’t my point, Corbyn & Galloway are hardly worlds apart in their appeals - and it’s more than a bit delusional to pretend there’s no comparison on that level too.

Are people in Islington North unusually anti-Semitic or fond of tankie foreign policy? Are they even particularly concerned with the Palestinian cause? I hadn't heard. While they may well be fond of Corbyn's record as an MP, I don't know of anything that suggests they're actually more fond of 'Corbynism', however defined, than anywhere else in inner London. They certainly seem happy to vote for perfectly ordinary Labour politicians on all other levels.

The possibly pedantic point icc and I are making is that Galloway moves from place to place looking for fault lines to exploit. He has only found relative success in places with specific demographics that are open to a communalist appeal. Whenever he's left that comfort zone, he's gone absolutely nowhere. Despite superficial similarities, that option isn't open to Corbyn. I don't think there are any seats other than Islington North that are at all likely to elect him as an independent. It's not just him, there just aren't many analogues to Galloway's career at all.

If Corbyn has a route to holding his seat as an independent, it most likely has very little to do with ideology or stoking prejudice, but just casting himself as a good representative spurned by the establishment, which is a narrative that's played well before. It's the rough path followed by, yes, Peter Law in Blaenau Gwent, but also Ken Livingstone in 1999, Dennis Canavan or (this is more debatable, since her appeal could potentially have carried her through elsewhere too) Margo MacDonald in the Scottish Parliament, Jason Zadrozny in Ashfield (he didn't win the Westminster seat in 2019, but he did very well and in the meantime he's certainly parlayed his alleged persecution into turning the council into his own personal fiefdom) or arguably Sylvia Hermon in North Down exploiting her seat's historic awkward 'unionist but not Like That' streak.

I apologise for briefly mistaking you for a defender of Corbyn, btw.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

There’s suddenly been a lot of noise in the Sheffield Central selection.

I believe there are four local candidates, mostly councillors (Mike Buckley, Jane Dunn, Rizwana Lala, Abtisam Mohamad), and two ‘celebrity’ candidates (Eddie Izzard, and journalist Paul Mason).

Curious if those with a better sense of THIGMOO movements have a sense of how it’ll all play out.

It's always going to be a high profile selection because it's a bit of a plum seat and because of Izzard's candidacy in particular.  (Though, on the plum seat thing, it's worth pointing out that Paul Blomfield only beat the Lib Dems by 165 votes in his first win in 2010, and the proposed boundary changes would certainly wipe that majority out with room to spare; if the demographics that have swung from Lib Dem to Labour since then were to swing away from Labour again they could easily be in trouble.  On current boundaries it had the highest student population in the whole UK in the 2011 census, and the boundary changes actually take out some of the least studenty bits.)

Another local candidate is Abdi Suleiman.  Only Dunn and Mohamed are councillors, and both are for wards in the neighbouring Sheffield Brightside & Hillsborough constituency (though Dunn used to represent Broomhill).

The Greens, probably the least unlikely challengers, have already selected Alison Teal, who used to be a Green councillor for Nether Edge & Sharrow and made her name as a tree campaigner.  However, she also appears to have TERF tendencies, so her selection is far from universally popular in the Greens.

Why is it seen as a plum seat? I admittedly know very little about Sheffield but it seems odd for it to be a super desirable constituency? Does it have some kind of combination of "safe seat" and "not a lot of local problems" that would presumably be attractive for MPs?

It's a safe seat at the moment and has lots of students and bobos (the Greens are strong on the council level, and are always trying to translate into general election votes, without much success for now). The electorate being both more socially liberal and more transient than most seats (and therefore less likely to mind a carpetbagger, or so the thinking will probably run) will help attract some applicants.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

Yes, but that was partly because Field became *so* right wing even most of his former backers locally washed their hands of him. Before that was the case, there were two serious attempts to oust him in 1989 and 1991 - but both ultimately failed (and even though he needed national party intervention after the first instance, it was equally clear that Field had some strong local support)

Though it should also be remembered that back in 1979 he was if anything considered something of a left winger (even if a slightly heterodox one) due to his stint with the Child Poverty Action Group - and was quite possibly a bit of a reaction against his unabashedly right wing predecessor Dell (who duly decamped to the SDP a couple of years after standing down as an MP)

Though they quite plainly have large differences - I seriously doubt the average Corbynite would
seea meaningful distinction between Frank Field & Ali McGovern. Most people don’t pay anywhere near enough attention. Whitley = solid SCG type, McGovern = Progress/LFI. I can’t see many people who’d go to the trouble of dispatching Field and then be happy with McGovern coming in - unless Birkenhead is a hidden lair of remainers.

Field was hardly shy about his views, let alone his criticism of the party and the leadership as he was leaving. McGovern is certainly Progress, but for whatever reason she's never attracted that much attention compared to a lot of Progress MPs. It's unfortunate in a way as I think she's much more intellectually impressive than most people her faction has touted in the past, but it also meant she never really became a target for anyone. From the stories I heard, Corbynism on the Wirral was unusually nasty, focused on score-settling and careerism, but McGovern still sailed through her trigger ballot in 2019.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

Yes, but that was partly because Field became *so* right wing even most of his former backers locally washed their hands of him. Before that was the case, there were two serious attempts to oust him in 1989 and 1991 - but both ultimately failed (and even though he needed national party intervention after the first instance, it was equally clear that Field had some strong local support)

Though it should also be remembered that back in 1979 he was if anything considered something of a left winger (even if a slightly heterodox one) due to his stint with the Child Poverty Action Group - and was quite possibly a bit of a reaction against his unabashedly right wing predecessor Dell (who duly decamped to the SDP a couple of years after standing down as an MP)

Though they quite plainly have large differences - I seriously doubt the average Corbynite would
seea meaningful distinction between Frank Field & Ali McGovern. Most people don’t pay anywhere near enough attention. Whitley = solid SCG type, McGovern = Progress/LFI. I can’t see many people who’d go to the trouble of dispatching Field and then be happy with McGovern coming in - unless Birkenhead is a hidden lair of remainers.

Field was hardly shy about his views, let alone his criticism of the party and the leadership as he was leaving. McGovern is certainly Progress, but for whatever reason she's never attracted that much attention compared to a lot of Progress MPs. It's unfortunate in a way as I think she's much more intellectually impressive than most people her faction has touted in the past, but it also meant she never really became a target for anyone. From the stories I heard, Corbynism on the Wirral was unusually nasty, focused on score-settling and careerism, but McGovern still sailed through her trigger ballot in 2019.

Apples and oranges:

McGovern as a random backbencher - gets no attention.

McGovern running for selection against an incumbent SCG MP - draws more.

And she may well lose because of that, I don't know. I'm just pointing out why she may think she has a chance - and I haven't even touched on things like the possibility that the active membership of Birkenhead CLP isn't as Corbynite as it was in 2019.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

So it seems like I've seen a lot of news about Labour attempting to triangulate on a variety of issues, most recently with its refusal to support self-ID for trans people but also with the two-child cap, Starmer attempting to get Khan to back off on ULEZ, etc. However, being American, I'm sure that my news is likely to skew more left-leaning and more outrage-filled. I wanted to ask those more knowledgeable than my ITT 1. is my perception warranted and 2. if so, why Labour is moving so far to the right when it's so far ahead anyway? It seems to me that, if there is a time for triangulation, the time for it would be in the face of a close election and certainly not when you're likely to win in a blowout.

I think you’ve gotten a fair impression. The past couple of elections have seen a pretty left wing platform (more in rhetoric than policy it should be said) and Starmer promised to keep pretty much all of it during his leadership campaign. He made some further big spending commitments earlier in his leadership, but for maybe the past year it’s become much more moderate (albeit with some stumbles eg; the trans issue), especially the past few weeks or so. It’s still not clear how triangulated they will be by the election and once in government.

Interesting that you mention this, yesterday saw Anneliese Dodds issuing a Labour statement on the vexed issue of trans rights. It no longer supports self-ID for all, most notably, but could still be seen as a trans-positive offering overall - especially compared to what most Tories now think.

Predictably it has thus been condemned by both extremes in the "debate". In particular it is becoming ever more obvious that the most militant on the GC wing will settle for nothing less than "trans people do not exist and it is all nothing more than a mental illness that should be cured".

(comparisons with attitudes to homosexuality back in the day are available)

Even if you accept the premise that you shouldn't be allowed to get a gender recognition certificate without a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the fact is that trans healthcare in the UK is considered a dysfunctional joke by most people who've ever needed to interact with it. A grim joke I hear quite often is that the present woes of the NHS under the Tories are just everyone's healthcare becoming more like trans people's. A policy of 'you need a doctor to diagnose you' that doesn't properly engage with how unreasonably difficult it is to see that doctor in the first place isn't serious, and Dodds' piece does not. It just restates what has been Labour's policy on trans rights since Starmer took over - 'we won't do what the most extreme GCs (which is more and more of a tautology by the day, but whatever) want, but please stop asking us about any of this'.

Comparisons with attitudes to homosexuality back in the day are, indeed, available. After all, no Labour manifesto ever promised to repeal Section 28, it was pressure from Labour backbenchers and the Lib Dems that made that happen.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

What Kinnock actually said was that they opposed the policy, but obviously they wouldn't be able to get everybody off the boats on day 1. This isn't the first time Sky News have blatantly misrepresented comments from shadow ministers.

I think he expressed himself poorly, but that doesn't excuse Sky News just lying about it. And of course, 'Stephen Kinnock is nowhere near as good a communicator as he thinks he is' isn't news.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

His cabinet does seem like Wilson’s in that he could survive purely on the fact that several senior members of it seem to very much dislike each other.

And just look at the constantly shifting internal alliances. At the core of it - and this is also extremely Wilson-era - is that you have a group who are extremely keen on economic planning, you have the Treasury Team (including a couple of de facto attached members) with the usual Labour Party view on public finances (i.e. Gladstonianism with a Human Face), and then you have a group with departmental portfolios. Much as Wilson did, Starmer clearly has a degree of sympathy with all groups, which means that he may well (as Wilson did) spend much of his time brokering arrangements and agreements between them. On top of all of this, you then have the lesser (but still real enough) issues of personal and factional and sub-factional calculations, none of which align neatly with any of the groups, which, in any case, will always be subject to change depending on where ministers are put: one defends ones patch, you see.

Of course, none of this did Wilson's public image once in office any good.