This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Between one thing and another we have a good example of why it is a very, very bad idea to have disciplinary matters handled by political committees. In this case we have had what looks like a series of brokered compromises, leading to a very long meeting in which more compromises will have been brokered, leading to a decision that leaves a bad taste, even if it is probably not greatly different to that which a better system would likely have arrived at. Moreover, we have had one part of the decision and hints at the exact sanction chosen informally from 'well placed sources' on the NEC, but not actually officially: ridiculous. Labour is, of course, now mandated to create and implement a new system: it would be for the best if it got on with it as speedily as possible.

[CumbrianLefty]

As widely expected, Starmer says Corbyn won't get the parliamentary whip back just yet.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's an interesting parallel between Tom Watson's approach to internal opposition from 2016 onwards and the SGC/GV etc presently: playing procedural silly buggers and then having a strop when it doesn't work as intended. Of course as stakes this time round are a lot smaller it isn't quite perfect, though does mean that it maybe works as an example of 'second time as farce'.

[GoTfan]

So that effectively means Corbyn is a Labour Party member but sitting as an indepdent, correct?

[Blair]

There's an interesting parallel between Tom Watson's approach to internal opposition from 2016 onwards and the SGC/GV etc presently: playing procedural silly buggers and then having a strop when it doesn't work as intended. Of course as stakes this time round are a lot smaller it isn't quite perfect, though does mean that it maybe works as an example of 'second time as farce'.

This of course lead to a situation where by 2019 even people like me begun ignoring what Tom Watson said, found his interventions to be deeply unhelpful and then proceeded to be shocked that he'd give up the fight for a peerage.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So that effectively means Corbyn is a Labour Party member but sitting as an indepdent, correct?

In practical terms it means he can attend meetings of his CLP and Branch and vote in internal elections, but cannot attend a meeting of the PLP and will not be issued with the Whip (i.e. the document that goes round instructing MPs how to vote on legislation). Of course he's not a particularly popular chap in the PLP and never paid much attention to the Whip anyway, so it's largely symbolic.

[Former President tack50]

So that effectively means Corbyn is a Labour Party member but sitting as an indepdent, correct?

In practical terms it means he can attend meetings of his CLP and Branch and vote in internal elections, but cannot attend a meeting of the PLP and will not be issued with the Whip (i.e. the document that goes round instructing MPs how to vote on legislation). Of course he's not a particularly popular chap in the PLP and never paid much attention to the Whip anyway, so it's largely symbolic.

If I understand correctly, the CLP is the one that (eventually) names candidates for general elections right? What if they name Corbyn again? (Assuming Corbyn does not get the whip back and that he wants to run for reelection)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If I understand correctly, the CLP is the one that (eventually) names candidates for general elections right? What if they name Corbyn again? (Assuming Corbyn does not get the whip back and that he wants to run for reelection)

There's a rule that whipless MPs may not be nominated by CLPs as official Labour candidates.

[Zinneke]

Would Corbyn run as dissident Labour?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Would Corbyn run as dissident Labour?

No idea. But it's all extremely hypothetical as, no matter how this situation resolves, the next election won't be for a while, by which time he will be well into his seventies. And it has already proven impossible to simply resume his old status as an obscure backbencher.

[CumbrianLefty]

Most people in the party just want all this s*** to be over.

A shame the fanatics on both sides of the "forever war" aren't going to let that happen.

[Blair]

Whoever could he have in mind?

https://twitter.com/singharj/status/1329483353372958723

[Blair]

Whoever could he have in mind?

https://twitter.com/singharj/status/1329483353372958723

For those not well versed in Kremlinology Ian Lavery is from the Lexiteer strand of the party & it's widely know that him & Keir despise each other.

He floated his own leadership bid when RLB was struggling & then proceeded to spent the whole leadership election telling Keir to 'stand down' because he wasn't a women.

He has since been one of the happiest MPs to go on record attacking Keir, so I assume this would end up the same as if say Neil Coyle, Margaret Hodge or Wes Streeting had ran against Corbyn in 2019.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So much hot air for several reasons, one of which is that the signatures of forty MPs would be needed and the numbers for that are just not there. Long Bailey did not manage to hit that total for the contest earlier this year,* quite a bit short, actually.

_{*Threshold is twenty per cent for challenges, ten per cent in the event of a vacancy.}

[GoTfan]

Is it possible Corbyn tries to revive the ILP or is that off the cards?

EDIT: I should clarify, could he run as an Independent or Independent Labour in 2022?

[CumbrianLefty]

Of course it is possible, whether he would be up for it in his mid-70s (assuming a 2024 GE) is another matter. Especially if he wasn't automatically guaranteed a win - and his seat could be significantly altered in the coming boundary review, which might be a factor there.

Meanwhile, it has been announced Corbyn will be going without the Labour whip for three months. Whilst this has been widely criticised as a fudge which will annoy both camps, kicking this into the long grass until things are possibly less heated may turn out to be not such a bad option.

[EastAnglianLefty]

So much hot air for several reasons, one of which is that the signatures of forty MPs would be needed and the numbers for that are just not there. Long Bailey did not manage to hit that total for the contest earlier this year,* quite a bit short, actually.

_{*Threshold is twenty per cent for challenges, ten per cent in the event of a vacancy.}

This is true, but I'm a little disappointed we won't get to see Ian Lavery being repeatedly asked to explain why the NUM pension pot was used to buy him a house.

[LabourJersey]

Saw some stuff on the leftwing UK twitter accounts I follow about some dumb movement to call Starmer "Keith Starmer" because he has apparently betrayed Labour ideals so greatly that he has no right to use the same name as Keir Hardie.

Not going to lie I thought it was a parody at first. Some of these people have go so far into Inside Baseball (to use an American term) on these intra-party fights

[Blair]

Saw some stuff on the leftwing UK twitter accounts I follow about some dumb movement to call Starmer "Keith Starmer" because he has apparently betrayed Labour ideals so greatly that he has no right to use the same name as Keir Hardie.

Not going to lie I thought it was a parody at first. Some of these people have go so far into Inside Baseball (to use an American term) on these intra-party fights

These are people who frankly don't have a long track record in the Labour Party. There's a big difference between the Labour left & the British left; I'd wager a number of them didn't vote Labour in 2015 & even saw Corbyn as being too much of a labour politician.

Starmers politics & its aims are basically the opposite of what they want; in that Starmer is actively avoiding cultural issues, are avoiding spending commitments and seem are generally taking the approach of doing whatever is neccessary to regain the trust of JLM. (The Jewish Labour affliate)

I'm not denying there isn't a large & organised anti-Starmer presence in Labour; it's just different to the wider left you see on twitter.

[Blair]

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1329829381339033604?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle...

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Saw some stuff on the leftwing UK twitter accounts I follow about some dumb movement to call Starmer "Keith Starmer" because he has apparently betrayed Labour ideals so greatly that he has no right to use the same name as Keir Hardie.

Not going to lie I thought it was a parody at first. Some of these people have go so far into Inside Baseball (to use an American term) on these intra-party fights

Keith is a weird nickname. I'm more sickened by people like Ash Sarkar (former Corbyn media outrider) taking the "racism against Jews isn't that bad" line:

https://twitter.com/ayocaesar/status/1329557930773983234?s=21

[cp]

Saw some stuff on the leftwing UK twitter accounts I follow about some dumb movement to call Starmer "Keith Starmer" because he has apparently betrayed Labour ideals so greatly that he has no right to use the same name as Keir Hardie.

Not going to lie I thought it was a parody at first. Some of these people have go so far into Inside Baseball (to use an American term) on these intra-party fights

Keith is a weird nickname. I'm more sickened by people like Ash Sarkar (former Corbyn media outrider) taking the "racism against Jews isn't that bad" line:

https://twitter.com/ayocaesar/status/1329557930773983234?s=21

Must have been something you ate, then, because Sarkar's article doesn't take that line in any way.

The gist of piece is that the contention 'no other minority would have been treated this way' - meaning antisemitism being ignored by Labour/lefties - is false, and Sarkar offers clear and substantial evidence to corroborate that point. She also argues that the focus on antisemitism (which she never says is inappropriate, for the record) has sucked up a lot of oxygen in the political debate about racism, which is as undeniable as it is depressing.

The tweet quotation of John Morgan (not a reliable commentator in this) is from the article's preamble, laying out why many on the left found it difficult to muster the same outrage against antisemitism as they did other forms of racism. Indeed, Sarkar evinces a nuanced and deft understand of racism/antisemitism throughout the piece. I was particularly impressed with her observation that Islamophobia in the Labour Party is always portrayed as isolated cases - 'a few bad tweets' - and never connected to structural and policy issues that clearly fed such prejudices, namely the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

And yes, Keith Starmer is a silly way to insult him, though I suppose it evokes the dweeby middle manager aesthetic that Starmer gives off.

[CumbrianLefty]

This is all a minefield - and yes, some on the left don't negotiate it very well - but Sarkar was fairly obviously talking about the situation *now*. The idea, implied by at least some, that she was trying to minimise the historic suffering of Jewish people is not correct.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's pretty grossly inappropriate given that Jewish people in the United Kingdom (and even more so in certain other European countries!) are disproportionately likely to be the victims of racist violence. I'm not sure if having a higher than average income and being more likely to own ones own business - hardly distinctively Jewish characteristics amongst British minorities I must note - necessarily makes up for the very real fear that being aware of that fact inevitably brings. Let alone being unfortunate enough for it to happen to you. Different minorities face different forms of prejudice, and the old Marxist argument that severity can only truly be understood in terms of the material impact (that nasty old line of Luxemburg's and so on) would be bad enough in any context - few arguments have been more thoroughly discredited by subsequent events - but is particularly grotesque in this context, where the lazy recourse to that argument can be shown to be one of the motive factors in furthering the whole damned problem. And that is the other issue: the reason why there has been so much focus on antisemitism recently is because of a public scandal involving antisemitism in a certain large national institution...

[Blair]

Lisa Nandy got herself in a bit of trouble (but phrased it differently & has a lot more goodwill among the Jewish Labour movement) for saying something slighty like that; I don't understand the need for people to continue trying to debate the semantics of this; we saw it in 2018 and we saw it in 2019 & it doesn't serve any purpose.

But yes Sarkar doesn't exactly have a great record on this subject.