This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Blair]

This mere days after he made a bizarre semi-defence of Ghislaine Maxwell on the same Platform. He will be eighty in a couple of weeks. Hard not to wonder if we have another case of the Kaufman's on our hands, urgh.

Was Kaufman ill for most of his last year? The only thing I knew about his last years was that the CLP has to be suspended because of the feud over who would suceed him

Barry Sheerman the latest Labour bod to commit an AS related faux pas on social media. Tbh I am increasingly sympathetic to the view that our MPs should be discouraged from contributing on Twitter beyond the absolute minimum.

Yes completely. It should be seen as a tool which they use to keep in touch with constituents, comment on national & local stories & engage in party political activty.

It was quite funny that a few days before Steve Reed put his foot in it Jenrick joked in the Chamber about Reed spending too much time on twitter; he was right! The most frustrating thing is that the tweets that get MPs into trouble never actually contribute anything.

Like if you give a really long speech in the chamber & mess up a line or an attack you can at least say 'oh well I did 95% of the speech which was fine'- a tweet contributes & changes nothing. What was to gain from Rosie Duffield making a flippant remark?

[cp]

Potentially the bigger issue long-term (since Sheerman gave an apology that was grudging and half-hearted, but still recognisably an apology) is the furore over Rosie Duffield. Duffield made transphobic comments and in return got a lot of justified criticism and quite a lot of abusive tweets. Whilst a lot of MPs (the Shadow Equality minister included) have condemned the abuse, they haven't mentioned the transphobia, which Duffield has doubled down on.

One gets the very definite impression that Starmer does not want to take sides on the escalating fight within Labour over trans rights, but that it is not going to be feasible for very much longer.

The problem for Labour is that the party has a clearly defined & well supported public policy position on this- but it is becoming a cultural & Political debate rather than a policy one (why is ofc what Section 28 was)

It's worth noting that until 2018 it was widely accepted as part of the mainstream thought of both parties & previous Select Committes that you reform the GRA to allow for self-ID and introduce some sort of change for documents.

The GRA reform was set up with the expectation this would happen! But it was mothballed & delayed-and has seen a very skilled lobbying effort that has turned this debate into something it shouldn't be; endless culture war rows about who said what & what tweet said why.

The danger is that as the above happens it becomes more painful for Labour to get involded but equally in my view becomes much more so morally correct; having seen how my wing of the party absolutely botched the response to Gay Rights in the 1980s it's hilarous to see how many people seem prepared to make the mistake (no doubt to then in 20 years talk with teary eyes about the amazing work we did to support trans rights)

A damning indictment of Starmer's cowardice, if there ever was one. Such clear eyed, crisply enunciated moral indignation ... unless it's standing up for the rights of people that Blairite centrist wine moms feel icky about.

And as "hilarious" as it might be for you, for trans people this is frightening. Please show some respect.

This mere days after he made a bizarre semi-defence of Ghislaine Maxwell on the same Platform. He will be eighty in a couple of weeks. Hard not to wonder if we have another case of the Kaufman's on our hands, urgh.

Was Kaufman ill for most of his last year? The only thing I knew about his last years was that the CLP has to be suspended because of the feud over who would suceed him

Barry Sheerman the latest Labour bod to commit an AS related faux pas on social media. Tbh I am increasingly sympathetic to the view that our MPs should be discouraged from contributing on Twitter beyond the absolute minimum.

Yes completely. It should be seen as a tool which they use to keep in touch with constituents, comment on national & local stories & engage in party political activty.

It was quite funny that a few days before Steve Reed put his foot in it Jenrick joked in the Chamber about Reed spending too much time on twitter; he was right! The most frustrating thing is that the tweets that get MPs into trouble never actually contribute anything.

Like if you give a really long speech in the chamber & mess up a line or an attack you can at least say 'oh well I did 95% of the speech which was fine'- a tweet contributes & changes nothing. What was to gain from Rosie Duffield making a flippant remark?

RLB might disagree

[DaWN]

I don't like that Starmer hasn't been as forceful as he could have been about this, but there is a difference between 'Senior Shadow Cabinet member' and 'elderly possibly senile backbencher'. I don't think Sheerman's actions are as obvious a symptom of the overall problem as RLB's.

[cp]

I don't like that Starmer hasn't been as forceful as he could have been about this, but there is a difference between 'Senior Shadow Cabinet member' and 'elderly possibly senile backbencher'. I don't think Sheerman's actions are as obvious a symptom of the overall problem as RLB's.

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Start playing favourites with it and you're not really caring about antisemitism anymore.

[DaWN]

I don't like that Starmer hasn't been as forceful as he could have been about this, but there is a difference between 'Senior Shadow Cabinet member' and 'elderly possibly senile backbencher'. I don't think Sheerman's actions are as obvious a symptom of the overall problem as RLB's.

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Start playing favourites with it and you're not really caring about antisemitism anymore.

I agree with the general sentiment but remember that RLB was actually sacked because she refused to apologise, not the actual tweet, and that it's not like Starmer can do anything to Sheerman, short of suspending him from the party, which will seem like a disproportionate response given he didn't suspend her.

[cp]

I don't like that Starmer hasn't been as forceful as he could have been about this, but there is a difference between 'Senior Shadow Cabinet member' and 'elderly possibly senile backbencher'. I don't think Sheerman's actions are as obvious a symptom of the overall problem as RLB's.

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Start playing favourites with it and you're not really caring about antisemitism anymore.

I agree with the general sentiment but remember that RLB was actually sacked because she refused to apologise, not the actual tweet, and that it's not like Starmer can do anything to Sheerman, short of suspending him from the party, which will seem like a disproportionate response given he didn't suspend her.

Yeah, but by setting the bar at 'zero tolerance' such niceties of proportionality go out the window. The punishment is the point. Any violation of the new norm *must* incur a censure, no matter how minor the infraction or lowly the perpetrator.

You either have a moral backbone or you don't. You either care about stamping out antisemitism or you care about something else.

Also, *apparently* RLB's transgression was not showing sufficient obeisance to Starmer's 'leadership', and not immediately agreeing to a full apology (preferring a deletion of the tweet and retraction instead- a response one could easily argue was far more ... proportionate).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Was Kaufman ill for most of his last year? The only thing I knew about his last years was that the CLP has to be suspended because of the feud over who would suceed him

Kaufman was senile. Started showing publicly obvious signs of dementia shortly after the 2005 election, and his subsequent deterioration was pretty rapid. Ended up saying completely disgusting and awful things on a regular basis and his behaviour in public became disturbing in other ways as well. There was an element of elder abuse to this from certain organisations, who found him increasingly useful. Part of the issue was that because he was always known to be kind of a prick, the assumption was that he'd just become increasingly bitter and cranky in his dotage. Right up until he started sounding like an actual Nazi, at which point he was basically muzzled. But still put up for re-election in 2015. It was awful.

[Blair]

Sigh can you please read my post again? Specifically the part where I said the leadership have a moral need to call out anti-trans rhetoric & the GRA needs to be reformed to include self-ID.

I'm part of the LGBT community I don't need to be told how terrifying this for Trans people.

I don't see the issue with saying a factions stance is hilarous in the historical context when I'm attacking them for not doing enough on trans rights!

[CumbrianLefty]

If we want to accuse Starmer of inconsistency, then Steve Reed (who was allowed to keep his post on the front bench) is a better example to use than Sheerman anyway.

Though of course "zero tolerance" is the sort of tough sounding rhetoric that politicians like to use and is not actually meant to be applied literally in all cases, with regard to AS or anything else. And yes, it is correct to say RLB was booted for her reaction (or you might say lack of it) to being called out, rather than the offending tweet itself. I say that btw as somebody who was deeply unenthusiastic about her sacking, and will note that it hasn't transformed Labour's (or Keir's) poll standings in the way some centrist zoomers on Twitter confidently asserted it would at the time

[cp]

Sigh can you please read my post again? Specifically the part where I said the leadership have a moral need to call out anti-trans rhetoric & the GRA needs to be reformed to include self-ID.

I'm part of the LGBT community I don't need to be told how terrifying this for Trans people.

I don't see the issue with saying a factions stance is hilarous in the historical context when I'm attacking them for not doing enough on trans rights!

If that were the case, such comments would not be made. For the record: the issue is that calling the despicable reaction of the Labour right on this issue 'hilarious', historically contextualized or otherwise, portrays it as something amusing when it is very much not, certainly for those of us who have skin in the game. It's depressing, offensive, embarrassing, hypocritical (as you point out), and predictable. Hilarious not so much.

And fwiw you didn't say the leadership had a moral need to call out anti-trans rhetoric. You posited it was increasingly 'morally correct' for 'Labour to get involved'; that can mean anything but I'm reassured to hear it's a call for more action to support trans people. Cheers for that

Regardless, the point is Starmer's shown he's comfortable placating transphobes on this issue and isn't even getting the benefit of a poll lead out of it, nevermind being 20 points ahead like we were promised.

[Former President tack50]

I thought that zero tolerance was meant to be applied only to antisemitism? (Which seemed to be the big problem in Labour)

I will say it's not really like the Tories can really mount a campaign off "we are the true pro-Trans" party either; unlike with antisemitism (Labour are the true antisemites, the Tories stand with the Jewish community)

[Blair]

Sigh can you please read my post again? Specifically the part where I said the leadership have a moral need to call out anti-trans rhetoric & the GRA needs to be reformed to include self-ID.

I'm part of the LGBT community I don't need to be told how terrifying this for Trans people.

I don't see the issue with saying a factions stance is hilarous in the historical context when I'm attacking them for not doing enough on trans rights!

If that were the case, such comments would not be made. For the record: the issue is that calling the despicable reaction of the Labour right on this issue 'hilarious', historically contextualized or otherwise, portrays it as something amusing when it is very much not, certainly for those of us who have skin in the game. It's depressing, offensive, embarrassing, hypocritical (as you point out), and predictable. Hilarious not so much.

And fwiw you didn't say the leadership had a moral need to call out anti-trans rhetoric. You posited it was increasingly 'morally correct' for 'Labour to get involved'; that can mean anything but I'm reassured to hear it's a call for more action to support trans people. Cheers for that

Regardless, the point is Starmer's shown he's comfortable placating transphobes on this issue and isn't even getting the benefit of a poll lead out of it, nevermind being 20 points ahead like we were promised.

I'm glad we've cleared it up.

[cp]

I thought that zero tolerance was meant to be applied only to antisemitism? (Which seemed to be the big problem in Labour)

I will say it's not really like the Tories can really mount a campaign off "we are the true pro-Trans" party either; unlike with antisemitism (Labour are the true antisemites, the Tories stand with the Jewish community)

That won't stop them from trying. LGBT Tories (heavy emphasis on the G) are an unfortunately common occurrence in the UK. To their credit, the official LGBT Tory outfits have condemned TERF rhetoric when it's emerged. You're right that it's an uphill battle, though. Most trans folx are pretty dead set against the Tories for the simple fact that Tory stewardship of the NHS for the past decade has made it inestimably harder to access critical healthcare for medical transitioning.

[CumbrianLefty]

Its not the party that Starmer is worried about re trans rights (even though it is obviously divided on the issue, and not always on the "normal" factional lines either) but the media. Several influential and widely read female journalists, in particular, are uncompromising TERFs.

[cp]

Its not the party that Starmer is worried about re trans rights (even though it is obviously divided on the issue, and not always on the "normal" factional lines either) but the media. Several influential and widely read female journalists, in particular, are uncompromising TERFs.

True. Starmer's fear of them is, if anything, even more pathetic.

[Blair]

Not starting beef... I actually have rather unsure & contradictory views about 2017...

https://twitter.com/PeoplesMomentum/status/1291788551412158470

[EastAnglianLefty]

My general impression is that what was being done was certainly unprofessional, but I don't think you can credibly make the accusation of sabotage. Labour were heavily behind in all the polls (and those polls that showed a closer contest were widely disbelieved by Corbyn's opponents) and in those circumstances there wasn't much of a case for offensive targeting beyond hope. Moreover, in 2015 Labour had lost seats due to refusing to play defence and the party (particularly the right of the party) was accordingly gun-shy. The extra resources make sense as an attempt to prepare for a 1983-style result. The specific seats picked were certainly picked on a factional basis (and there's the unquestionable unprofessionalism.) On the other hand, some of there were actually lost in 2019, so on an insurance basis I'm not sure it wouldn't have made sense as a strategy.

More generally, I'd suggest that arguing that something was a betrayal in 2017 is made more difficult when the absence of the same was a major contributor to bad results in both 2015 and 2019. As a general rule, we have not done a very good job of dealing with the inevitable optimism bias.

[DaWN]

My general impression is that what was being done was certainly unprofessional, but I don't think you can credibly make the accusation of sabotage. Labour were heavily behind in all the polls (and those polls that showed a closer contest were widely disbelieved by Corbyn's opponents) and in those circumstances there wasn't much of a case for offensive targeting beyond hope. Moreover, in 2015 Labour had lost seats due to refusing to play defence and the party (particularly the right of the party) was accordingly gun-shy. The extra resources make sense as an attempt to prepare for a 1983-style result. The specific seats picked were certainly picked on a factional basis (and there's the unquestionable unprofessionalism.) On the other hand, some of there were actually lost in 2019, so on an insurance basis I'm not sure it wouldn't have made sense as a strategy.

More generally, I'd suggest that arguing that something was a betrayal in 2017 is made more difficult when the absence of the same was a major contributor to bad results in both 2015 and 2019. As a general rule, we have not done a very good job of dealing with the inevitable optimism bias.

How dare you bring facts, logic and common sense to this. It was clearly a sabotage campaign by the Blairites so they could enact their plan of invading Iraq again and you're a Red Tory Blairite Scum if you disagree.

[cp]

My general impression is that what was being done was certainly unprofessional, but I don't think you can credibly make the accusation of sabotage. Labour were heavily behind in all the polls (and those polls that showed a closer contest were widely disbelieved by Corbyn's opponents) and in those circumstances there wasn't much of a case for offensive targeting beyond hope. Moreover, in 2015 Labour had lost seats due to refusing to play defence and the party (particularly the right of the party) was accordingly gun-shy. The extra resources make sense as an attempt to prepare for a 1983-style result. The specific seats picked were certainly picked on a factional basis (and there's the unquestionable unprofessionalism.) On the other hand, some of there were actually lost in 2019, so on an insurance basis I'm not sure it wouldn't have made sense as a strategy.

More generally, I'd suggest that arguing that something was a betrayal in 2017 is made more difficult when the absence of the same was a major contributor to bad results in both 2015 and 2019. As a general rule, we have not done a very good job of dealing with the inevitable optimism bias.

Something being unprofessional and something being sabotage seems like a distinction without a difference. If the unprofessionalism (leaking reports, being obstreperous over routine matters, scheming to plan for a post-defeat recapture of the party) was deliberate, targeted, and out of step with their usual performance in the role - which it quite obviously was - it doesn't really matter if the polls at the time made it seem arguably unnecessary or was contrary to a cautious electoral strategy (prudent though it might have been to a reasonable observer).

As to the performance in the 2015 and 2019 elections and optimism, obviously there's more to Labour's results in an election than just sabotage vs no sabotage. I think the point to take is that in elections when the optimism wasn't really called for (2015/19) but the electoral machine worked well the party lost, but the one time there really was a reason to think Labour would overperform the right of the party actively stymied (read: were actively working against) success because of their own arrogance, hatred of Jeremy Corbyn, and consequent inability to acknowledge he was connecting with voters.

This does add a new layer of meaning to the DM headline from the start of the 2017 campaign, though. Crush the Saboteurs, indeed.

[CumbrianLefty]

My general impression is that what was being done was certainly unprofessional, but I don't think you can credibly make the accusation of sabotage. Labour were heavily behind in all the polls (and those polls that showed a closer contest were widely disbelieved by Corbyn's opponents) and in those circumstances there wasn't much of a case for offensive targeting beyond hope. Moreover, in 2015 Labour had lost seats due to refusing to play defence and the party (particularly the right of the party) was accordingly gun-shy. The extra resources make sense as an attempt to prepare for a 1983-style result. The specific seats picked were certainly picked on a factional basis (and there's the unquestionable unprofessionalism.) On the other hand, some of there were actually lost in 2019, so on an insurance basis I'm not sure it wouldn't have made sense as a strategy.

More generally, I'd suggest that arguing that something was a betrayal in 2017 is made more difficult when the absence of the same was a major contributor to bad results in both 2015 and 2019. As a general rule, we have not done a very good job of dealing with the inevitable optimism bias.

How dare you bring facts, logic and common sense to this. It was clearly a sabotage campaign by the Blairites so they could enact their plan of invading Iraq again and you're a Red Tory Blairite Scum if you disagree.

This straw-mannery does you no favours.

And whilst Blairites might not want to invade Iraq again, many *were* gung-ho for full scale war in Syria, indeed slandering Ed Miliband for his part in stopping it.

There is a strain of Blairism who *are* fanatical warmongers to their core.

[Blair]

I mean the one thing that is forgotten about 2017 is that it was widely briefed by Corbyn's team during that they were aiming to increase the vote share in order to survive the expected (and prepared) leadership challenge from Yvette & Chukka; with the explict argument that if they matched Ed's vote share or gained seats he would stay.

I mean Corbyn visited York (a seat which even in 2015 irrc had a 7K majority) to do an hour long rally; the funny thing that the trip really sums up my view of the campaign.

Corbyn's team were doing something actually quite smart (getting good clips for the news, using his skills as a speaker, going where he was popular) but they were doing it for partly questionable reasons.

Besides I might just be a bit wet about it but I feel 2017 was such a weird election; it was the only snap election in the modern era, it was stupidly long, it had two unknown & untested leaders and it had local elections stuck in between it

[Blair]

The big mystery is whether there was a comprehensive review into the 2017 election; even after Iain McNicol & others left HQ in 2018?

I know it's very internalised but I can't look at the period between 2018-2019 and believe that if the team from 2019 were super-imposed back into 2017 whether we would have seen a better than expected result?

I mean can I just settle at the view that the Labour party hasn't exactly been very well ran since 2005?

[CumbrianLefty]

I think you could go back some time before 2005 tbh. The rot set in IMO when Blair started to appoint people to top positions (including the GS) who were narrow factionalists rather than bothered about the health of the party as a whole. Its why I mentioned Ed M in my previous post - one of the most telling indictments against certain senior party staff is that they didn't start behaving as per the leaked "report" in September 2015, they were hostile to Corbyn's predecessor in only a slightly diluted form.

[cp]

I think it's fair to say that Labour hasn't succeeded in finding a way to manage its increasingly divergent and contradictory factions over the past decade. Equally, the one person who was able to manage those factions to produce an increase in Labour's membership, vote share, and seat total was Corbyn and the team he put in place running up to 2017.

At the risk of pulling back too far, most major social democratic left-wing parties have struggled to bridge their internal party divides over the past 15-20 years. Formerly ascendant centre/right factions from the 90s seem incapable of acknowledging just how thoroughly their failures of the 00s (Iraq and the GFC in particular in the UK) discredited them and their brand of politics.

Regrettably, the resurgent left hasn't coalesced enough to dislodge reactionary conservative governments, or even convince putative liberal allies into not aligning with said reactionaries when the chips are down.  

[CumbrianLefty]

Its not the party that Starmer is worried about re trans rights (even though it is obviously divided on the issue, and not always on the "normal" factional lines either) but the media. Several influential and widely read female journalists, in particular, are uncompromising TERFs.

True. Starmer's fear of them is, if anything, even more pathetic.

Even when he can see what the media did to his two (highly arguably three) predecessors?

It doesn't help to reduce everything to personal moral cowardice as some Corbynistas are somewhat wont to do. Even "their" man was far more willing to compromise on stuff than many on both sides on Labour's - increasingly removed from actual reality - forever war will admit.