This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[cp]

Point taken, but in this case 'the media' in question consists of a minuscule number of TERFy centrists at the Times and Guardian peddling demonstrably false conspiracy theories. The editorial line from both those outfits and rest of the (non-reactionary conservative) media is to support the GRA reforms to make it easier for trans people to self-identify - reforms the public overwhelmingly supports, too.

[EastAnglianLefty]

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?

Yes, this is exactly it. The reason the distinction between sabotage and unprofessionalism matters is because unprofessionalism isn't something that is solely the preserve of right wing hacks at HQ.

[cp]

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?

Yes, this is exactly it. The reason the distinction between sabotage and unprofessionalism matters is because unprofessionalism isn't something that is solely the preserve of right wing hacks at HQ.

Nonsense. The point is whether you call it unprofessionalism or sabotage, the actions of those on the Labour right in the 2017 campaign were a coordinated attempt to hinder Corbyn's team and hence the wider Labour campaign. It was a betrayal of the party's members, voters, donors, and volunteers writ large and a staggering demonstration of callow cynicism from a wing of the party that had worn its (evidently chimerical) moral superiority and hard nosed pragmatism as badges of honour. The people who did it have no business anywhere near the Labour party, regardless of which wing is ascendant. After all, if they're willing to conspire against their party to throw an election, how can you ever be sure they won't do the same thing again?

[EastAnglianLefty]

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?

Yes, this is exactly it. The reason the distinction between sabotage and unprofessionalism matters is because unprofessionalism isn't something that is solely the preserve of right wing hacks at HQ.

Nonsense. The point is whether you call it unprofessionalism or sabotage, the actions of those on the Labour right in the 2017 campaign were a coordinated attempt to hinder Corbyn's team and hence the wider Labour campaign. It was a betrayal of the party's members, voters, donors, and volunteers writ large and a staggering demonstration of callow cynicism from a wing of the party that had worn its (evidently chimerical) moral superiority and hard nosed pragmatism as badges of honour. The people who did it have no business anywhere near the Labour party, regardless of which wing is ascendant. After all, if they're willing to conspire against their party to throw an election, how can you ever be sure they won't do the same thing again?

And my point is that the evidence that it actually was a co-ordinated attempt to hinder the campaign, rather than an attempt to minimise the expected damage to their particular wing, is weak at best.

[cp]

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?

Yes, this is exactly it. The reason the distinction between sabotage and unprofessionalism matters is because unprofessionalism isn't something that is solely the preserve of right wing hacks at HQ.

Nonsense. The point is whether you call it unprofessionalism or sabotage, the actions of those on the Labour right in the 2017 campaign were a coordinated attempt to hinder Corbyn's team and hence the wider Labour campaign. It was a betrayal of the party's members, voters, donors, and volunteers writ large and a staggering demonstration of callow cynicism from a wing of the party that had worn its (evidently chimerical) moral superiority and hard nosed pragmatism as badges of honour. The people who did it have no business anywhere near the Labour party, regardless of which wing is ascendant. After all, if they're willing to conspire against their party to throw an election, how can you ever be sure they won't do the same thing again?

And my point is that the evidence that it actually was a co-ordinated attempt to hinder the campaign, rather than an attempt to minimise the expected damage to their particular wing, is weak at best.

I struggle to see how someone could come to that conclusion without relying on motivated reasoning or just being naive. The evidence is quite clear.

[CumbrianLefty]

The evidence is clear that they didn't like Corbyn or those associated with him.

It is somewhat more circumstantial of a full blown conspiracy.

[EastAnglianLefty]

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?

Yes, this is exactly it. The reason the distinction between sabotage and unprofessionalism matters is because unprofessionalism isn't something that is solely the preserve of right wing hacks at HQ.

Nonsense. The point is whether you call it unprofessionalism or sabotage, the actions of those on the Labour right in the 2017 campaign were a coordinated attempt to hinder Corbyn's team and hence the wider Labour campaign. It was a betrayal of the party's members, voters, donors, and volunteers writ large and a staggering demonstration of callow cynicism from a wing of the party that had worn its (evidently chimerical) moral superiority and hard nosed pragmatism as badges of honour. The people who did it have no business anywhere near the Labour party, regardless of which wing is ascendant. After all, if they're willing to conspire against their party to throw an election, how can you ever be sure they won't do the same thing again?

And my point is that the evidence that it actually was a co-ordinated attempt to hinder the campaign, rather than an attempt to minimise the expected damage to their particular wing, is weak at best.

I struggle to see how someone could come to that conclusion without relying on motivated reasoning or just being naive. The evidence is quite clear.

I would say exactly the same about you, rendering this whole argument somewhat pointless.

[cp]

The evidence is clear that they didn't like Corbyn or those associated with him.

It is somewhat more circumstantial of a full blown conspiracy.

Maybe it's just semantics, but given their actions and the indisputable motivation on which they were based, it was clearly more than just casual ad hoc unprofessionalism. They wanted a Corbyn loss and they took steps to make that more likely, sharing suggestions and plans for how to do so along the way. Any reasonable person would call that conspiratorial.

[CumbrianLefty]

But the thing is, even if it *wasn't* a full scale conspiracy (something which barring some as yet still elusive "smoking gun" will be difficult to prove) the behaviour of several cited in those documents was still disgraceful and unacceptable - and sanctions are highly likely to be warranted.

[cp]

But the thing is, even if it *wasn't* a full scale conspiracy (something which barring some as yet still elusive "smoking gun" will be difficult to prove) the behaviour of several cited in those documents was still disgraceful and unacceptable - and sanctions are highly likely to be warranted.

Indeed, the racism in some of those texts was galling. Can't say I'm surprised, tho.

[CumbrianLefty]

On a not dissimilar tangent (ie possible racism) Dawn Butler is back in the headlines.

[DaWN]

I'm beginning to get the sneaking suspicion that Dawn Butler is the current wasp's cake

[CumbrianLefty]

What does that mean?

Nice tweet I saw yesterday - on the lines of "lots of people out there who are totally not racist, but whose least favourite three politicians just happen to be Abbott/Butler/Lammy"

[cp]

What does that mean?

Nice tweet I saw yesterday - on the lines of "lots of people out there who are totally not racist, but whose least favourite three politicians just happen to be Abbott/Butler/Lammy"

It's a dim middlebrow joke from a TV show that aired 15 years ago. It means the same thing as 'lightening rod'.

[Blair]

What does that mean?

Nice tweet I saw yesterday - on the lines of "lots of people out there who are totally not racist, but whose least favourite three politicians just happen to be Abbott/Butler/Lammy"

All three also share the distinction of losing internal elections where a good chunk of people who you'd expect to vote for them didn't.

[CumbrianLefty]

What does that mean?

Nice tweet I saw yesterday - on the lines of "lots of people out there who are totally not racist, but whose least favourite three politicians just happen to be Abbott/Butler/Lammy"

All three also share the distinction of losing internal elections where a good chunk of people who you'd expect to vote for them didn't.

What was Lammy's "internal election"?

The other two maybe need to be unpacked a bit as well - Abbott was never ever going to win in 2010 and her "hard leftness" was beyond much doubt a bigger deterrent then than her race. Butler indeed did poorly in this year's deputy contest, but another non-white hopeful did much better than many had expected; at least something to do with the fact she ran a good campaign, and Butler - FWIW my own 2nd choice behind Rayner - by common consent did not.

Even if there is a bit of reluctance for Labour members to vote for black candidates underneath all that - and tbf there quite possibly is - it maybe shouldn't be conflated with the outright gammony racism I cited above.

[DaWN]

It's a dim middlebrow joke from a TV show that aired 15 years ago. It means the same thing as 'lightening rod'.

There's nothing wrong with a few dim middlebrow jokes every now and again.

Jokes aside though, the media's tendency to jump on Butler's frequent tendency to spout the first thing she thinks of (which this particular incident may not be an example of, relevant facts are unclear), no doubt in order to push a 'LABOUR HATES WHITE PEOPLE' narrative, is pretty sad (but not unexpected) but having it distract from the usual factional fistfighting your party still seems determined to engage in can't do it any harm, especially as Butler's legitimate grievances/usual shenanigans (delete as appropriate when facts become clear) probably aren't angering anyone apart from Gammons who were never voting Labour anyway.

[EastAnglianLefty]

What does that mean?

Nice tweet I saw yesterday - on the lines of "lots of people out there who are totally not racist, but whose least favourite three politicians just happen to be Abbott/Butler/Lammy"

All three also share the distinction of losing internal elections where a good chunk of people who you'd expect to vote for them didn't.

What was Lammy's "internal election"?

The other two maybe need to be unpacked a bit as well - Abbott was never ever going to win in 2010 and her "hard leftness" was beyond much doubt a bigger deterrent then than her race. Butler indeed did poorly in this year's deputy contest, but another non-white hopeful did much better than many had expected; at least something to do with the fact she ran a good campaign, and Butler - FWIW my own 2nd choice behind Rayner - by common consent did not.

Even if there is a bit of reluctance for Labour members to vote for black candidates underneath all that - and tbf there quite possibly is - it maybe shouldn't be conflated with the outright gammony racism I cited above.

Certainly the racial attitudes of Labour members can't reasonably be compared to those of the Twitter trolls going after Butler. Nevertheless, we probably don't talk enough about the fact that BAME candidates only get selected in significant numbers in seats with high BAME populations or seats we don't stand a cat's chance in hell in and I think a higher proportion of BAME Labour MPs will have been selected by an NEC panel (rather than by a CLP) than is the case with white Labour MPs.

[Blair]

What does that mean?

Nice tweet I saw yesterday - on the lines of "lots of people out there who are totally not racist, but whose least favourite three politicians just happen to be Abbott/Butler/Lammy"

All three also share the distinction of losing internal elections where a good chunk of people who you'd expect to vote for them didn't.

What was Lammy's "internal election"?

The other two maybe need to be unpacked a bit as well - Abbott was never ever going to win in 2010 and her "hard leftness" was beyond much doubt a bigger deterrent then than her race. Butler indeed did poorly in this year's deputy contest, but another non-white hopeful did much better than many had expected; at least something to do with the fact she ran a good campaign, and Butler - FWIW my own 2nd choice behind Rayner - by common consent did not.

Even if there is a bit of reluctance for Labour members to vote for black candidates underneath all that - and tbf there quite possibly is - it maybe shouldn't be conflated with the outright gammony racism I cited above.

Mayoral Election in 2015. And that was the one I was inferring with Abbott too; she was obviously never going to win 2010 (and would have come third rather than 5th with the new system) but for London Mayor in 2015 she certainly could have expected to have done better; I knew a lot of Corbyn-Khan voters in London.

There's of course more to that; Khan had the backings of GMB & UNITE which was on reflection understandable as he spend years doing the work & was seen as relatively on the left back then & Abbott wasn't universally loved on the left (Red Ken backed SK)

I don't think a big problem was that Labour members were explicity rascist; but it certainly plays a big role for members in both A.) The perceived electability (something that I've heard explicity said in CLP meetings) B.) The lack of traditional support within the movement.

Its a long running problem & one I imagine is worse at local Government level; I live in a ward that is around 40% BAME yet I can count on one hand the number of BAME people who attend branch meetings which of course reduces the pool even more so...

[CumbrianLefty]

Ah, the 2015 mayoral selection contest had slipped my mind. Though of course the winner there is, again, a tell against a simple "racism" explanation - Tessa Jowell (RIP) was widely considered favourite before the result was announced as well.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I would however suspect that the demographics of Labour members in London will be somewhat different from those as Labour members elsewhere, in broadly the same way as the demographics of London and the rest of the UK differ from one another.

[DaWN]

As I do not want to go anywhere remotely near to Corbynite Twitter, can someone explain to me what Starmer has done wrong this time?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As I do not want to go anywhere remotely near to Corbynite Twitter, can someone explain to me what Starmer has done wrong this time?

Written an article for the Mail on Sunday in which he attacks the mess that the government has made over A levels, says that the government is failing children because it has not taken seriously the problems caused to education by the pandemic (points out that more attention appears to have been given to how to re-open bowling alleys safely than schools), and says that there cannot be any more excuses and that they must re-open schools next month.

I gather that this is bad because 'never opening schools again' is praxis, or something.

[DaWN]

As I do not want to go anywhere remotely near to Corbynite Twitter, can someone explain to me what Starmer has done wrong this time?

Written an article for the Mail on Sunday in which he attacks the mess that the government has made over A levels, says that the government is failing children because it has not taken seriously the problems caused to education by the pandemic (points out that more attention appears to have been given to how to re-open bowling alleys safely than schools), and says that there cannot be any more excuses and that they must re-open schools next month.

I gather that this is bad because 'never opening schools again' is praxis, or something.

Just as petty and pathetic as I expected then. I think my opinion of Starmer goes up every time they attack him.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

These things will keep happening because, even if Corbynista Twitter were not arguing in bad-faith, as they are, it isn't possible for Starmer to appease them because it would make no sense for a high-ranking politician who believes the institutions of the British state must be reformed to respect the rights of ordinary people to suddenly turn around and decide they should go out of their way to be intelligible to a tiny, very weird subset of the population (i.e. people who argue about Labour internal politics online) and almost certainly make themselves less intelligible to everyone else. At some point we must simply start to ignore it.