This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Cassius]

I mean, I imagine if there was a split over this particular issue then said splinter party would get <1% of the vote. I guess a few MP’s in ultra-safe seats might stand a chance of getting re-elected if they could get their CLP’s to walk out with them, but I don’t know enough about the Labour Party to know whether that would be in any way feasible.

[Blair]

Corbyn has the whip removed

Party split incoming?

This is I feel not an issue that a lot of people in the party will want to fight over; aka an internal party investigation on anti-semitism. I expect the Socialist Campaign Group will put out a statement & but the lesson from the last parliament is that resigning the whip & splitting just lets the leaders office or one of the major unions fill your seat with someone else.

The Corbyn faction surely can’t soldier on here. And there’s enough MPs to desert the PLP

Well yes but even the 'Corbyn' faction of the Socialist Campaign Group (the grouping of 30 MPs on the hard left) has only I'd say around 10 or so people who are loyal purely to him & I'm not sure if they want to finish their careers by jumping ship.

Most of the new MPs owe their selection to Corbyn but thats about it; they're mostly several decades younger than him, haven't worked closely with him nor have anything to gain from leaving.

I wouldn't be shocked if some of the old hands resigned the whip in solidarity but I think as I posted earlier the common hope from many is that the party can just move on.

[Blair]

I mean, I imagine if there was a split over this particular then said splinter party would get <1% of the vote. I guess a few MP’s in ultra-safe seats might stand a chance of getting re-elected if they could get their CLP’s to walk out with them, but I don’t know enough about the Labour Party to know whether that would be in any way feasible.

If it was well organised & financed (a big if) I could see it getting a bit more but of course the damage would be in the marginal seats that Labour need to win back.

I'm not sure if there's been any research on it but I always assumed the easiest seats for ex-MPs to win as independents are where they A.) Get some of the opposition to stand down B.) Get the vote split & end up winning with 30%.

I could certainly see how in a low turnout by-election you could see a strange result but the issue at a GE is that you just get swamped in these safe seats by the Labour vote.

[Alcibiades]

IMO, the right decision morally and politically. Corbyn’s position, already precarious after the report was released, became untenable after his statement. This appears to voters, among whom Corbyn is very unpopular, to be a decisive and bold break with not just anti-Semitism but Corbynism more generally. As others have said, an actual successful breakaway is unlikely, but there is still the danger that the appearance of infighting weakens the party’s image. Anyway, Starmer is really putting his money where his mouth is, so to speak, which does no harm to his public perception.

[CumbrianLefty]

It's a shock, but in retrospect it probably shouldn't have been.

I'm reasonably sure Starmer's team will have asked Corbyn what response he was planning to make to the EHRC report and will not have been pleased with a couple of lines in there (and if they didn't ask, Corbyn's team should have assumed it was a case of giving him enough rope anyway.) We know that if Starmer tells you to apologise and you argue, he will take action.

We haven't learned very much new, except that you really shouldn't try to out-bluff Starmer.

Redux of the RLB stuff really. Left only has themselves to blame.

People already saying "Barry Sheerman and Steve Reed got away with it", but is that actually true? They were both forced to retract and apologise??

[America Needs R'hllor]

Beautiful decision! Thank you Mr. Starmer and thank you Jewish orgs for getting us to this point!

[CumbrianLefty]

IMO, the right decision morally and politically. Corbyn’s position, already precarious after the report was released, became untenable after his statement. This appears to voter, among whom Corbyn is very unpopular, to be a decisive and bold break with not just anti-Semitism but Corbynism more generally. As others have said, an actual successful breakaway is unlikely, but there is still the danger that the appearance of infighting weakens the party’s image. Anyway, Starmer is really putting his money where his mouth is, so to speak, which does no harm to his public perception.

Its a high risk move nonetheless.

Not least, in fact, because suspension isn't actually expulsion and in due course Corbyn might have to be let back into the fold - how exactly would that be spun?

[Blair]

Plot thickens...

https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1321809772690235393

[Blair]

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1321816995151683584

[Alcibiades]

IMO, the right decision morally and politically. Corbyn’s position, already precarious after the report was released, became untenable after his statement. This appears to voter, among whom Corbyn is very unpopular, to be a decisive and bold break with not just anti-Semitism but Corbynism more generally. As others have said, an actual successful breakaway is unlikely, but there is still the danger that the appearance of infighting weakens the party’s image. Anyway, Starmer is really putting his money where his mouth is, so to speak, which does no harm to his public perception.

Its a high risk move nonetheless.

Not least, in fact, because suspension isn't actually expulsion and in due course Corbyn might have to be let back into the fold - how exactly would that be spun?

Indeed - but one of the reasons for the decline of social democratic parties across Europe has been playing it too safe when they are already suffering from major image problems.

[DaWN]

So that statue of Nelson in Trafalgar Square? I'm strongly considering petitioning to have it replaced with one of Keir Starmer for the wonderful service he has done this nation today.

[Blair]

If anybody wants to see something tragic Amanda Milling has been tweeting all day about this & her pre-prepared tweets have been thrown into a bit of a spin after she was demanding that 'Sir Keir' suspend Corbyn and is now complaining that he didn't do it last year or something stupid.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you read the report you'll see why he was suspended. Much is made in it of the concept of the 'party agent' and the responsibility that the institution in question has for the actions and public statements of people defined as 'party agents'. The Party is committed - by its own word but also, and more importantly, legally - to implementing the report and will face legal sanctions if it does not. There is a really critical precedent here, something of relevance not just to Labour: political parties are subject to the law of the land, they are not semi-sovereign fiefdoms.

[Former President tack50]

IMO, the right decision morally and politically. Corbyn’s position, already precarious after the report was released, became untenable after his statement. This appears to voter, among whom Corbyn is very unpopular, to be a decisive and bold break with not just anti-Semitism but Corbynism more generally. As others have said, an actual successful breakaway is unlikely, but there is still the danger that the appearance of infighting weakens the party’s image. Anyway, Starmer is really putting his money where his mouth is, so to speak, which does no harm to his public perception.

Its a high risk move nonetheless.

Not least, in fact, because suspension isn't actually expulsion and in due course Corbyn might have to be let back into the fold - how exactly would that be spun?

Indeed - but one of the reasons for the decline of social democratic parties across Europe has been playing it too safe when they are already suffering from major image problems.

The image problems of the Labour party under Corbyn are radically different to those of all the other social democratic parties in Europe; and arguably more comparable to the parties of the far left than the centre left

There is a reason why in 2017 Corbyn was compared to the likes of Tsipras, Iglesias or Melenchon.

And to the extent that they are comparable, anti Semitism would not even rank in the top 100 worries for said voters; with their reasons to leave Labour being the usual#populist   combo of Brexit, immigration, and what not.

Now, you can argue that the antisemitism issue meant Labour had an image of incompetence; and I would agree on that hurting Labour and Corbyn a lot. But anti semitism per se is not the reason the north of England voted for Johnson in 2019.

[jaymichaud]

Corbyn has the whip removed

Party split incoming?

No, if any hard-lefties break away it’d be Respect Party 2.0.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

It's a really a shame but unsurprising to see one of the most sincere Labour leaders of the past few decades dismantled politically.

This demented saga had about as much to do with Judaism as Blair's proud participation in the Iraq War had to do with WMD's. A fairy tale.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Between this and Glenn Greenwald rage-quitting The Intercept, today's shaping up to be a pretty good day

[DaWN]

Corbyn: So that's it after 37 years? So long? Good luck?
Starmer: I don't recall saying good luck

[Blair]

FWIW I realised earlier that we're not going to see much being done in terms of resignations, quitting etc until we actually have an outcome of Corbyn's suspension.

In the old days it would go the NCC ( a fun time to be an NEC member right?) & would be the mother of all trials (to the extent that if I was on said panel I would quit or move to the outer hebrides)

Now I think it might go to this independent complaints process.

I mean, I imagine if there was a split over this particular then said splinter party would get <1% of the vote. I guess a few MP’s in ultra-safe seats might stand a chance of getting re-elected if they could get their CLP’s to walk out with them, but I don’t know enough about the Labour Party to know whether that would be in any way feasible.

If it was well organised & financed (a big if) I could see it getting a bit more but of course the damage would be in the marginal seats that Labour need to win back.

I'm not sure if there's been any research on it but I always assumed the easiest seats for ex-MPs to win as independents are where they A.) Get some of the opposition to stand down B.) Get the vote split & end up winning with 30%.

I could certainly see how in a low turnout by-election you could see a strange result but the issue at a GE is that you just get swamped in these safe seats by the Labour vote.

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1321842061272879107

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I had middling hopes for Starmer coming in, assuming he would have to try to carve some kind of a middle path and "turn the page". He's impressed me at every turn. This is what we're going to need to see out of new Republican leadership as well if Trump and McConnell lose, but I won't hold my breath.

[GALeftist]

This seems like a massive overreaction, though I'll admit I'm not an expert on antisemitism in the UK or the UK in general. With that being said, can someone explain to me why the EHRC has elected not to investigate Islamophobia within the Conservatives? It seems to me that that's objectively at least a large problem, if not larger than the antisemitism within Labour, and it seems that there's a vastly different standard being applied to the parties here.

[MaxQue]

This seems like a massive overreaction, though I'll admit I'm not an expert on antisemitism in the UK or the UK in general. With that being said, can someone explain to me why the EHRC has elected not to investigate Islamophobia within the Conservatives? It seems to me that that's objectively at least a large problem, if not larger than the antisemitism within Labour, and it seems that there's a vastly different standard being applied to the parties here.

Between Jewish and Mulisms, only one of the two have an influence over institutions.
Between Corbyn and Johnson, only one of the two doesn't adhere to the "liberal" "consensus".

[GALeftist]

To be perfectly clear, I do not think it is the influence of nefarious Jews in the UK. I think it is more likely the influence of nefarious Tories in the EHRC and/or nefarious Blairites in Labour. Once again, though, I'm not an expert on this by a long shot.

[cp]

This seems like a massive overreaction, though I'll admit I'm not an expert on antisemitism in the UK or the UK in general. With that being said, can someone explain to me why the EHRC has elected not to investigate Islamophobia within the Conservatives? It seems to me that that's objectively at least a large problem, if not larger than the antisemitism within Labour, and it seems that there's a vastly different standard being applied to the parties here.

Between Jewish and Mulisms, only one of the two have an influence over institutions.
Between Corbyn and Johnson, only one of the two doesn't adhere to the "liberal" "consensus".

That's a touch too conspiratorial/cranky of an explanation for my taste. There's certainly an element of politics in how the EHRC decides on what to investigate, which results in a risible myopia toward the sins of the party in power. Also, there's undeniably a palpable discrepancy in the level of sensitivity to racism evinced by those in positions of power (the casual racism and xenophobia expressed toward immigrants is the best example of that).

However, the EHRC case against Labour was the result of a sincere and genuine grassroots campaign to attend to the issue which reached a critical mass. The (undeniable) case against the Tories for Islamophobia hasn't come close to generating that kind of concerted activism. I'm not saying that's because Islamophobia is less egregious, just that the EHRC will investigate where the smoke seems to come from.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Corbyn had a very ideologically diverse shadow cabinet until they quit to undermine him. And in return, he gets kicked out of the party. Neoliberals are the real purity trolls.