This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Coldstream]

Of course, the Very Online Left decided a while back that Shaheen was a contemptible sellout.

This hasn't stopped even more contemptible aggro-centrists (eg Ian Leslie) smearing her.

And despicable Labour to Win in general.

I mean I will broadly be voting the LtW slate and very much don’t think that’s the view of most people on the Labour right- I was going to say that the vast majority of people getting outraged over her winning are the types who didn’t even vote for Labour in 2010, and consider anyone to the left of Ed Miliband as a trot.

They’re the types who regularly foam that Starmer is too weak and soft on the left which is a obviously a load of rubbish.

That's a tweet about that selection by the LtW national organiser.

https://twitter.com/DuddridgeLloyd/status/1546800715850567680

Not sure what the point is here, you had a candidate who supports Starmer & a candidate who doesn’t - and was closely associated with Ken Loach (and to my knowledge hasn’t disavowed him). It’s hardly an unfair accusation.

She is so anti-Starmer that she put him (Starmer, not Loach) on her leaflets.

And? Do you seriously think no anti-Corbyn candidates put Corbyn in their selection leaflets 17-19?

Just cos Shaheen is smarter and/or less principled than most Corbynites (depending on your interpretation) doesn’t change that she is one.

[Blair]

Besides it’s someone being stupid as FS I believe used Starmer on her leaflets, in a positive way. It just seems like a weird argument from one set of people who miss the forever war- I mean this is the first win the left have had internally in what 6 months?

And explicitly as (my goodness an actual somewhat legitimate contemporary use for the old term!) a 'soft' Left candidate, thus the picture with Starmer and so on. In a strategic sense, that sort of thing is ultimately a win for the right-wing and centre of the Party, much as equivalent movement was back in the 1990s.

It’s very similar to how a lot of MPs on the right/centre of the PLP ran their re-selection campaigns saying how they were proud Jeremy had made us anti-austerity party, how they’d opposed arm sales to Saudi Arabia etc.

Have to Love THIGMOO but then again half the people belly aching today haven’t actually been members since 2007.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I'm curious. Is being an NEC member a paid job ?

[Coldstream]

I'm curious. Is being an NEC member a paid job ?

It isn’t, though you get expenses paid. It’s not really a full time commitment, 2-4 meetings a month (including committees) is usual. Potentially up to 8 including selection panels.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

What is the point of Rachel Reeves?

[CumbrianLefty]

What is the point of Rachel Reeves?

She actually has a very decent understanding of economics (which Starmer, amongst others, painfully obviously lacks) Shame she doesn't put it to better use more of the time.

[JimJamUK]

Renationalising the railways is one of those policies that’s so popular, and frankly so minor at this point, that a Labour politician really has to go out of their way to oppose it. Says a lot about Reeves/the powers that be that they’ve taken this stance (it seems). Not entirely surprising given her comments on welfare/the unemployed during the Miliband era, but not a good sign for those hoping a Labour government would do much to change this country (its increasingly reminiscent of the 2019-2022 Australian Labor Party, ‘we don’t actually have different policies, but we want a better country and we’re not those dodgy conservatives’).

[CumbrianLefty]

Of course, the Very Online Left decided a while back that Shaheen was a contemptible sellout.

This hasn't stopped even more contemptible aggro-centrists (eg Ian Leslie) smearing her.

And despicable Labour to Win in general.

I mean I will broadly be voting the LtW slate and very much don’t think that’s the view of most people on the Labour right- I was going to say that the vast majority of people getting outraged over her winning are the types who didn’t even vote for Labour in 2010, and consider anyone to the left of Ed Miliband as a trot.

They’re the types who regularly foam that Starmer is too weak and soft on the left which is a obviously a load of rubbish.

That's a tweet about that selection by the LtW national organiser.

https://twitter.com/DuddridgeLloyd/status/1546800715850567680

Not sure what the point is here, you had a candidate who supports Starmer & a candidate who doesn’t - and was closely associated with Ken Loach (and to my knowledge hasn’t disavowed him). It’s hardly an unfair accusation.

She is so anti-Starmer that she put him (Starmer, not Loach) on her leaflets.

And? Do you seriously think no anti-Corbyn candidates put Corbyn in their selection leaflets 17-19?

Just cos Shaheen is smarter and/or less principled than most Corbynites (depending on your interpretation) doesn’t change that she is one.

Even if she is, so what - why does this exercise you (and others on the right of the party) so much??

The logical interpretation for some is that the left has no legitimate place in the Labour party - but for the most part few say this openly (the cranks obsessed with "Clause One" tend to be an exception)

[Blair]

It’s rather hilarious for Labour to rule out nationalisation and cause a big row when they are virtually already nationalised.

The line should be ‘over the last decade the Tories have given billions of pounds to the private rail companies who have reduced services and let passengers down. A Labour Government would ensure our trains are ran for people, not profit.’’

[Blair]

This happened last conference- Ed M repeated what was both party policy and Keirs own leadership material, and said we supported nationalising energy, water and rail.

He got very publicly attacked and briefed against because he wasn’t psychic and able to work out the position has changed.

Yet Rachel Reeves changed the position this morning but Keir didn’t choose to do anything so for some reason agreed with it.

Much like with the BA row this is what happens when the party doesn’t have a clear position written down and bases economic policy on vibes.

[Coldstream]

Of course, the Very Online Left decided a while back that Shaheen was a contemptible sellout.

This hasn't stopped even more contemptible aggro-centrists (eg Ian Leslie) smearing her.

And despicable Labour to Win in general.

I mean I will broadly be voting the LtW slate and very much don’t think that’s the view of most people on the Labour right- I was going to say that the vast majority of people getting outraged over her winning are the types who didn’t even vote for Labour in 2010, and consider anyone to the left of Ed Miliband as a trot.

They’re the types who regularly foam that Starmer is too weak and soft on the left which is a obviously a load of rubbish.

That's a tweet about that selection by the LtW national organiser.

https://twitter.com/DuddridgeLloyd/status/1546800715850567680

Not sure what the point is here, you had a candidate who supports Starmer & a candidate who doesn’t - and was closely associated with Ken Loach (and to my knowledge hasn’t disavowed him). It’s hardly an unfair accusation.

She is so anti-Starmer that she put him (Starmer, not Loach) on her leaflets.

And? Do you seriously think no anti-Corbyn candidates put Corbyn in their selection leaflets 17-19?

Just cos Shaheen is smarter and/or less principled than most Corbynites (depending on your interpretation) doesn’t change that she is one.

Even if she is, so what - why does this exercise you (and others on the right of the party) so much??

The logical interpretation for some is that the left has no legitimate place in the Labour party - but for the most part few say this openly (the cranks obsessed with "Clause One" tend to be an exception)

Literally no clue what “exercise” even means in this context. I’m not sure why you think I even particularly care about Shaheen. As I’ve said repeatedly, she’s far from the worst of the 2019 PPC’s and she’s at least not stupid.

I don’t understand why you’re taking issue about simply pointing out she’s a Corbynite/Loach supporter - which she is. It’s no more critical than calling Streeting a Blairite.

If you like Corbyn/Loach and think they are good people why would you have a problem with it being pointed out? If you don’t, why not say so? It’s hardly a complex issue.

I’ve never seen anyone talk about purging the left, this is a completely hysterical overreaction.

[Coldstream]

Of course, the Very Online Left decided a while back that Shaheen was a contemptible sellout.

This hasn't stopped even more contemptible aggro-centrists (eg Ian Leslie) smearing her.

And despicable Labour to Win in general.

I mean I will broadly be voting the LtW slate and very much don’t think that’s the view of most people on the Labour right- I was going to say that the vast majority of people getting outraged over her winning are the types who didn’t even vote for Labour in 2010, and consider anyone to the left of Ed Miliband as a trot.

They’re the types who regularly foam that Starmer is too weak and soft on the left which is a obviously a load of rubbish.

That's a tweet about that selection by the LtW national organiser.

https://twitter.com/DuddridgeLloyd/status/1546800715850567680

Not sure what the point is here, you had a candidate who supports Starmer & a candidate who doesn’t - and was closely associated with Ken Loach (and to my knowledge hasn’t disavowed him). It’s hardly an unfair accusation.

She is so anti

And? Do you seriously think no anti-Corbyn candidates put Corbyn in their selection leaflets 17-19?

Just cos Shaheen is smarter and/or less principled than most Corbynites (depending on your interpretation) doesn’t change that she is one.

Even if she is, so what - why does this exercise you (and others on the right of the party) so much??

The logical interpretation for some is that the left has no legitimate place in the Labour party - but for the most part few say this openly (the cranks obsessed with "Clause One" tend to be an exception)

Literally no clue what “exercise” even means in this context. I’m not sure why you think I even particularly care about Shaheen. As I’ve said repeatedly, she’s far from the worst of the 2019 PPC’s and she’s at least not stupid.

I don’t understand why you’re taking issue about simply pointing out she’s a Corbynite/Loach supporter - which she is. It’s no more critical than calling Streeting a Blairite.

If you like Corbyn/Loach and think they are good people why would you have a problem with it being pointed out? If you don’t, why not say so? It’s hardly a complex issue.

I’ve never seen anyone talk about purging the left, this is a completely hysterical overreaction.

Side note, but I doorknocked for Shaheen in 2019, and will likely do the same this time next time I’m in London. Can you say the same? Because I’ve continually put factionalism below winning.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

(its increasingly reminiscent of the 2019-2022 Australian Labor Party, ‘we don’t actually have different policies, but we want a better country and we’re not those dodgy conservatives’).

Though the ALP (for all its faults) actually formulated their new platform and made it crystal clear what policies they were and weren’t abandoning.

[CumbrianLefty]

Of course, the Very Online Left decided a while back that Shaheen was a contemptible sellout.

This hasn't stopped even more contemptible aggro-centrists (eg Ian Leslie) smearing her.

And despicable Labour to Win in general.

I mean I will broadly be voting the LtW slate and very much don’t think that’s the view of most people on the Labour right- I was going to say that the vast majority of people getting outraged over her winning are the types who didn’t even vote for Labour in 2010, and consider anyone to the left of Ed Miliband as a trot.

They’re the types who regularly foam that Starmer is too weak and soft on the left which is a obviously a load of rubbish.

That's a tweet about that selection by the LtW national organiser.

https://twitter.com/DuddridgeLloyd/status/1546800715850567680

Not sure what the point is here, you had a candidate who supports Starmer & a candidate who doesn’t - and was closely associated with Ken Loach (and to my knowledge hasn’t disavowed him). It’s hardly an unfair accusation.

She is so anti

And? Do you seriously think no anti-Corbyn candidates put Corbyn in their selection leaflets 17-19?

Just cos Shaheen is smarter and/or less principled than most Corbynites (depending on your interpretation) doesn’t change that she is one.

Even if she is, so what - why does this exercise you (and others on the right of the party) so much??

The logical interpretation for some is that the left has no legitimate place in the Labour party - but for the most part few say this openly (the cranks obsessed with "Clause One" tend to be an exception)

Literally no clue what “exercise” even means in this context. I’m not sure why you think I even particularly care about Shaheen. As I’ve said repeatedly, she’s far from the worst of the 2019 PPC’s and she’s at least not stupid.

I don’t understand why you’re taking issue about simply pointing out she’s a Corbynite/Loach supporter - which she is. It’s no more critical than calling Streeting a Blairite.

If you like Corbyn/Loach and think they are good people why would you have a problem with it being pointed out? If you don’t, why not say so? It’s hardly a complex issue.

I’ve never seen anyone talk about purging the left, this is a completely hysterical overreaction.

Side note, but I doorknocked for Shaheen in 2019, and will likely do the same this time next time I’m in London. Can you say the same? Because I’ve continually put factionalism below winning.

Absolutely yes, i haven't yet come across a local Labour candidate (at any level) that I can't support.

That's how it should work, of course - with only very very rare exceptions.

[Coldstream]

Of course, the Very Online Left decided a while back that Shaheen was a contemptible sellout.

This hasn't stopped even more contemptible aggro-centrists (eg Ian Leslie) smearing her.

And despicable Labour to Win in general.

I mean I will broadly be voting the LtW slate and very much don’t think that’s the view of most people on the Labour right- I was going to say that the vast majority of people getting outraged over her winning are the types who didn’t even vote for Labour in 2010, and consider anyone to the left of Ed Miliband as a trot.

They’re the types who regularly foam that Starmer is too weak and soft on the left which is a obviously a load of rubbish.

That's a tweet about that selection by the LtW national organiser.

https://twitter.com/DuddridgeLloyd/status/1546800715850567680

Not sure what the point is here, you had a candidate who supports Starmer & a candidate who doesn’t - and was closely associated with Ken Loach (and to my knowledge hasn’t disavowed him). It’s hardly an unfair accusation.

She is so anti

And? Do you seriously think no anti-Corbyn candidates put Corbyn in their selection leaflets 17-19?

Just cos Shaheen is smarter and/or less principled than most Corbynites (depending on your interpretation) doesn’t change that she is one.

Even if she is, so what - why does this exercise you (and others on the right of the party) so much??

The logical interpretation for some is that the left has no legitimate place in the Labour party - but for the most part few say this openly (the cranks obsessed with "Clause One" tend to be an exception)

Literally no clue what “exercise” even means in this context. I’m not sure why you think I even particularly care about Shaheen. As I’ve said repeatedly, she’s far from the worst of the 2019 PPC’s and she’s at least not stupid.

I don’t understand why you’re taking issue about simply pointing out she’s a Corbynite/Loach supporter - which she is. It’s no more critical than calling Streeting a Blairite.

If you like Corbyn/Loach and think they are good people why would you have a problem with it being pointed out? If you don’t, why not say so? It’s hardly a complex issue.

I’ve never seen anyone talk about purging the left, this is a completely hysterical overreaction.

Side note, but I doorknocked for Shaheen in 2019, and will likely do the same this time next time I’m in London. Can you say the same? Because I’ve continually put factionalism below winning.

Absolutely yes, i haven't yet come across a local Labour candidate (at any level) that I can't support.

That's how it should work, of course - with only very very rare exceptions.

Look forward to seeing you on the doorstep then, perhaps we’ll continue this in person.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm a bit sceptical of when people defend Reeves with the excuse "well, she's the financial whizz, no-one else can do what she does". Sure, I know Starmer thinks economics is either quantum mechanics or astrology, but are they really trying to say no-one else in the PLP stayed awake for the "E" section of their PPE courses? Heck, Dodds is plenty intelligent and capable. Not to mention this line is basically how Roger Douglas caused so much damage.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well two things - despite everything I think RR isn't *anything* like as right wing as Roger Douglas, and (less seriously) remember Dodds "not cutting through"? <sarcastic snicker>

There is a powerful lobby both on the Labour right and their client media* who were absolutely set on Reeves being Starmer's SC from the start, and they wouldn't give him any peace until he agreed. It can even be argued he did well to hold out for as long as he did.

(*and yes, these are mostly the very same people who incessantly told us how sorely Labour's front bench missed the transcendent "talents" of Yvette Cooper)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Or for that matter, how Balls was foisted on Miliband despite not being popular (when he was an active politician) and clearly causing a huge personality conflict.

The issue I have is the clear fake excuse (she's the only one that knows how to turn on the calculator!) for what is clearly an ideological position.

[Blair]

I'm a bit sceptical of when people defend Reeves with the excuse "well, she's the financial whizz, no-one else can do what she does". Sure, I know Starmer thinks economics is either quantum mechanics or astrology, but are they really trying to say no-one else in the PLP stayed awake for the "E" section of their PPE courses? Heck, Dodds is plenty intelligent and capable. Not to mention this line is basically how Roger Douglas caused so much damage.

It is actually a very serious problem how weak the PLP is on actual economists or economically minded people who equally understand both the party and politics- even those who come to mind are much more interested in something more specific like industrial strategies, or various smaller parts of interest to the Labour movement.

I wonder if it’s the influx of former councillors and SPADs into the PLP- the latter whose only experience is to see the Treasury as bean counting that gets in the way of a good story.

It’s interesting that the two most effective shadow chancellors were John McDonnell and Gordon Brown- neither were economists by trade but both knew the party and THIGMOO very well. Ofc John Mac had ran the books at the GLC though.

I think I’ve said it before but Dodds would make a very good finance Minister in a Labour Government but struggled in the role for various reasons- one ironically was she refused to open the chequebook for short term spending commitments- Labours two biggest spending pledges are under RR- I wonder how many people even here know Labour will spend £15 billion on school catch-up after covid!

Well two things - despite everything I think RR isn't *anything* like as right wing as Roger Douglas, and (less seriously) remember Dodds "not cutting through"? <sarcastic snicker>

There is a powerful lobby both on the Labour right and their client media* who were absolutely set on Reeves being Starmer's SC from the start, and they wouldn't give him any peace until he agreed. It can even be argued he did well to hold out for as long as he did.

(*and yes, these are mostly the very same people who incessantly told us how sorely Labour's front bench missed the transcendent "talents" of Yvette Cooper)

It is also funny as RR didn’t even endorse him in 2020- she backed Nandy iirc.

The original sin of Starmer was not picking Ed Miliband- who he was much closer to and who would have actually helped Starmer chart something closer to his 2020 pitch. Ofc there are a number of reasons this didn’t happen- including the vipers in the PLP and the fact it would have led to a lot of moaning. But ofc the same was said about JC appointing John Mac in 2015- trade unions wanted Angela Eagle. Funny old world…

[EastAnglianLefty]

I think the original sin of Starmer is not being clear what exactly he wants to accomplish - when you've got the desired endpoint, you can design a strategy around it, but as it stands he's just generically Labour without anything specific in terms of an agenda.

[Blair]

I think the original sin of Starmer is not being clear what exactly he wants to accomplish - when you've got the desired endpoint, you can design a strategy around it, but as it stands he's just generically Labour without anything specific in terms of an agenda.

He wanted to win the leadership in 2020!

It was one of the most effective internal campaigns in Labour I’ve seen- admittedly against a weak field and with a lot of money, but equally the team and approach seemed to suggest something different… it’s largely been a series of good starts, followed by splutters and then complete and utter breakdowns.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...but are they really trying to say no-one else in the PLP stayed awake for the "E" section of their PPE courses?

Funnily enough it happens that on that course you only follow up with two elements of the three into your Finals: Economics is usually the bit that gets dropped. There's actually a serious lack of knowledge of economics at Westminster in general at the moment, and it's a cross-party issue: the Tories have a lot of MPs with Finance backgrounds, but that's really not the same thing at all.

Over this particular issue there's a tendency towards mild dishonesty in Labour circles all round: it isn't true to say that nationalising a large swathe of utilities and infrastructure was easily affordable two years ago but is not now (even if the situation has deteriorated), but it also isn't true to say that doing that would be easily affordable at all and that it practically pays for itself. It comes down - as is usually the case with the Labour Party - to priorities rather than either possibilities or principles, and it's clear that there's been a shift there.* But I think perhaps it isn't so strange that it's difficult to discuss issues around public ownership in a straightforward manner given the Party's history: altogether too much fraught symbolism for everyone, even if most of it is beyond irrelevant to how things are now.

_{*Which may be related to a trickier fiscal position than a few years ago. Which may be related to the Schools And Hospitals brigade being more influential in the Shadow Cabinet than a year ago. Which may be related to the personal preferences of the two Shadow Chancellors. Though it's likely to be a combination of all, plus a few other factors as well.}

[Blair]

...but are they really trying to say no-one else in the PLP stayed awake for the "E" section of their PPE courses?

Funnily enough it happens that on that course you only follow up with two elements of the three into your Finals: Economics is usually the bit that gets dropped. There's actually a serious lack of knowledge of economics at Westminster in general at the moment, and it's a cross-party issue: the Tories have a lot of MPs with Finance backgrounds, but that's really not the same thing at all.

Over this particular issue there's a tendency towards mild dishonesty in Labour circles all round: it isn't true to say that nationalising a large swathe of utilities and infrastructure was easily affordable two years ago but is not now (even if the situation has deteriorated), but it also isn't true to say that doing that would be easily affordable at all and that it practically pays for itself. It comes down - as is usually the case with the Labour Party - to priorities rather than either possibilities or principles, and it's clear that there's been a shift there.* But I think perhaps it isn't so strange that it's difficult to discuss issues around public ownership in a straightforward manner given the Party's history: altogether too much fraught symbolism for everyone, even if most of it is beyond irrelevant to how things are now.

_{*Which may be related to a trickier fiscal position than a few years ago. Which may be related to the Schools And Hospitals brigade being more influential in the Shadow Cabinet than a year ago. Which may be related to the personal preferences of the two Shadow Chancellors. Though it's likely to be a combination of all, plus a few other factors as well.}

The frustrating thing is that I feel there isn’t even any appetite in the party to use the tools of the state to tame the privatised industries- the water companies are universally hated for pumping sewage into our rivers and the domestic electricity supplier market has virtually collapsed- I could live with some fudge around the ownership model if say Labour were going to basically call for a stricter price cap on bills- I mean all of the companies who would go bust have already done so!

[CumbrianLefty]

...but are they really trying to say no-one else in the PLP stayed awake for the "E" section of their PPE courses?

Funnily enough it happens that on that course you only follow up with two elements of the three into your Finals: Economics is usually the bit that gets dropped. There's actually a serious lack of knowledge of economics at Westminster in general at the moment, and it's a cross-party issue: the Tories have a lot of MPs with Finance backgrounds, but that's really not the same thing at all.

Over this particular issue there's a tendency towards mild dishonesty in Labour circles all round: it isn't true to say that nationalising a large swathe of utilities and infrastructure was easily affordable two years ago but is not now (even if the situation has deteriorated), but it also isn't true to say that doing that would be easily affordable at all and that it practically pays for itself. It comes down - as is usually the case with the Labour Party - to priorities rather than either possibilities or principles, and it's clear that there's been a shift there.* But I think perhaps it isn't so strange that it's difficult to discuss issues around public ownership in a straightforward manner given the Party's history: altogether too much fraught symbolism for everyone, even if most of it is beyond irrelevant to how things are now.

_{*Which may be related to a trickier fiscal position than a few years ago. Which may be related to the Schools And Hospitals brigade being more influential in the Shadow Cabinet than a year ago. Which may be related to the personal preferences of the two Shadow Chancellors. Though it's likely to be a combination of all, plus a few other factors as well.}

The frustrating thing is that I feel there isn’t even any appetite in the party to use the tools of the state to tame the privatised industries- the water companies are universally hated for pumping sewage into our rivers and the domestic electricity supplier market has virtually collapsed- I could live with some fudge around the ownership model if say Labour were going to basically call for a stricter price cap on bills- I mean all of the companies who would go bust have already done so!

Oh there's plenty *in the party* (as opposed to the leadership)

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

The frustrating thing is that I feel there isn’t even any appetite in the party to use the tools of the state to tame the privatised industries- the water companies are universally hated for pumping sewage into our rivers and the domestic electricity supplier market has virtually collapsed- I could live with some fudge around the ownership model if say Labour were going to basically call for a stricter price cap on bills- I mean all of the companies who would go bust have already done so!

The situation under Corbyn was that there was a fair bit of clarity on what the party wanted to do on utilities (nationalisation being such a no-brainer for the Labour Left) but no such thing as far as welfare was concerned. For a while I thought Labour under Starmer might be arriving at the reverse of that, but with Reynolds (who was genuinely trying to think creatively about this stuff) shuffled out and replaced with Ashworth (who, while not dumb at all, seems much less visible - or maybe I'm just paying less attention), it doesn't seem like we're even getting that.