This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Torrain]

How necessary is a deputy leadership position anyway though?

It isn't. Historically it mostly functioned as a bauble given out to mollify either defeated leadership contenders or other senior figures whose egos needed to be sated. This hasn't been the case since Prescott's retirement and it is no longer clear what the post is for at all. Primarily it's a guaranteed seat in the Shadow Cabinet, except that as the sense that the post matters in itself (even though it doesn't) lingers, there's a tendency for the Deputy's portfolio to be odds and sods in addition to their role as Deputy, rather than to be given a proper portfolio and, in practice, this doesn't seem to work out very well.

It also seems to be an outlet for the party's current fear about their image.

• Rayner's win assuaged concerns about the failure to elect a female leader.
• Watson and Prescott seemingly 'balanced the ticket' ideologically, even though they utterly failed to prevent the party's swing to the left, or right respectively.

Not sure why Harman was chosen though.

It should be noted that these elections never really fix the anxiety at hand, they just seem to be a way for the delegates to worry marginally less about this week's round of party self-criticism.

[Torrain]

While I understand there are reservations about Wakeford, given his conservative voting record, I remain amazed by the ability of Labour factions to not only look a gifthorse in the mouth, but to demand the gifthorse be immediately turned into glue.

Between Momentum, Young Labour and Co, there seems to be a number of calls demanding Wakeford either resign, or face immediate deselection, within hours of his defection. Very Twitter-brain.

[Torrain]

While I understand there are reservations about Wakeford, given his conservative voting record, I remain amazed by the ability of Labour factions to not only look a gifthorse in the mouth, but to demand the gifthorse be immediately turned into glue.

Between Momentum, Young Labour and Co, there seems to be a number of calls demanding Wakeford either resign, or face immediate deselection, within hours of his defection. Very Twitter-brain.

I understand even less the Tories (and some on the left) calling for an immediate by-election as some sort of own, as if the incumbent wouldn't win comfortably in current circumstances.

Exactly - if anything, it just gives Wakeford the chance to reinforce his mandate, and built support among voters to make his chances of succeeding at the next GE that bit easier.

[Torrain]

While we’re here - it’s worth pointing out that Bury South was a bizarre one in 2019, and probably one of the seats most likely to flip next time.

You had a 400 vote margin between Labour and the Tories, but with two x-factors.
1 - the deselected Labour incumbent was running as an Indy (getting 1,300 votes)
2 - the Brexit Party candidate, who received 1,600 votes.

Even if Reform UK stick around next election, the incentive for Labour voters to take a gamble on them has evaporated post-Brexit, and the prior incumbent no longer holds any sway. The Labour candidate may make it to Parliament even under similar national polling to 2019.

[Torrain]

So, um, Rosie Duffield is doing this:

Labour MP Rosie Duffield: Keir Starmer is no better than Jeremy Corbyn and it almost made me defect

Sir Keir Starmer is no better than Jeremy Corbyn in failing to speak up for MPs who are being bullied on social media, a leading Labour MP says today.

Rosie Duffield, the Labour MP for Canterbury, accused her leader of failing to do enough to stop a minority of local activists who have mounted a campaign of harassment against her.

Ms Duffield, who won the seat from the Tories for the first time in a century at the 2017 election, admitted that she had been "tempted" to defect to the Conservatives because of Sir Keir's apparent indifference to her plight.

Whatever your views on her, well views, this fees a tad odd. Openly admitting you considered defection to the Conservatives, in this environment just feels like a total miscalculation. And while Christian Wakeford may be able to cobble together a coalition at the next election, it feels like it might be harder for Duffield, given that most of her voters are students, who aren’t exactly known for being forgiving or dropping political grudges (see tuition fees, and the near total collapse of Lib Dem representation in university seats).

Have to imagine this might be too much for many of her key voters. It’s almost like she wants to get deselected at this point.

To be fair - she does say that joining the Conservatives would be incongruous with her views on immigration and Brexit. But she must know what the optics of giving this interview, and the two sentences from it that will trend online…

And to be clear, no one deserves harassment, and from the tenor of debate on university campuses (where I’ve studied and worked since 2016), I can well believe she’s had a targeted campaign against her. I can understand why she feels harangued. I just think this interview might be a self-inflicted wound, especially given the further barrage of vitriol this is likely to unleash.

[Torrain]

Kate Green, the former Shadow Education Minister, is retiring.

She is unlike the others quitting in that she is younger (but still 61!) and not from the right- but she seems very much like someone who doesn’t particularly enjoy Westminster- while enjoying public policy.

Her seat creates an opening in Manchester- and a very safe one. Suggestions Hangem and Burnham might go for it but who knows.

The interesting thing about 2024, is that we don’t just have a GE scheduled, the mayoral elections in Manchester and London are also up. Surely there’s a not implausible situation where both Khan and/or Burnham decline their mayoralty and return to the Commons?

If Labour come up short in 2024 (and while their numbers have been good in 2022, 2024 is an unknown country), and Keir falls on his sword, could either be plausible replacements? I think Burnham may more sense as a leader (please, let’s have a Labour frontbench that doesn’t revolve around London), but both could give a lot to the shadow cabinet.

[Torrain]

There’s a piece in the Times today about the Labour leadership trying to figure out what to do with the Rt Honourable Member for Islington North at the next election. The consensus at the moment seems to be that he’s determined to run, either as a member of the party, or as an independent. The local CLP seems to be supportive enough that they’d renominate him for 2024, so even deselecting Corbyn (which still feels like the nuclear option - given the size of party factions) seems difficult.

Do you guys have any predictions/hunches about how this plays out? Is there a playbook for how to deal with this this, or is it destined to be another intro-party struggle?

[Torrain]

Rumours Bercow was involved in another CLP meeting tonight in Battersea- which was an AGM.

He does seem like he was born for the petty rules, grandstanding and long speeches we all love in CLP meetings.

Oh no - he’s not trying to get selected for a seat in 2024 is he? Surely not.

Edit: Apparently the Chair of the Battersea CLP (pro-Corbyn, Momentum etc) was ousted at the AGM by a faction of moderates, shepherded by Bercow. According to at least one journalist for the Independent

If I was more versed in Labour politics I’d hazard a joke about entryists.

[Torrain]

Small PLP scuffle yesterday - Labour chief whip called on the 11 MPs who signed the Stop the War letter on Ukraine (widely seen as suggesting Ukraine shared equal responsibility for the invasion) to retract their signatures (subtext clearly suggesting whip would be withdrawn if they refused).

They did so that afternoon

Unclear whether the two suspended MPs (Corbyn and Webbe) recanted.

Either way, Owen Jones went on a tirade about Starmer creating divisions, and most people ignored him.

Just thought it was worth putting here because it had shades of Kinnock scrapping with Militant. Also, have to wonder what the optics would have been like if Starmer had actually done it, and dismissed a full 1/3 of the Socialist Campaign Group from the party in a single afternoon.

[Torrain]

Just to follow-up on an ambiguity in my last post, Claudia Webbe and Jeremy Corbyn currently remain signatories, according the Stop the War:

https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/list-of-signatories-stop-the-war-statement-on-the-crisis-over-ukraine/

[Torrain]

Small PLP scuffle yesterday - Labour chief whip called on the 11 MPs who signed the Stop the War letter on Ukraine (widely seen as suggesting Ukraine shared equal responsibility for the invasion) to retract their signatures (subtext clearly suggesting whip would be withdrawn if they refused).

Diane Abbott broke rank first and recanted her signature, and the remaining 10 (including McDonnell, Sultana and Burgon) followed shortly after.

Unclear whether the two suspended MPs (Corbyn and Webbe) recanted.

Either way, Owen Jones went on a tirade about Starmer creating divisions, and most people ignored him.

Just thought it was worth putting here because it had shades of Kinnock scrapping with Militant. Also, have to wonder what the optics would have been like if Starmer had actually done it, and dismissed a full 1/3 of the Socialist Campaign Group from the party in a single afternoon.

Its the opposite of what you say above - Abbott was apparently the last of the 11 to withdraw (though it isn't clear if this had much actual significance)

Apologies - was going off a journalist’s tweet, and should have double checked. Can’t find confirmation about the exact order, so I’ll just delete that section from my original post. Out of interest, do you have a link for that? I’m interested in the dynamics (ie, was the retraction started by a ‘grandee’ like McDonnell, one of the 2019 intake, or did they act in unison).

[Torrain]

John McDonnell is scheduled to appear at a Stop the War rally in London tonight, described by STW as following online:

“We oppose Russian military intervention in Ukraine. We also recognise this is a conflict thirty years in the making, a conflict in which Britain is playing a provocative role - talking up war, decrying diplomacy and supplying arms to Ukraine as well as supporting increased military deployments to neighbouring countries.

“Leading figures from the anti-war movement will provide insight and analysis missing from most media coverage. We must ensure that the anti-war campaign is prepared and organised to pull us back from the precipice - so come along on Wednesday.”

HuffPost has a source suggesting that McDonnell could lose the whip if he shows up. Obvious disclaimer that it’s HuffPost, the Wikipedia of centre-left news, but feels plausible in the current environment.

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/john-mcdonnell-nato-stop-the-war_uk_621f2a70e4b018aad3c0bdbf

[Torrain]

"Sources" now apparently saying nobody will lose the whip just for attending.

Guess it’s a moot point now:
https://mobile.twitter.com/joepike/status/1499042291272626180

[Torrain]

What do you lefties think of the ScotsLab rebrand? I think it looks rather good.



Whether it works or not is another matter.

Not exactly a lefty, but definitely a fan. While the red rose is a classic piece of Labour iconography, it’s a tad weird to use a flower often used as an emblem for England, as the logo for a Scottish party, especially in this more nationalistic climate up north. It’s the same thing as Richard Leonard being criticised for being an English transplant, Yorkshire accent and all. Personally, I wish this all wasn’t necessary (it all feels like the side effects of a more isolationist climate), but a smart party is going to acknowledge the weirdness of the Scottish political climate and try to adjust accordingly.

A new logo does not a winner make. But Sarwar is right to try and signal change. Just as Mandelson realised in the 80s that the Red Flag was no longer a helpful symbol for the party (especially as it shifted its focus), Sarwar is doing the same now - changing the optics to indicate a shift in direction.

Switching to the thistle, (which shows up all over the place in Scottish iconography, and has always been to Scotland as the red rose has been to England and the daffodil to Wales), is a nice nod. Having separate branding is a good first step to establishing the Scottish Labour Party as being more of a sister party to its national partner, rather than subservient to what is now sometimes viewed as a London-centric operation.

I suppose this is all a bit cynical and realpolitik of me. But it is honestly how I feel. And I also think it’s just cleaner than the old design - on first glance I typically thought I was missing a letter or something between the words of the old design.

[Torrain]

Thoughts on the Bercow situation?

He’s just been banned for life from receiving a parliamentary pass, after the Parlimaentary Standards Committee upheld the bullying claims against him. The panel suggested that if Bercow was still an MP they would have recommended his expulsion from the Commons.

Bercow’s continued to deny the allegations, defame the investigators, and his response to this development has been essentially to say “lol, I’ve still got friends in the building who’ll let me in if I want to.”

Conservative figures like Andrea Leadsom have started trying to get Labour to throw him out as a party member (which is odd, but seems like an attempt to get the left of the party to start saying “how come noted bully John Bercow is in the party, but noted pacifist Jeremy Corbyn can’t have the whip back!?!”)

Will this sink into the background, or does Labour need to deal with Bercow before he decides he’s going to be a high-profile election campaigner (who’s asked more questions about his own conduct than the party manifesto) or something?

[Torrain]

Might all be a moot point now…
https://mobile.twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1501199035851591685

Tbh, I don’t think this will cause Labour issues with swing voters, and the Patel comparisons are clear enough that almost all articles seem to be making it. My concern was more that this would become the latest front in the Labour civil war over Corbyn’s suspension. If Bercow’s already being investigated/suspended, that should be averted.

Also may allow Labour to take the moral high ground on the Patel issue if it ends up in the headlines again. (“We deal with bullies, the Tories promote them, etc etc etc”)

[Torrain]

Hilarious that someone has briefed to the Mail that Tom Watson could get a peerage.

Are memories really that short in THIGMOO or are people just thick?

Really? I thought he'd already been removed from a previous Labour list of peer nominations by the HoL committee over his exceedingly clumsy role in the Operation Midland fiasco.

[Torrain]

Wouldn't Balls and Starmer essentially come from the same faction? Or is this going to be another personality war?

I’m not sure Starmer would want Balls back in the PLP…

Balls has spent much of his time out of office on tv, seemingly recasting himself as a lovable buffoon, who can be serious about politics when pressed. If he made his way back into Parliament, the papers would write articles asking “is Balls Labour’s Equivalent to Boris Johnson” almost immediately.

The last thing Starmer wants is to be in competition for airtime with Ed Balls of all people. It would also remind people of the LOTO-shadow chancellor drama Balls instigated in the Miliband years, and no Labour leader wants to be compared to Ed Miliband in the run-up to a general election.

[Torrain]

If they want Ed Balls in Government then put him in the Lords!

If that happens - I wager no less than three UK newspapers just run “Lord Balls” as their headline that day.

[Torrain]

As much as I think Blair typically has strong political instincts (most of the time - there are some glaring exceptions that come to mind), I’m not sure Starmer’s team will be too fussed about this.

Pretty sure the phrase “I’ve got serious disagreements with Tony Blair” still polls pretty darn well.

[Torrain]

"legalise drugs and soften punishments" almost makes me wanna vote for the Lib Dems

“Smoke weed, do crimes” - the Rt Hon Sir Edward Davy

[Torrain]

Wonder whether a Starmer endorsement from Brown would/will be more or less advantageous…

I do think rehabilitating the Blair-Brown years should help the party, (if the Tories can use nostalgia, why not Labour too?) but agree that Blair is a double-edged sword as a messenger.

[Torrain]

It’s also good news for Labour generally. The lack of new fines will mean Johnson’s leadership is now secure, but the fact he has already been fined and it is confirmed he attended law breaking lockdown parties means that the public still hate him, don’t trust him, and think there’s one rule for them etc. While the Starmer investigation will damage Labour even if (by the looks of it, when) he is found not to have broken the law, the Johnson parties to any normal person will look worse, and it’s not like the day-to-day politics of the economy are about to rescue the Conservatives anytime soon.

Aye - all they need to say is 121-nil.
And if even if he is fined, they can play the “LOTO resigned - why is Boris still around?” card.

[Torrain]

Putting a literal representative of the Red Wall on the frontbench seems like a nice way to signal intent for 2024. But it’s definitely fuel for a round of THIGMOO infighting.

You’d hope that the purity tests would go away once you get knocked down to 200 MPs. Alas…

[Torrain]

Guardian piece today on the patchiness of British devolution, particularly in England.

Most notable is the speculation from Andy Burnham’s allies in Westminster that Harriet Harman could stand down early to open up a seat for Burnham if Starmer is forced to fall on his sword, thus permitting him (as a sitting MP) to run in the ensuing leadership race.

Any merit to this at all- or just wishcasting? My assumption is that Burnham would wait for a Manchester seat, rather than be parachuted into London of all places. But if Starmer has to go, would there be a sense of urgency that caused the party to take drastic action?