Labour officials opposed to Corbyn worked to lose the 2017 election
April 14, 2020 9:47 PM Subscribe
Labour party officials opposed to Jeremy Corbyn worked to lose the 2017 general election in the hope that a bad result would trigger a leadership contest to oust him, a dossier drawn up by the party suggests. The report says staffers trawled social media to find reasons to exclude voters from the contest, work which was referred to on numerous occasions by staff as variations of “trot busting”, “bashing trots” and “trot spotting”. One staffer described themselves as being “trot smasher in chief”, while another said during the 2015 leadership election that the “priority right now is trot hunting”. In 2015 two officials discussed the fact that they were “playing trot or not” while “the real work is piling up”. A senior official described this work as “saving the Labour party”.
Party staff around the unit were also documented regularly describing people, including colleagues they regarded as not sufficiently opposed to the leadership, as “trots” – short for Trotskyites, or disciples of Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky. Chat logs show that some colleagues who denounced “trots” themselves were in turn themselves privately regarded as “trots” by other staffers for being seen as insufficiently critical.
The other aspect to the factionalism described in the report, putting aside the vitriol, is the hope apparently expressed by anti-Corbyn staffers that Labour would not be electorally successful. The document contends that those in charge of party operations wanted the Liberal Democrats to win the 2017 Manchester Gorton byelection, created a “secret key seats team” to prioritise general election spending in seats held by MPs on the right of the party even when they were “safe”, and were disappointed when Corbyn’s Labour did better than expected in the 2017 general election.
Party staff around the unit were also documented regularly describing people, including colleagues they regarded as not sufficiently opposed to the leadership, as “trots” – short for Trotskyites, or disciples of Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky. Chat logs show that some colleagues who denounced “trots” themselves were in turn themselves privately regarded as “trots” by other staffers for being seen as insufficiently critical.
The other aspect to the factionalism described in the report, putting aside the vitriol, is the hope apparently expressed by anti-Corbyn staffers that Labour would not be electorally successful. The document contends that those in charge of party operations wanted the Liberal Democrats to win the 2017 Manchester Gorton byelection, created a “secret key seats team” to prioritise general election spending in seats held by MPs on the right of the party even when they were “safe”, and were disappointed when Corbyn’s Labour did better than expected in the 2017 general election.
If Corbyn is leader of the U.K. Labour Party, why aren’t the staffers hand-selected by him?
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:58 PM on April 14, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:58 PM on April 14, 2020 [3 favorites]
Yeah, root out the factionalists!
posted by Segundus at 10:09 PM on April 14, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Segundus at 10:09 PM on April 14, 2020 [3 favorites]
Completely and utterly unsurprising.
I also don't expect this to change any minds. Those who liked Corbyn already knew this was the case, and those who have been intentionally turning a blind eye to all the indications so far seem unlikely to be shifted at this point.
I don't understand it, I can't begin to comprehend it, but somehow there is a large group of people who like to talk about politics and history, consider themselves affiliates of left-wing parties, and yet constantly play this game where they assume that politics are a level playing field and demand reams of evidence that there could ever be institutional resistance to radical change.
posted by Acid Communist at 10:31 PM on April 14, 2020 [40 favorites]
I also don't expect this to change any minds. Those who liked Corbyn already knew this was the case, and those who have been intentionally turning a blind eye to all the indications so far seem unlikely to be shifted at this point.
I don't understand it, I can't begin to comprehend it, but somehow there is a large group of people who like to talk about politics and history, consider themselves affiliates of left-wing parties, and yet constantly play this game where they assume that politics are a level playing field and demand reams of evidence that there could ever be institutional resistance to radical change.
posted by Acid Communist at 10:31 PM on April 14, 2020 [40 favorites]
Weirdly Ian Welsh just posted on this topic today.
posted by dopeypanda at 10:41 PM on April 14, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by dopeypanda at 10:41 PM on April 14, 2020 [4 favorites]
insults and embarrassing statements cherry-picked from a leaked trove of "10,000 emails" derailing a left-of-center party in a western country in turmoil. i think we've seen this before somewhere, no? we all know what this is and who benefits from it. enough. ignore.
posted by wibari at 10:43 PM on April 14, 2020 [16 favorites]
posted by wibari at 10:43 PM on April 14, 2020 [16 favorites]
As always, it would be great if (presumably) American commenters could resist trying to shut down discussions on other countries' politics by way of terrible forced analogies with some past shitshow in their own country.
posted by Panthalassa at 11:01 PM on April 14, 2020 [101 favorites]
posted by Panthalassa at 11:01 PM on April 14, 2020 [101 favorites]
I'm flummoxed. I see the comparison to the podesta thing, but want more discussion. I shall favorite the last two.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:32 PM on April 14, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 11:32 PM on April 14, 2020 [2 favorites]
Whatever happened to parties competing to run the country to maximize public welfare? Or was that just some fairy tale my teachers told me? This apres nous le deluge attitude maximizes no ones welfare.
posted by monotreme at 11:35 PM on April 14, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by monotreme at 11:35 PM on April 14, 2020 [9 favorites]
it would be great if (presumably) American commenters could resist trying to shut down discussions on other countries' politics by way of terrible forced analogies with some past shitshow in their own country.
good guess! i read the posted articles and am somewhat informed on uk politics, though certainly no expert. so maybe i'm wrong and i dont want to shut down debate. in what way is this not an unfair exploitation of hacked emails--with all the dumb insults and stupidity people always write in emails--to torpedo a political party based on preexisting distrust among two wings of that party, all of which benefits another, far worse party?
posted by wibari at 11:45 PM on April 14, 2020 [2 favorites]
good guess! i read the posted articles and am somewhat informed on uk politics, though certainly no expert. so maybe i'm wrong and i dont want to shut down debate. in what way is this not an unfair exploitation of hacked emails--with all the dumb insults and stupidity people always write in emails--to torpedo a political party based on preexisting distrust among two wings of that party, all of which benefits another, far worse party?
posted by wibari at 11:45 PM on April 14, 2020 [2 favorites]
Can anyone from the UK describe if the entire party management could actually come together and secretly do....well anything?
Here in the US, people who obviously have never worked in a political party at any level think there is some sort of cabal at the national party that decides who gets to be the Democratic nominee (turns out it was literally millions of black voters, who knew??), when in truth there is really like 100 different groups that are barely on the same page* about anything, besides (hopefully) trying to get the candidates with D's by the names a few more votes the ones with R's.
But, perhaps in the UK, the parties have more rigid top down management, and the people on the ground actually take orders rather than telling the higher ups to go fuck themselves, or even just not taking calls from the national folks.
I'm not asking if the story here is based in fact or not, just if it would be actually possible for it to happen.
*leading up to Nov 2016, a local party dude in Philly told me and my fellow volunteer engineers (and the HfA/DNC people also on the call) that the "get your people to polls" tools we killed ourselves to build were just a waste of time, and that with his 30 years experience in elections, he knew blah blah...etc. Welp, come Election Day, the precincts who used our tools went for Hillary, and the precinct of the dickhole who thought he knew better because 30 years etc: Trump.
posted by sideshow at 11:49 PM on April 14, 2020 [11 favorites]
Here in the US, people who obviously have never worked in a political party at any level think there is some sort of cabal at the national party that decides who gets to be the Democratic nominee (turns out it was literally millions of black voters, who knew??), when in truth there is really like 100 different groups that are barely on the same page* about anything, besides (hopefully) trying to get the candidates with D's by the names a few more votes the ones with R's.
But, perhaps in the UK, the parties have more rigid top down management, and the people on the ground actually take orders rather than telling the higher ups to go fuck themselves, or even just not taking calls from the national folks.
I'm not asking if the story here is based in fact or not, just if it would be actually possible for it to happen.
*leading up to Nov 2016, a local party dude in Philly told me and my fellow volunteer engineers (and the HfA/DNC people also on the call) that the "get your people to polls" tools we killed ourselves to build were just a waste of time, and that with his 30 years experience in elections, he knew blah blah...etc. Welp, come Election Day, the precincts who used our tools went for Hillary, and the precinct of the dickhole who thought he knew better because 30 years etc: Trump.
posted by sideshow at 11:49 PM on April 14, 2020 [11 favorites]
The emails weren't hacked.
A part of the investigation into antisemitism in the party they were given access to Labour Party emails and one of the people involved in the, ummm fuckery had emailed themselves their entire WhatsApp conversation history.
After seeing the conversations, including attempts to stall the investigations into antisemitism to make Corbyn look bad this reports was written to give some background into why things had become so fucked. It was intended to be added to the submission to the EHRC but it was omitted by the new leadership. Someone leaked it.
As for "why didn't Corbyn know?". The work of the GLU is supposed to be independent of party interference and Ian McNicol and others used this independence to get away with this. When he was replaced as General Secretary the Party Leadership took control (with much bemoaning from the right of the party about independence) and suddenly cases started being looked into.
There were always rumours this was going on, seeing it in black and white is still shocking though.
If you want an analogy for US politics. Imagine if every crazy-ass conspiracy theory you heard about the DNC fucking over Sanders turned out to be true.
posted by fullerine at 11:57 PM on April 14, 2020 [75 favorites]
A part of the investigation into antisemitism in the party they were given access to Labour Party emails and one of the people involved in the, ummm fuckery had emailed themselves their entire WhatsApp conversation history.
After seeing the conversations, including attempts to stall the investigations into antisemitism to make Corbyn look bad this reports was written to give some background into why things had become so fucked. It was intended to be added to the submission to the EHRC but it was omitted by the new leadership. Someone leaked it.
As for "why didn't Corbyn know?". The work of the GLU is supposed to be independent of party interference and Ian McNicol and others used this independence to get away with this. When he was replaced as General Secretary the Party Leadership took control (with much bemoaning from the right of the party about independence) and suddenly cases started being looked into.
There were always rumours this was going on, seeing it in black and white is still shocking though.
If you want an analogy for US politics. Imagine if every crazy-ass conspiracy theory you heard about the DNC fucking over Sanders turned out to be true.
posted by fullerine at 11:57 PM on April 14, 2020 [75 favorites]
I appreciate that link dopeypanda.
People say "purity test" like it's always a bad thing. It's the only way to have any sort of coherent political programme. If we're not willing to fight for our beliefs, then we can't be surprised that we do not succeed. A purge of melt scum is not a bad thing, and it's a terrible shame that so many of the the older generation of electoralist socialists are so attached to appeasement.
posted by Acid Communist at 12:20 AM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
People say "purity test" like it's always a bad thing. It's the only way to have any sort of coherent political programme. If we're not willing to fight for our beliefs, then we can't be surprised that we do not succeed. A purge of melt scum is not a bad thing, and it's a terrible shame that so many of the the older generation of electoralist socialists are so attached to appeasement.
posted by Acid Communist at 12:20 AM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
A purge of the running trots is a lot better though, and more popular with the electorate.
posted by Grangousier at 12:51 AM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Grangousier at 12:51 AM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
This investigation into the investigation of antisemitism in the party was far from independent; it was run in the last days while Corbyn and his general secretary (Jennie Formby) were still in charge, and by their people. So there is definitely a whiff of settling scores with the right of the party, picking emails to paint his internal opponents in as bad a light as possible, and deflecting as much blame from Corbyn and his leadership team for the handling of antisemitism cases as possible.
In many ways, it is a reaction to the BBC Panorama investigation where multiple whistleblowers , including 7 from the supposed-to-be-entirely independent complaints department allege party officials, including Formby herself and Milne (labour communication chief), interfered in cases, including downgrading punishments for Corbyn supporters, and the leader's office was "angry and obstructive" on the issue.
The suposed intent was to submit this report to the EHRC as it investigates allegations against Labour for its handling of antisemitism complaints in recent years. Starmer dropped that plan, so of course, it was leaked to the press.
These new allegations need to be investigated by a truly independent body, and it definitely sounds like some need to lose their jobs in the labour party. But it's no secret the two sides of the party were at its other's throats throughout Corbyn's tenure, and I'd be very surprised if there weren't some equally damning emails about the 'Blairites' from Corbyn's supporters.
Starmer's announcement the other day:
Starmer really has his work cut out for him trying to put the party back together.
Disclosure; I am not a Labour party member, but have voted Labour (and Green) in recent elections.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 12:53 AM on April 15, 2020 [20 favorites]
In many ways, it is a reaction to the BBC Panorama investigation where multiple whistleblowers , including 7 from the supposed-to-be-entirely independent complaints department allege party officials, including Formby herself and Milne (labour communication chief), interfered in cases, including downgrading punishments for Corbyn supporters, and the leader's office was "angry and obstructive" on the issue.
The suposed intent was to submit this report to the EHRC as it investigates allegations against Labour for its handling of antisemitism complaints in recent years. Starmer dropped that plan, so of course, it was leaked to the press.
These new allegations need to be investigated by a truly independent body, and it definitely sounds like some need to lose their jobs in the labour party. But it's no secret the two sides of the party were at its other's throats throughout Corbyn's tenure, and I'd be very surprised if there weren't some equally damning emails about the 'Blairites' from Corbyn's supporters.
Starmer's announcement the other day:
"We have seen a copy of an apparently internal report about the work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism. The content and the release of the report into the public domain raise a number of matters of serious concern,” the statement said.It can both be true that some Labour party staffers resented and resisted Corbyn and his people, and that antisemitism complaints were very badly handled by the party before and after Formby became general secretary. There certainly seems to be plenty of blame to go around.
"We will therefore commission an urgent independent investigation into this matter. This investigation will be instructed to look at three areas. First, the background and circumstances in which the report was commissioned and the process involved. Second, the contents and wider culture and practices referred to in the report. Third, the circumstances in which the report was put into the public domain.
We have also asked for immediate sight of any legal advice the Labour Party has already received about the report."
Starmer really has his work cut out for him trying to put the party back together.
Disclosure; I am not a Labour party member, but have voted Labour (and Green) in recent elections.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 12:53 AM on April 15, 2020 [20 favorites]
It's also amusing to watch the Guardian (who seem to be pretty right-wing labour, and were quite harsh on Corbyn for long periods) be absolutely dragged into reporting on this story. Obviously a lot of column inches are CV19 at the minute, but comparable Tory problems have generated much more opinion columns and reportage.
posted by The River Ivel at 12:56 AM on April 15, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by The River Ivel at 12:56 AM on April 15, 2020 [6 favorites]
It's a complete shitshow for the Labour party but anyone who thinks that this isn't the way politicians of all parties talk about their enemies has never spent time in the sausage factory.
The idea that Labour lost elections because the "Blairites" conspired in favour of the Conservatives is just another ludicrous fantasy, on a par with Momentum greeting the catastrophic results of the last election by saying that there are now more Socialist MPs than ever.
posted by alloneword at 1:04 AM on April 15, 2020 [13 favorites]
The idea that Labour lost elections because the "Blairites" conspired in favour of the Conservatives is just another ludicrous fantasy, on a par with Momentum greeting the catastrophic results of the last election by saying that there are now more Socialist MPs than ever.
posted by alloneword at 1:04 AM on April 15, 2020 [13 favorites]
In 2017 Labor was about 2,500 votes away from forming government. This leak gives ample evidence of deliberate internal sabotage during the campaign which would absolutely have been a decisive factor given such a narrow margin. It’s hardly a ludicrous fantasy to suggest that Labour lost because Blairites conspired in favor of the conservatives: it’s there in black and white.
posted by moorooka at 1:12 AM on April 15, 2020 [39 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 1:12 AM on April 15, 2020 [39 favorites]
Here in the US, people who obviously have never worked in a political party at any level think there is some sort of cabal at the national party that decides who gets to be the Democratic nominee
dude, it's called the New York Times, they don't really hide anything about it, you can't get away from hearing about how the organization hates working people. but this is the UK thread
posted by eustatic at 1:42 AM on April 15, 2020 [14 favorites]
dude, it's called the New York Times, they don't really hide anything about it, you can't get away from hearing about how the organization hates working people. but this is the UK thread
posted by eustatic at 1:42 AM on April 15, 2020 [14 favorites]
People say "purity test" like it's always a bad thing. It's the only way to have any sort of coherent political programme. If we're not willing to fight for our beliefs, then we can't be surprised that we do not succeed. A purge of melt scum is not a bad thing, and it's a terrible shame that so many of the the older generation of electoralist socialists are so attached to appeasement.
huh, i guess we'll never really know why anyone would want to purge corbynites or why the labour party was consumed by factional warfare
posted by inire at 2:18 AM on April 15, 2020 [12 favorites]
huh, i guess we'll never really know why anyone would want to purge corbynites or why the labour party was consumed by factional warfare
posted by inire at 2:18 AM on April 15, 2020 [12 favorites]
It’s hardly a ludicrous fantasy to suggest that Labour lost because Blairites conspired in favor of the conservatives
To me it honestly looks more as if Corbynites conspired in favour of the conservatives by imposing an untenably garbled Brexit policy. Are there right-wing entryists in Momentum?
posted by Segundus at 2:52 AM on April 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
To me it honestly looks more as if Corbynites conspired in favour of the conservatives by imposing an untenably garbled Brexit policy. Are there right-wing entryists in Momentum?
posted by Segundus at 2:52 AM on April 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
In 2017 Labor was about 2,500 votes away from forming government.
Here are the 2017 election results. I'd be interested to see how you manage to spin a 2,500-voter differential out of that. No doubt it comes down to individual constituencies. It would have had to be a very carefully distributed 2,500 people, and even then it would result in a majority of one. Not exactly a landslide.
You know, a landslide, a majority so large it obviously represents at least the whim of the people. The kind of thing New Labour got in 1997.
(I didn't like New Labour much at the time, but in hindsight it was probably the only time I can remember when things actually got better.)
Anyway, it's true that when Labour lost in 2017 it was by a lot less than people originally expected, a lot of which is down to the incompetence of the Conservatives' campaigning. Here are the results of the 2019 election, when the same Labour party was up against a slightly less incompetent Conservative party (at least in terms of campaigning - they are no better at running the country). When they contrived to lose seats the party had held since forever.
posted by Grangousier at 3:13 AM on April 15, 2020 [12 favorites]
Here are the 2017 election results. I'd be interested to see how you manage to spin a 2,500-voter differential out of that. No doubt it comes down to individual constituencies. It would have had to be a very carefully distributed 2,500 people, and even then it would result in a majority of one. Not exactly a landslide.
You know, a landslide, a majority so large it obviously represents at least the whim of the people. The kind of thing New Labour got in 1997.
(I didn't like New Labour much at the time, but in hindsight it was probably the only time I can remember when things actually got better.)
Anyway, it's true that when Labour lost in 2017 it was by a lot less than people originally expected, a lot of which is down to the incompetence of the Conservatives' campaigning. Here are the results of the 2019 election, when the same Labour party was up against a slightly less incompetent Conservative party (at least in terms of campaigning - they are no better at running the country). When they contrived to lose seats the party had held since forever.
posted by Grangousier at 3:13 AM on April 15, 2020 [12 favorites]
huh, i guess we'll never really know why anyone would want to purge corbynites
To be fair to the UK Labour party, the fact that some Aussie on MetaFilter is calling one wing of the party "melt scum" doesn't say much about what was going on in Momentum.
It's heartbreaking what the UK has been through due to poor politics and a bullshit press. That's all I can really say here, because trying to work out a way where our futures aren't ruined by Tory shitheads is absolutely exhausting and very hard to make yourself hopeful about.
posted by ambrosen at 3:13 AM on April 15, 2020 [17 favorites]
To be fair to the UK Labour party, the fact that some Aussie on MetaFilter is calling one wing of the party "melt scum" doesn't say much about what was going on in Momentum.
It's heartbreaking what the UK has been through due to poor politics and a bullshit press. That's all I can really say here, because trying to work out a way where our futures aren't ruined by Tory shitheads is absolutely exhausting and very hard to make yourself hopeful about.
posted by ambrosen at 3:13 AM on April 15, 2020 [17 favorites]
This report is essentially the case for the defence. Not that the actual messages and emails in it aren't true, I don't imaging that they've been fabricated or anything like that, but that ultimately they will have looked into some areas in greater detail than others.
Also: the report contains the personal information of many of the people who filed anti-Semitism complaints. Great work leaking the whole report, I'm sure that won't be abused by the world's worst people.
If Corbyn is leader of the U.K. Labour Party, why aren’t the staffers hand-selected by him?
The party is deliberately set up to separate some powers over time, i.e. it takes a certain amount of time to have successive conferences, NEC elections (the executive body of the party), and for candidates who are aligned with the leader to end up as General Secretary. The issue Labour had was that power shifted rather dramatically with Corbyn's victory to a wing of the party who haven't had so much as a sniff of power in decades so there were no people from that wing as party officials nor as senior staff.
In 2017 Labor was about 2,500 votes away from forming government. This leak gives ample evidence of deliberate internal sabotage during the campaign which would absolutely have been a decisive factor given such a narrow margin. It’s hardly a ludicrous fantasy to suggest that Labour lost because Blairites conspired in favor of the conservatives: it’s there in black and white.
True that they were 2,500 votes away from forming government but on the other hand, May was only about 300 votes away from an absolute majority. In a FPTP system with a lot of marginals, it is not that hard to calculate post-hoc "additional vote" numbers that would flip a result.
I also wish (but I know that boat has sailed) that we could retire the word "Blairite". It wasn't applicable to many people at the time he was actually prime minister, he last ran a GE campaign 15 years ago when many current MPs and staffers weren't even in front-line politics, and most of the so-called Blairites in the current Labour party are way to the left of Tony Blair.
Anyway, what I said a number of times in the never-ending American Dem primary threads also holds here: It can be true that person A lost and that people sabotaged and worked against person A without it being the case that they would have won had that not happened. Particularly because during almost all election campaigns elements of each party will drag their feet or work against "their candidate".
Not saying that it's not the case that senior Labour party staffers worked against victory in 2017, but I don't think it's as simple as saying that they would have won except for this.
Ultimately there are no people in the upper echelons of the Labour party who aren't either for or against Corbyn so there will never really be a comprehensive investigation produced by someone who has both the access and neutrality to convince outsiders against what they already believe to be true.
To me it honestly looks more as if Corbynites conspired in favour of the conservatives by imposing an untenably garbled Brexit policy. Are there right-wing entryists in Momentum?
I don't think that's entirely fair to the Corbynites, there were plenty of other people within the party who were involved in that policy, including obviously Keir Starmer.
Labour's ultimate problem with Brexit was that there was no "magic policy" that would have solved their electoral problem with it. Fundamentally, the majority of Labour MPs, staff, and members were strongly against it. Many Labour voters were for it. The Labour voters who were most against Brexit were concentrated in very safe Labour seats in urban areas so there was little to gain from being against it.
The Conservatives might have had a similar issue in that a plurality of their MPs, staff, donors etc were against it, their members were for it, and their voters were more strongly for it than Labour's were against it.
One little thing though. The referendum. Both major parties were split but with the referendum having gone to Leave, the Conservatives were able to align the bulk of their party around that position.
I think the focus on what the "ideal" Brexit policy for the Labour party should have been is mostly politics nerds playing. Politics has to be for particular goals to make sense to most people and a party that was able to align around an outcome was always going to have an easier message to sell than one aligned around a process.
posted by atrazine at 3:23 AM on April 15, 2020 [15 favorites]
Also: the report contains the personal information of many of the people who filed anti-Semitism complaints. Great work leaking the whole report, I'm sure that won't be abused by the world's worst people.
If Corbyn is leader of the U.K. Labour Party, why aren’t the staffers hand-selected by him?
The party is deliberately set up to separate some powers over time, i.e. it takes a certain amount of time to have successive conferences, NEC elections (the executive body of the party), and for candidates who are aligned with the leader to end up as General Secretary. The issue Labour had was that power shifted rather dramatically with Corbyn's victory to a wing of the party who haven't had so much as a sniff of power in decades so there were no people from that wing as party officials nor as senior staff.
In 2017 Labor was about 2,500 votes away from forming government. This leak gives ample evidence of deliberate internal sabotage during the campaign which would absolutely have been a decisive factor given such a narrow margin. It’s hardly a ludicrous fantasy to suggest that Labour lost because Blairites conspired in favor of the conservatives: it’s there in black and white.
True that they were 2,500 votes away from forming government but on the other hand, May was only about 300 votes away from an absolute majority. In a FPTP system with a lot of marginals, it is not that hard to calculate post-hoc "additional vote" numbers that would flip a result.
I also wish (but I know that boat has sailed) that we could retire the word "Blairite". It wasn't applicable to many people at the time he was actually prime minister, he last ran a GE campaign 15 years ago when many current MPs and staffers weren't even in front-line politics, and most of the so-called Blairites in the current Labour party are way to the left of Tony Blair.
Anyway, what I said a number of times in the never-ending American Dem primary threads also holds here: It can be true that person A lost and that people sabotaged and worked against person A without it being the case that they would have won had that not happened. Particularly because during almost all election campaigns elements of each party will drag their feet or work against "their candidate".
Not saying that it's not the case that senior Labour party staffers worked against victory in 2017, but I don't think it's as simple as saying that they would have won except for this.
Ultimately there are no people in the upper echelons of the Labour party who aren't either for or against Corbyn so there will never really be a comprehensive investigation produced by someone who has both the access and neutrality to convince outsiders against what they already believe to be true.
To me it honestly looks more as if Corbynites conspired in favour of the conservatives by imposing an untenably garbled Brexit policy. Are there right-wing entryists in Momentum?
I don't think that's entirely fair to the Corbynites, there were plenty of other people within the party who were involved in that policy, including obviously Keir Starmer.
Labour's ultimate problem with Brexit was that there was no "magic policy" that would have solved their electoral problem with it. Fundamentally, the majority of Labour MPs, staff, and members were strongly against it. Many Labour voters were for it. The Labour voters who were most against Brexit were concentrated in very safe Labour seats in urban areas so there was little to gain from being against it.
The Conservatives might have had a similar issue in that a plurality of their MPs, staff, donors etc were against it, their members were for it, and their voters were more strongly for it than Labour's were against it.
One little thing though. The referendum. Both major parties were split but with the referendum having gone to Leave, the Conservatives were able to align the bulk of their party around that position.
I think the focus on what the "ideal" Brexit policy for the Labour party should have been is mostly politics nerds playing. Politics has to be for particular goals to make sense to most people and a party that was able to align around an outcome was always going to have an easier message to sell than one aligned around a process.
posted by atrazine at 3:23 AM on April 15, 2020 [15 favorites]
Also: the report contains the personal information of many of the people who filed anti-Semitism complaints. Great work leaking the whole report, I'm sure that won't be abused by the world's worst people.
As far as I understand things, the authors of this report intended it to be part of the anti-semitism report, but the when the lawyers looked at it (& the provenance of the data it drew on) it was clearly impossible to publish it due to a) the provenance of the data & b) the enormous breaches of rights to privacy etc contained therein. My understanding is that several MPs have already been talking to lawyers about legal suits for defamation, which is clearly /exactly/ what the party needs right now, but understandable from their point of view.
That someone chooses /this time/ of all times to dump this report into the open, no matter how damning speaks volumes. They are exactly as bad as they paint their opponents to be: so lost in hating their opponents within the party that they’ve lost sight of what the party is supposed to be for in the first place. They could have leaked it last year, when perhaps it might have made a difference in the leadership campaign, but no: they choose to leak it now, just as Starmer is taking over as leader like some vicious poison pill.
It is to weep.
posted by pharm at 3:29 AM on April 15, 2020 [18 favorites]
As far as I understand things, the authors of this report intended it to be part of the anti-semitism report, but the when the lawyers looked at it (& the provenance of the data it drew on) it was clearly impossible to publish it due to a) the provenance of the data & b) the enormous breaches of rights to privacy etc contained therein. My understanding is that several MPs have already been talking to lawyers about legal suits for defamation, which is clearly /exactly/ what the party needs right now, but understandable from their point of view.
That someone chooses /this time/ of all times to dump this report into the open, no matter how damning speaks volumes. They are exactly as bad as they paint their opponents to be: so lost in hating their opponents within the party that they’ve lost sight of what the party is supposed to be for in the first place. They could have leaked it last year, when perhaps it might have made a difference in the leadership campaign, but no: they choose to leak it now, just as Starmer is taking over as leader like some vicious poison pill.
It is to weep.
posted by pharm at 3:29 AM on April 15, 2020 [18 favorites]
They are exactly as bad as they paint their opponents to be
The misogynistic and racist abuse that Diane Abbott and Dawn Butler suffered is truly appalling . Say what you like about Seumas Milne but he’s never called a Channel 4 news journalist to announce that the first black female MP is ‘crying in the toilets’.
posted by brilliantmistake at 4:05 AM on April 15, 2020 [16 favorites]
The misogynistic and racist abuse that Diane Abbott and Dawn Butler suffered is truly appalling . Say what you like about Seumas Milne but he’s never called a Channel 4 news journalist to announce that the first black female MP is ‘crying in the toilets’.
posted by brilliantmistake at 4:05 AM on April 15, 2020 [16 favorites]
That was indeed a spectacularly shitty thing to do. I’m not defending anyone here.
posted by pharm at 4:06 AM on April 15, 2020
posted by pharm at 4:06 AM on April 15, 2020
I don't know how to read the report without ultimately confirming my own biases reguarding the Labout party and it's members.
posted by Braeburn at 4:22 AM on April 15, 2020
posted by Braeburn at 4:22 AM on April 15, 2020
If anything, I’m like: if you had this kind of evidence of spectacularly shitty behaviour by people within the Labour party machine, why withhold it? Why want until /now/ of all times to publish this? Honestly, I wish they had published it far, far earlier: some of the behaviour recounted is beyond unacceptable regardless of which "wing" of the party you regard as your natural home.
I just can’t fathom it - the only explanation that makes any sense is that the people who sat on this report are releasing it now in order to damage the party: lashing out spitefully after "their" candidate lost the leadership election & I don’t want to believe that explanation, but it seems to be the only possible one.
This isn’t meant as some kind of "the left did something bad, so that balances out the bad things the right did" equivocation. It’s just a deep sadness that this is the point we’ve come to.
posted by pharm at 4:43 AM on April 15, 2020 [3 favorites]
I just can’t fathom it - the only explanation that makes any sense is that the people who sat on this report are releasing it now in order to damage the party: lashing out spitefully after "their" candidate lost the leadership election & I don’t want to believe that explanation, but it seems to be the only possible one.
This isn’t meant as some kind of "the left did something bad, so that balances out the bad things the right did" equivocation. It’s just a deep sadness that this is the point we’ve come to.
posted by pharm at 4:43 AM on April 15, 2020 [3 favorites]
The report also mentioned that the same saboteurs also thought Ed Milliband was too left-wing. I wonder how many austerity deaths can be shared between the labour right and the Tories.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:20 AM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 5:20 AM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
There are some lessons for the Left here, the most important being that when people seem to be acting in bad faith it’s because they probably are. Give them the benefit of the doubt and they’ll just knife you with it.
posted by moorooka at 6:25 AM on April 15, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 6:25 AM on April 15, 2020 [14 favorites]
One thing that I don't think we know with any clarity at this stage, is what the Labour party's official submission, which I believe has already been given to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) actually says.
If Labour's EHRC submission is not admitting that complaints were systematically mishandled, when this report makes it clear that they were (albeit not by Corbyn's mob as the media narrative claimed, but rather by right-wing factions in McNichol's office) then the evidence in this report is potentially going to severely undermine that case.
posted by Caractacus at 6:33 AM on April 15, 2020 [3 favorites]
If Labour's EHRC submission is not admitting that complaints were systematically mishandled, when this report makes it clear that they were (albeit not by Corbyn's mob as the media narrative claimed, but rather by right-wing factions in McNichol's office) then the evidence in this report is potentially going to severely undermine that case.
posted by Caractacus at 6:33 AM on April 15, 2020 [3 favorites]
To me it honestly looks more as if Corbynites conspired in favour of the conservatives by imposing an untenably garbled Brexit policy.
Shows how much you paid attention when it was the Starmer swing away from Corbyn's position into a much more pro-remain/second referendum one that cost Labour the election.
posted by MartinWisse at 7:08 AM on April 15, 2020 [7 favorites]
Shows how much you paid attention when it was the Starmer swing away from Corbyn's position into a much more pro-remain/second referendum one that cost Labour the election.
posted by MartinWisse at 7:08 AM on April 15, 2020 [7 favorites]
insults and embarrassing statements cherry-picked from a leaked trove of "10,000 emails" derailing a left-of-center party in a western country in turmoil. i think we've seen this before somewhere, no? we all know what this is and who benefits from it. enough. ignore.
Dumb, but not that far from how the UK press seems to tackle it, which seems to poo-poo it as something everybody already knows despite the fact that its revelaions goes directly against the grain of all major reporting on Labour since Corbyn's election.
There are three huge issues that this report uncovered:
1) Antisemitism in Labour was completely bungled until Jenny Formby was elected because her predecessor and his staff where either much more interested in Twitter randos saying mean things about Mike Gapes or deliberately sabotaging attempts to root it out to damage Corbyn and his allies
2) Labour staff was actively rooting for the Tories to win the 2017 elections so they could remove Corbyn as leader and arguably sabotaging their own party's election campaign. One of the ways this was done was by spending money on safe seats held by their allies away from marginals which might have given Labour the edge.
3) The general atmosphere of contempt for and bullying of members, staff and MPs who did not share their views of Corbyn as the enemy. This is the worst part and the part that is sticking with Labour and union members alike, especially because some of the worst of the lot now got cushy jobs at Unison.
Some of this was already known, some of it was suspected but I think nobody outside this clique even remotely knew that the rot went this far.
And this matters for more than just Labour internal politics.
Had Corbyn been prime minister, the UK would've had two years of repairing the Tory and LibDem cuts to the NHS, schools, social care and all the other things the country needs very much right now. It would've had a PM that wouldn't have put business interests over the health of the country so dawdling on entering lockdown nor stupid enough to keep shaking hands and become a covid-19 victim himself. The virus would still have hit but the country would've been much better prepared.
posted by MartinWisse at 7:20 AM on April 15, 2020 [22 favorites]
Dumb, but not that far from how the UK press seems to tackle it, which seems to poo-poo it as something everybody already knows despite the fact that its revelaions goes directly against the grain of all major reporting on Labour since Corbyn's election.
There are three huge issues that this report uncovered:
1) Antisemitism in Labour was completely bungled until Jenny Formby was elected because her predecessor and his staff where either much more interested in Twitter randos saying mean things about Mike Gapes or deliberately sabotaging attempts to root it out to damage Corbyn and his allies
2) Labour staff was actively rooting for the Tories to win the 2017 elections so they could remove Corbyn as leader and arguably sabotaging their own party's election campaign. One of the ways this was done was by spending money on safe seats held by their allies away from marginals which might have given Labour the edge.
3) The general atmosphere of contempt for and bullying of members, staff and MPs who did not share their views of Corbyn as the enemy. This is the worst part and the part that is sticking with Labour and union members alike, especially because some of the worst of the lot now got cushy jobs at Unison.
Some of this was already known, some of it was suspected but I think nobody outside this clique even remotely knew that the rot went this far.
And this matters for more than just Labour internal politics.
Had Corbyn been prime minister, the UK would've had two years of repairing the Tory and LibDem cuts to the NHS, schools, social care and all the other things the country needs very much right now. It would've had a PM that wouldn't have put business interests over the health of the country so dawdling on entering lockdown nor stupid enough to keep shaking hands and become a covid-19 victim himself. The virus would still have hit but the country would've been much better prepared.
posted by MartinWisse at 7:20 AM on April 15, 2020 [22 favorites]
Had Corbyn been prime minister, the UK would've had two years of repairing the Tory and LibDem cuts to the NHS, schools, social care and all the other things the country needs very much right now. It would've had a PM that wouldn't have put business interests over the health of the country so dawdling on entering lockdown nor stupid enough to keep shaking hands and become a covid-19 victim himself. The virus would still have hit but the country would've been much better prepared.
All true, but can you imagine what the press would be like now if Labour had somehow won in December and it was Corbyn as PM implementing the lockdown ("shutting down the economy") and fewer but probably still hundreds of deaths a day? It would be spun like all their fantasies about Corbyn as a Stalinist dictator coming true. There would probably be a literal coup..
posted by Beware of the leopard at 7:31 AM on April 15, 2020 [6 favorites]
All true, but can you imagine what the press would be like now if Labour had somehow won in December and it was Corbyn as PM implementing the lockdown ("shutting down the economy") and fewer but probably still hundreds of deaths a day? It would be spun like all their fantasies about Corbyn as a Stalinist dictator coming true. There would probably be a literal coup..
posted by Beware of the leopard at 7:31 AM on April 15, 2020 [6 favorites]
it was the Starmer swing away from Corbyn's position into a much more pro-remain/second referendum one that cost Labour the election.
Funny, I (and a plurality of non-Labour voters) thought it had something to do with Corbyn being wildly unpopular. Possibly also with the long-term decline of Labour's vote share in its supposed heartland seats (well underway before Brexit), with the alienation of both Leavers and Remainers as a result of the leadership's previous feeble fence-sitting on Brexit (which also allowed the Lib Dems to hoover up the vast majority of Remainers defecting from the Tories), and with Labour's unfocused and too-good-to-be-true firehose of policies.
But I'm sure pinning it all on the current leader is a valuable contribution to the fight against the scourge of Labour factionalism and the attempt to get our shit together for long enough to win an election before we're all murdered by Tories...
posted by inire at 7:54 AM on April 15, 2020 [6 favorites]
Funny, I (and a plurality of non-Labour voters) thought it had something to do with Corbyn being wildly unpopular. Possibly also with the long-term decline of Labour's vote share in its supposed heartland seats (well underway before Brexit), with the alienation of both Leavers and Remainers as a result of the leadership's previous feeble fence-sitting on Brexit (which also allowed the Lib Dems to hoover up the vast majority of Remainers defecting from the Tories), and with Labour's unfocused and too-good-to-be-true firehose of policies.
But I'm sure pinning it all on the current leader is a valuable contribution to the fight against the scourge of Labour factionalism and the attempt to get our shit together for long enough to win an election before we're all murdered by Tories...
posted by inire at 7:54 AM on April 15, 2020 [6 favorites]
"A purge of the running trots is a lot better though, and more popular with the electorate"
Except that those trot policies are what the Tories resold to win their victory, but framed as conservative policies.
posted by davemee at 8:13 AM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
Except that those trot policies are what the Tories resold to win their victory, but framed as conservative policies.
posted by davemee at 8:13 AM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
Chairman Len kind of has a point here (I say this as a member of his union)
posted by Caractacus at 8:35 AM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
"Indeed, it seems we were also handing over money that was, unbeknownst to the national executive committee, allegedly being squirrelled away into secret slush funds devoted to supporting those MPs who party officialdom favoured. At first glance there would appear to be a case to answer for breaches of electoral law as well as party governance procedures. Since Unite was by far the largest single donor to the 2017 election campaign, giving around 75% of total union donations, we have the right to expect an honest accounting for this."https://labourlist.org/2020/04/unite-behind-keir-starmer-to-cleanse-labours-shame/
posted by Caractacus at 8:35 AM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
Except that those trot policies are what the Tories resold to win their victory, but framed as conservative policies.
Oh yes. Everyone remembers Boris's famous zip line down the High Speed 1's electric lines from St Pancras to Dover while talking on a mobile phone in order to promote the renationalization of British Rail and BT.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:03 AM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
Oh yes. Everyone remembers Boris's famous zip line down the High Speed 1's electric lines from St Pancras to Dover while talking on a mobile phone in order to promote the renationalization of British Rail and BT.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:03 AM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
Shows how much you paid attention when it was the Starmer swing away from Corbyn's position into a much more pro-remain/second referendum one that cost Labour the election.
1) It is not clear that it fully cost them the election although it certainly didn't help. 16% of 2017 Labour remain voters did not vote for Labour in 2019. It's also hard to disentangle attitudes towards JC in traditional working class Labour constituencies from their Brexit attitudes. Obviously you can poll but if you don't trust the policy it will spill over into attitudes about the leader and vice versa.
2) It is not clear that this was the "Starmer swing", although we know that he pushed in that direction, he was far from the only one. John McDonnell and Andrew Fisher were much more influential in convincing Corbyn.
Oh yes. Everyone remembers Boris's famous zip line down the High Speed 1's electric lines from St Pancras to Dover while talking on a mobile phone in order to promote the renationalization of British Rail and BT.
Ok, but they did run on "Austerity is over, let's spend more on the NHS" which was both extremely popular and left Labour to suggest things to the left of that like nationalising BT (not a bad idea and not necessarily *un*popular with voters but it doesn't have the same emotional impact as being able to run as the only party proposing increased funding for the NHS.
posted by atrazine at 9:23 AM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
1) It is not clear that it fully cost them the election although it certainly didn't help. 16% of 2017 Labour remain voters did not vote for Labour in 2019. It's also hard to disentangle attitudes towards JC in traditional working class Labour constituencies from their Brexit attitudes. Obviously you can poll but if you don't trust the policy it will spill over into attitudes about the leader and vice versa.
2) It is not clear that this was the "Starmer swing", although we know that he pushed in that direction, he was far from the only one. John McDonnell and Andrew Fisher were much more influential in convincing Corbyn.
Oh yes. Everyone remembers Boris's famous zip line down the High Speed 1's electric lines from St Pancras to Dover while talking on a mobile phone in order to promote the renationalization of British Rail and BT.
Ok, but they did run on "Austerity is over, let's spend more on the NHS" which was both extremely popular and left Labour to suggest things to the left of that like nationalising BT (not a bad idea and not necessarily *un*popular with voters but it doesn't have the same emotional impact as being able to run as the only party proposing increased funding for the NHS.
posted by atrazine at 9:23 AM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
Ok, but they did run on "Austerity is over, let's spend more on the NHS" which was both extremely popular and left Labour to suggest things to the left of that like nationalising BT (not a bad idea and not necessarily *un*popular with voters but it doesn't have the same emotional impact as being able to run as the only party proposing increased funding for the NHS.
It was probably the smartest thing for the Tories to do though. When you have similar policies that voters want, it comes down to a battle of leaders. While Corbyn is a hundred times the man Boris is, he has all the charisma of a potato. Boris on the other hand is a mop topped liar that will do anything for power, even make an unholy deal with that devil Dominic Cummings, but is oafishly charming in a way that makes people feel more at ease.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:34 AM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
It was probably the smartest thing for the Tories to do though. When you have similar policies that voters want, it comes down to a battle of leaders. While Corbyn is a hundred times the man Boris is, he has all the charisma of a potato. Boris on the other hand is a mop topped liar that will do anything for power, even make an unholy deal with that devil Dominic Cummings, but is oafishly charming in a way that makes people feel more at ease.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:34 AM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
I still believe that renationalization will go down as the biggest own goal in Labour's 2019 campaign and that they provoked more hornet nests than they had to in the rest of their policies. If they needed something to differentiate themselves with both parties funding the NHS they needed to run on bringing back opportunity and glory to the long neglected heartland.
Hell, they could have run on staying in the EU and using EU money to bring investment, opportunity, and economic prosperity to these heartland regions. Something along the lines of "We're going to make Machester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Birmingham, Oldham, and the rest of the hams great again and we're going to make Brussels pay for it".
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:40 AM on April 15, 2020 [3 favorites]
Hell, they could have run on staying in the EU and using EU money to bring investment, opportunity, and economic prosperity to these heartland regions. Something along the lines of "We're going to make Machester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Birmingham, Oldham, and the rest of the hams great again and we're going to make Brussels pay for it".
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:40 AM on April 15, 2020 [3 favorites]
Corbyn was a terrible leader. He was bad at doing the thing that leaders are supposed to do: make people follow you. He seemed to lack many of the qualities that a successful leader needs: charm, persuasion, flexibility. (Ambition is the other thing, he did have that).
posted by ovvl at 10:46 AM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by ovvl at 10:46 AM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
"Corbyn was a terrible leader. "
Shouldn't the conversation here focus on the things in this report rather than opinions of Corbyn?
It's actually not really about him at all.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 11:16 AM on April 15, 2020 [10 favorites]
Shouldn't the conversation here focus on the things in this report rather than opinions of Corbyn?
It's actually not really about him at all.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 11:16 AM on April 15, 2020 [10 favorites]
no: they choose to leak it now, just as Starmer is taking over as leader like some vicious poison pill.
The thing is that this leak gives Starmer a fantastic justification for moving hard against his myriad opponents on both wings of the party. If he's bold and adept enough to use it, this presents a genuine opportunity to nail Momentum to the wall while showing "balance" through disciplinary action against offenders from the right.
The people who leaked this, particularly unredacted, are really fucking thick.
posted by howfar at 11:33 AM on April 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
The thing is that this leak gives Starmer a fantastic justification for moving hard against his myriad opponents on both wings of the party. If he's bold and adept enough to use it, this presents a genuine opportunity to nail Momentum to the wall while showing "balance" through disciplinary action against offenders from the right.
The people who leaked this, particularly unredacted, are really fucking thick.
posted by howfar at 11:33 AM on April 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
Did you pay attention at all to this post?
When people are sabotaging you left, right and centre (well, mostly right and centre) it's hard to be a good leader but let's not forget:
1) He was put on the leadership ballot in 2015 as a lark, a sop to the marginalised left wing of the party, to provide cover for what was otherwise a roster of candidates to the right of Ed 'immigration controls' Milliband.
He promptly won.
2) suffered through two leadership challenges and won those handily too.
3) Brought Labour membership to the highest it ever was post-War. Funnily enough partially made possible by his enemies in the party, who had introduced the idea of three quid memberships to break the power of the unions by erm getting lots and lots of their kind of people as members.
Turned out those couldn't be arsed, but a lot of both young, new Labour supporters and those that had turned away from the party in the Blair and Brown years could be. Because suddenly you had a party leadership not talking about even more ruthless than the Tories in cutting benefits, but one that spoke socialist.
4) With Brexit, he campaigned tirelessly for remain, only to be slandered in the press as being a secret brexiter after it was won for Leave. This is a theme in coverage of him and the Labour party. You can be the best leader in the world, if the entire press including the BBC insists up is down, you'll never win.
(The moment Keir stops being useful for the Tories, he'll suffer the same fate. Cf. Milliband, Brown. NO leader post-Blair has been allowed to win an election and Blair only managed by being Tory-lite and sucking up to Murdoch.)
5) And then in 2017, despite the sabotage from his own party, despite the press hostility, despite everybody writing him off, the man nearly won the election, losing the Tories their majority in parliament.
Nobody expected that, everybody expected a catastrophical result for Labour and Corbyn to move away, but it didn't. Perennial fun to watch: Labour - The Summer that Changed Everything, which follows various rightwing MPs including Stephen Pillo^Kinnock through the election and its aftermath. The horror as they realise they actually won seats rather than lose them, that they came that close to unseating the Tories is a sight to behold.
What got him that far?
Turns out a lot of Labour voters actually like Corbyn, despite the press coverage and trusted his stance on Brexit, where he had promised to uphold the results of the referendum.
That influx of new, enthusiastic supporters also helped, as Labour did what it was good at: knock on doors and campaign.
Finally, as the election came closer, the media had to abide by the much more stricter election rules of giving equal coverage and not lie too much -- something very much absent two years later.
So finally:
6) It was Labour and Corbyn that all through 2017-2019, through the May and first Boris Johnson governments, stopped the Tories from a hard Brexit. There were actual a couple of moments where the UK could've gone for a soft Brexit -- votes in parliament were there -- had the self proclaimed LibDem Remain champions actually bothered to show up for the vote.
Instead their priorities were to attack Corbyn, treat the EU elections as a second referendum, won those handily but lost quite badly at the real general election as the press dropped their support because they were no longer needed. Sorry Lib Dems, the press barons prefer actual Tories to Tories lite.
Corbyn never had a magical wand to stop Brexit, had always had to deal with the fact that his party out of all was the most split between the two factions and still managed to hold off a hard brexit until the 2019 elections. It could've happened much earlier, had an Owen Smith or Ed Balls been in charge.
So yeah, somebody who, with all those handicaps came that close to being PM? That's a good leader. I'd like to see Keir Starmer get half his accomplishments.
And remember; if in the past 41 years only Tony Blair was allowed to win an election as Labour leader, what does that say about democracy in the UK?
posted by MartinWisse at 11:38 AM on April 15, 2020 [20 favorites]
When people are sabotaging you left, right and centre (well, mostly right and centre) it's hard to be a good leader but let's not forget:
1) He was put on the leadership ballot in 2015 as a lark, a sop to the marginalised left wing of the party, to provide cover for what was otherwise a roster of candidates to the right of Ed 'immigration controls' Milliband.
He promptly won.
2) suffered through two leadership challenges and won those handily too.
3) Brought Labour membership to the highest it ever was post-War. Funnily enough partially made possible by his enemies in the party, who had introduced the idea of three quid memberships to break the power of the unions by erm getting lots and lots of their kind of people as members.
Turned out those couldn't be arsed, but a lot of both young, new Labour supporters and those that had turned away from the party in the Blair and Brown years could be. Because suddenly you had a party leadership not talking about even more ruthless than the Tories in cutting benefits, but one that spoke socialist.
4) With Brexit, he campaigned tirelessly for remain, only to be slandered in the press as being a secret brexiter after it was won for Leave. This is a theme in coverage of him and the Labour party. You can be the best leader in the world, if the entire press including the BBC insists up is down, you'll never win.
(The moment Keir stops being useful for the Tories, he'll suffer the same fate. Cf. Milliband, Brown. NO leader post-Blair has been allowed to win an election and Blair only managed by being Tory-lite and sucking up to Murdoch.)
5) And then in 2017, despite the sabotage from his own party, despite the press hostility, despite everybody writing him off, the man nearly won the election, losing the Tories their majority in parliament.
Nobody expected that, everybody expected a catastrophical result for Labour and Corbyn to move away, but it didn't. Perennial fun to watch: Labour - The Summer that Changed Everything, which follows various rightwing MPs including Stephen Pillo^Kinnock through the election and its aftermath. The horror as they realise they actually won seats rather than lose them, that they came that close to unseating the Tories is a sight to behold.
What got him that far?
Turns out a lot of Labour voters actually like Corbyn, despite the press coverage and trusted his stance on Brexit, where he had promised to uphold the results of the referendum.
That influx of new, enthusiastic supporters also helped, as Labour did what it was good at: knock on doors and campaign.
Finally, as the election came closer, the media had to abide by the much more stricter election rules of giving equal coverage and not lie too much -- something very much absent two years later.
So finally:
6) It was Labour and Corbyn that all through 2017-2019, through the May and first Boris Johnson governments, stopped the Tories from a hard Brexit. There were actual a couple of moments where the UK could've gone for a soft Brexit -- votes in parliament were there -- had the self proclaimed LibDem Remain champions actually bothered to show up for the vote.
Instead their priorities were to attack Corbyn, treat the EU elections as a second referendum, won those handily but lost quite badly at the real general election as the press dropped their support because they were no longer needed. Sorry Lib Dems, the press barons prefer actual Tories to Tories lite.
Corbyn never had a magical wand to stop Brexit, had always had to deal with the fact that his party out of all was the most split between the two factions and still managed to hold off a hard brexit until the 2019 elections. It could've happened much earlier, had an Owen Smith or Ed Balls been in charge.
So yeah, somebody who, with all those handicaps came that close to being PM? That's a good leader. I'd like to see Keir Starmer get half his accomplishments.
And remember; if in the past 41 years only Tony Blair was allowed to win an election as Labour leader, what does that say about democracy in the UK?
posted by MartinWisse at 11:38 AM on April 15, 2020 [20 favorites]
Toxic work culture & senior staffers actively conspiring to sabotage the org? I thought that had a lot to do with Corbyn's stiff leadership. But I could be wrong.
posted by ovvl at 11:38 AM on April 15, 2020
posted by ovvl at 11:38 AM on April 15, 2020
I certainly think that Corbyn just not being a very good manager was a contributing factor in the way this stuff persisted, but it's undeniable that there were a lot of people employed by Labour who entrenched against him. However, that's part of trying to change institutional culture. The difficulty came with the job, and I don't get the impression that Corbyn's team ever really engaged with that reality.
posted by howfar at 11:46 AM on April 15, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by howfar at 11:46 AM on April 15, 2020 [3 favorites]
And remember; if in the past 41 years only Tony Blair was allowed to win an election as Labour leader, what does that say about democracy in the UK?
That the British public isn't that left wing? Yes, yes, the media did it all. Laura K made everyone do it, the Barclay brothers are putting racism in the water supply, The Daily Mail took my baby away, and all that.
When you keep losing elections, "it's a conspiracy" is not the only possible explanation.
posted by atrazine at 11:52 AM on April 15, 2020 [9 favorites]
That the British public isn't that left wing? Yes, yes, the media did it all. Laura K made everyone do it, the Barclay brothers are putting racism in the water supply, The Daily Mail took my baby away, and all that.
When you keep losing elections, "it's a conspiracy" is not the only possible explanation.
posted by atrazine at 11:52 AM on April 15, 2020 [9 favorites]
had the self proclaimed LibDem Remain champions actually bothered to show up for the vote.
A small point: my understanding is that the Labour leadership had told the LibDems that they weren’t going to vote for the bill in question, so the LibDems MPs (reasonably) decided that they had more important things to do than yet another quixotic stand against Brexit & went off home to their constituencies & elsewhere for various other prior obligations. Then the Labour leadership changed their minds at the last minute & failed to communicate this change of heart to said MPs who found themselves hundreds of miles away from a vote that they could have won had anyone actually bothered to tell them that Labour was now planning to vote for it.
So yes, a monumental fuck-up. But not one that was solely the fault of the LibDems.
(I’m happy to be corrected if my recollections are false, but this was the order of events that was communicated to me.)
posted by pharm at 11:53 AM on April 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
A small point: my understanding is that the Labour leadership had told the LibDems that they weren’t going to vote for the bill in question, so the LibDems MPs (reasonably) decided that they had more important things to do than yet another quixotic stand against Brexit & went off home to their constituencies & elsewhere for various other prior obligations. Then the Labour leadership changed their minds at the last minute & failed to communicate this change of heart to said MPs who found themselves hundreds of miles away from a vote that they could have won had anyone actually bothered to tell them that Labour was now planning to vote for it.
So yes, a monumental fuck-up. But not one that was solely the fault of the LibDems.
(I’m happy to be corrected if my recollections are false, but this was the order of events that was communicated to me.)
posted by pharm at 11:53 AM on April 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
Toxic work culture & senior staffers actively conspiring to sabotage the org? I thought that had a lot to do with Corbyn's stiff leadership. But I could be wrong.
You are wrong.
Read the report. It was ongoing from 2015, it wasn't just aimed at Corbyn or his allies, but all sorts of regular people and even their own allies not deemed enthusiastic enough were slagged off and bullied.
It was an absolutely toxic working culture that should not be tolerated regardless of who the targets were.
A few hundred people if that got to attack half a million Labour members and call them everything from trots to mentals and you think it's 'Corbyn's stiff leadership"?
Do me a favour.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:58 AM on April 15, 2020 [11 favorites]
You are wrong.
Read the report. It was ongoing from 2015, it wasn't just aimed at Corbyn or his allies, but all sorts of regular people and even their own allies not deemed enthusiastic enough were slagged off and bullied.
It was an absolutely toxic working culture that should not be tolerated regardless of who the targets were.
A few hundred people if that got to attack half a million Labour members and call them everything from trots to mentals and you think it's 'Corbyn's stiff leadership"?
Do me a favour.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:58 AM on April 15, 2020 [11 favorites]
That the British public isn't that left wing? Yes, yes, the media did it all. Laura K made everyone do it, the Barclay brothers are putting racism in the water supply, The Daily Mail took my baby away, and all that.
When you keep losing elections, "it's a conspiracy" is not the only possible explanation.
Not that I have a particularly high opinion of the British public but the argument isn't that "it's a conspiracy" (or at least not a secret one) - it's that it's in the self-interest of those individuals (yes, like the Barclay brothers) who own large parts of the media to use them to support the party most friendly to capital in general and their specific business interests in particular.
posted by Beware of the leopard at 12:03 PM on April 15, 2020 [6 favorites]
When you keep losing elections, "it's a conspiracy" is not the only possible explanation.
Not that I have a particularly high opinion of the British public but the argument isn't that "it's a conspiracy" (or at least not a secret one) - it's that it's in the self-interest of those individuals (yes, like the Barclay brothers) who own large parts of the media to use them to support the party most friendly to capital in general and their specific business interests in particular.
posted by Beware of the leopard at 12:03 PM on April 15, 2020 [6 favorites]
Toxic work culture & senior staffers actively conspiring to sabotage the org? I thought that had a lot to do with Corbyn's stiff leadership. But I could be wrong.
I really don't think that's accurate. First the worst of this was going on from 2015 to 2017 and a lot of it from people hostile to Corbyn who he later got rid of.
Second, while I would not encourage people to go and find a report like this with unredacted names in it... I have actually read it and there is a lot of really nasty stuff in there. Quite apart from being a political party, that kind of bullying is just really bad workplace behaviour. It must have been a nightmare to work there.
posted by atrazine at 12:06 PM on April 15, 2020 [5 favorites]
I really don't think that's accurate. First the worst of this was going on from 2015 to 2017 and a lot of it from people hostile to Corbyn who he later got rid of.
Second, while I would not encourage people to go and find a report like this with unredacted names in it... I have actually read it and there is a lot of really nasty stuff in there. Quite apart from being a political party, that kind of bullying is just really bad workplace behaviour. It must have been a nightmare to work there.
posted by atrazine at 12:06 PM on April 15, 2020 [5 favorites]
I mean, if you don't want to read Chomsky on Manufacturing Consent and think Edward Bernays' Propaganda is a bit outdated, Nick Davies Flat Earth News is essential reading to understand Britain and its press.
posted by MartinWisse at 12:08 PM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by MartinWisse at 12:08 PM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
"it's a conspiracy"
It's not a conspiracy, it's out in the open.
You can see journalist after journalist on twitter wondering why the tories get such a free ride, only to erm, report any and all obvious Tory lies as the singular truth the next morning in their newspapers.
Again, read the report to see how this all works even within Labour, where you can have staffers call 'respected' journos to gossip about Diane Abbott crying in the toilets.
(Abbott of course got roundly slagged off as dumb for getting a single question wrong in an off the cuff interview when yer regular tory can spout the greatest nonsense without being challenged.)
posted by MartinWisse at 12:14 PM on April 15, 2020 [10 favorites]
It's not a conspiracy, it's out in the open.
You can see journalist after journalist on twitter wondering why the tories get such a free ride, only to erm, report any and all obvious Tory lies as the singular truth the next morning in their newspapers.
You cannot hope to bribe or twistHumbert Wolfe.
(thank God!) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there’s no occasion to.
Again, read the report to see how this all works even within Labour, where you can have staffers call 'respected' journos to gossip about Diane Abbott crying in the toilets.
(Abbott of course got roundly slagged off as dumb for getting a single question wrong in an off the cuff interview when yer regular tory can spout the greatest nonsense without being challenged.)
posted by MartinWisse at 12:14 PM on April 15, 2020 [10 favorites]
Tbh, I thought the idea that the press played an important role in shaping democracy in the UK was pretty uncontroversial - at least it didn't used to be. Things haven't improved since this was written (to pick one example):
posted by Beware of the leopard at 12:36 PM on April 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
Murdoch's courtship of Blair finally pays off - The Independent, Wednesday 11 February 1998IN JULY 1995, Tony Blair flew halfway round the world to cement his relationship with Rupert Murdoch at a News Corporation conference. Introducing him, the media tycoon joked: "If the British press is to be believed, today is all part of a Blair-Murdoch flirtation. If that flirtation is ever consummated, Tony, I suspect we will end up making love like two porcupines - very carefully."
For Mr Blair, the relationship bore fruit when he was elected with the key support of the Sun. But Mr Murdoch had to wait until yesterday for full satisfaction when No 10 launched a passionate attack on his critics after the Lords passed an anti-Murdoch amendment to the Competition Bill.
[...]
In 1992 Murdoch's flagship Sun claimed it had scuppered Labour's election chances by suggesting that if Neil Kinnock won, the last person to leave Britain should turn out the lights. The day after the election it boasted "It was the Sun wot won it!".
posted by Beware of the leopard at 12:36 PM on April 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
The chance of a Tory being treated like Diane Abbot is 300,000,34,974,000 to 1
posted by fullerine at 12:39 PM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by fullerine at 12:39 PM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
The Diane Abbott abuse makes me livid. Like, I start losing my shit if I try to fully articulate my fury. Diane Abbott has been subject to a horrifying amount of racist and sexist abuse for her long career, far more than anyone else I can think of, and for the people who are, as employees of the Labour Party, supposed to have her back, to speak of her with such contempt, and to tell a political reporter she was crying in the toilet...I actually woke up in the night because I am so bloody angry about it.
posted by skybluepink at 1:01 PM on April 15, 2020 [22 favorites]
posted by skybluepink at 1:01 PM on April 15, 2020 [22 favorites]
you had a party leadership not talking about even more ruthless than the Tories in cutting benefits
This is an inaccurate characterisation of Ed Milliband's leadership.
There's no point in having a political party if everyone thinks of and treats everyone else like a gross caricature.
All of you, on both "sides" of the party, need to get over your hurt feelings and get on with attempting to address the profound fucking mess we're in right now.
Because if you don't, our species will be dead within a century and it's really not going to matter who was right.
Jesus wept.
posted by howfar at 1:27 PM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
This is an inaccurate characterisation of Ed Milliband's leadership.
There's no point in having a political party if everyone thinks of and treats everyone else like a gross caricature.
All of you, on both "sides" of the party, need to get over your hurt feelings and get on with attempting to address the profound fucking mess we're in right now.
Because if you don't, our species will be dead within a century and it's really not going to matter who was right.
Jesus wept.
posted by howfar at 1:27 PM on April 15, 2020 [4 favorites]
The chance of a Tory being treated like Diane Abbot is 300,000,34,974,000 to 1
Just because Priti Patel's a Tory doesn't mean that saying things like this isn't also racist and sexist.
posted by ambrosen at 2:07 PM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
Just because Priti Patel's a Tory doesn't mean that saying things like this isn't also racist and sexist.
posted by ambrosen at 2:07 PM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
It doesn't really surprise me that party officials acted against Corbyn because many members of the PLP were openly against him from the beginning as well. I still count that as a failure of his leadership though because as leader it was his job to get everyone onside and keep them there - and if that wasn't possible then to clear them out.
Nothing Labour does now is relevant to the wider world for the next couple of years so it isn't the worst thing that the report leaked now. It wouldn't surprise me if much of it is score-settling more than anything substantive but let the party have its arguments and figure out what it wants to be so that it can present itself as an effective opposition and government-in-waiting a bit closer to 2024 when people will start paying attention again.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 2:13 PM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
Nothing Labour does now is relevant to the wider world for the next couple of years so it isn't the worst thing that the report leaked now. It wouldn't surprise me if much of it is score-settling more than anything substantive but let the party have its arguments and figure out what it wants to be so that it can present itself as an effective opposition and government-in-waiting a bit closer to 2024 when people will start paying attention again.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 2:13 PM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
Racism on the right of the Labour party, horribly evident in the leaked Whatsapp chats, seems to be an issue still under Starmer.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-15/group-of-labour-staffers-try-to-block-support-for-bame-mps-named-in-leaked-report-as-racism-and-racial-profiling-victim/
posted by Caractacus at 2:21 PM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-15/group-of-labour-staffers-try-to-block-support-for-bame-mps-named-in-leaked-report-as-racism-and-racial-profiling-victim/
posted by Caractacus at 2:21 PM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
Why hasn't he SOLVED this by now? He's had TEN WHOLE DAYS!
posted by howfar at 3:16 PM on April 15, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by howfar at 3:16 PM on April 15, 2020 [3 favorites]
I bet he took the bank holiday off too.
posted by howfar at 3:16 PM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by howfar at 3:16 PM on April 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
Sir Keir is solving it, by promoting the saboteurs to the front bench and launching an inquiry into the leak itself (rather than its contents)
posted by moorooka at 3:48 PM on April 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 3:48 PM on April 15, 2020 [2 favorites]
I usually only consume text/audio news, and don't often see pictures or video of the people I'm reading about. I remember a few years ago being slightly confused about the treatment Diane Abbot was getting across the board - dismissive, overly critical compared to not just her male counterparts (I guess I already expected the sexism), but her female counterparts too... then finally seeing a picture of her somewhere and realising, with that heart-sinking feeling, that she isn't white.
Let's just burn the human race to the ground and start again. Neanderthals must have had it right.
posted by AllShoesNoSocks at 3:56 PM on April 15, 2020 [5 favorites]
Let's just burn the human race to the ground and start again. Neanderthals must have had it right.
posted by AllShoesNoSocks at 3:56 PM on April 15, 2020 [5 favorites]
by promoting the saboteurs to the front bench
Which Labour MPs are you accusing of "sabotage" and what evidence do you have?
posted by howfar at 4:53 PM on April 15, 2020
Which Labour MPs are you accusing of "sabotage" and what evidence do you have?
posted by howfar at 4:53 PM on April 15, 2020
I think Starmer has a really difficult task right now. He can try to keep a lid on things, but this isn't going away any time soon.
As reported in the OP links, the Whatsapp chat logs show that paid party officials aligned with right-wing factions deliberately acted against the purposes for which they were hired, by secretly diverting funds away from the marginal seats their party needed to win in 2017 and by a long catalogue of other factional 'go-slow' working, information withholding, collusion with hostile media and assorted process fuckery. That's at least gross professional misconduct, to say nothing of the associated racist bullying seen in the chats.
If they were the paid management of a Premiership football team, who hated the current Chairman and actively worked to run the club down so that a consortium of their mates could take it over, losing the Champions league in the process they'd be in jail and rightly so.
A couple of hundred thousand new members, many of them young and idealistic, all desperate for something better than sleazy statecraft, neo-liberal austerity and complicity in war crimes, joined in the immediate aftermath of Corbyn becoming leader. As far as I can tell, a great many of those new people, and quite a few who were already members of Labour or associated unions, are embittered and enraged by seeing confirmation of their worst fears about what was happening, in a way that I've only ever seen once before in my life.
Their strongly held belief is that but for a few key marginals we could have had a Corbyn government in 2017, which was geniunely committed to reversing years of Tory privatisation and running down of the NHS and social care systems, and which would have reversed a generation of increasingly Kafka-eque welfare policies. They believe that we could have had three years of funding and regeneration of our public services before the COVID-19 crisis, even apart from the tens of thousands austerity was already killing.
They believe that this possibility was betrayed and traduced by a bunch of oligarch-friendly, racist bullies in their own party and they've just read a 900 page NEC document that to a great extent confirms this belief.
I don't think this can be brushed under the rug quickly. This is going to be the sort of slow burning rage that lasts for generations.
posted by Caractacus at 2:59 AM on April 16, 2020 [16 favorites]
As reported in the OP links, the Whatsapp chat logs show that paid party officials aligned with right-wing factions deliberately acted against the purposes for which they were hired, by secretly diverting funds away from the marginal seats their party needed to win in 2017 and by a long catalogue of other factional 'go-slow' working, information withholding, collusion with hostile media and assorted process fuckery. That's at least gross professional misconduct, to say nothing of the associated racist bullying seen in the chats.
If they were the paid management of a Premiership football team, who hated the current Chairman and actively worked to run the club down so that a consortium of their mates could take it over, losing the Champions league in the process they'd be in jail and rightly so.
A couple of hundred thousand new members, many of them young and idealistic, all desperate for something better than sleazy statecraft, neo-liberal austerity and complicity in war crimes, joined in the immediate aftermath of Corbyn becoming leader. As far as I can tell, a great many of those new people, and quite a few who were already members of Labour or associated unions, are embittered and enraged by seeing confirmation of their worst fears about what was happening, in a way that I've only ever seen once before in my life.
Their strongly held belief is that but for a few key marginals we could have had a Corbyn government in 2017, which was geniunely committed to reversing years of Tory privatisation and running down of the NHS and social care systems, and which would have reversed a generation of increasingly Kafka-eque welfare policies. They believe that we could have had three years of funding and regeneration of our public services before the COVID-19 crisis, even apart from the tens of thousands austerity was already killing.
They believe that this possibility was betrayed and traduced by a bunch of oligarch-friendly, racist bullies in their own party and they've just read a 900 page NEC document that to a great extent confirms this belief.
I don't think this can be brushed under the rug quickly. This is going to be the sort of slow burning rage that lasts for generations.
posted by Caractacus at 2:59 AM on April 16, 2020 [16 favorites]
This is an inaccurate characterisation of Ed Milliband's leadership.
I was talking about Rachel Reeves:
posted by MartinWisse at 5:23 AM on April 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
I was talking about Rachel Reeves:
"We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we're not, the party to represent those who are out of work," she said.So yes, Labour in 2015 was very much running on being 'tough' on benefits, not to mention immigration.
"Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people."
Shortly after she was appointed, Reeves warned that Labour would be tougher than the Conservatives when it came to cutting the benefits bill.
posted by MartinWisse at 5:23 AM on April 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
Just because Priti Patel's a Tory doesn't mean that saying things like this isn't also racist and sexist.
Do explain.
posted by MartinWisse at 5:24 AM on April 16, 2020 [2 favorites]
Do explain.
posted by MartinWisse at 5:24 AM on April 16, 2020 [2 favorites]
Interestingly enough, not very Corbynesque Andy Burnham felt Labour staff were sabotaging his efforts too.
posted by MartinWisse at 5:26 AM on April 16, 2020
posted by MartinWisse at 5:26 AM on April 16, 2020
I was talking about Rachel Reeves:
So two things that she said in press interviews in 2013 ("tougher than Tories" doesn't ever seen to have been mentioned after this) and 2015 (vague stuff about being for working people) are more important to your understanding of the Milliband leadership than the 2015 Labour Manifesto?
OK.
posted by howfar at 5:40 AM on April 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
So two things that she said in press interviews in 2013 ("tougher than Tories" doesn't ever seen to have been mentioned after this) and 2015 (vague stuff about being for working people) are more important to your understanding of the Milliband leadership than the 2015 Labour Manifesto?
OK.
posted by howfar at 5:40 AM on April 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
Just because Priti Patel's a Tory doesn't mean that saying things like this isn't also racist and sexist.
Do explain.
I think the implication is that a white man misspeaking as Priti Patel did wouldn't be mocked? Not sure I quite buy that (see mockery of Trump, Bush for example) and I don't think it's really comparable to the sustained pattern of abuse as "thick" Diane Abbott got in the press.
posted by Beware of the leopard at 5:47 AM on April 16, 2020 [3 favorites]
Do explain.
I think the implication is that a white man misspeaking as Priti Patel did wouldn't be mocked? Not sure I quite buy that (see mockery of Trump, Bush for example) and I don't think it's really comparable to the sustained pattern of abuse as "thick" Diane Abbott got in the press.
posted by Beware of the leopard at 5:47 AM on April 16, 2020 [3 favorites]
Just wanted to point out one thing, whilst we compare Abbott and Patel.
Diane Abbott gets 50% of all the abusive tweets that MPs are targeted with across the board. A BAME, female, left-leaning politician gets 50% of all the abuse. It's striking what an incredible outlier that figure is. Patel literally lies-by-omission to the government, and it's forgotten in hours; Abbott is still being attacked about her maths, but there is a much higher focus on race there.
It's not pithy, 'you said this and did that' abuse, it's photographs of gorillas with 'CAN'T DO MATHS' captions in all-caps Impact she gets. I saw this being reposted by local councillors (part of the revolving door of tory/ukip councillors) publicly a few years ago.
I appreciate Twitter isn't reality, but it sure feeds into reshaping it. These leaks of internal 'chats' are I guess the icebergs underneath the visible behaviours.
posted by davemee at 2:27 AM on April 17, 2020 [7 favorites]
Diane Abbott gets 50% of all the abusive tweets that MPs are targeted with across the board. A BAME, female, left-leaning politician gets 50% of all the abuse. It's striking what an incredible outlier that figure is. Patel literally lies-by-omission to the government, and it's forgotten in hours; Abbott is still being attacked about her maths, but there is a much higher focus on race there.
It's not pithy, 'you said this and did that' abuse, it's photographs of gorillas with 'CAN'T DO MATHS' captions in all-caps Impact she gets. I saw this being reposted by local councillors (part of the revolving door of tory/ukip councillors) publicly a few years ago.
I appreciate Twitter isn't reality, but it sure feeds into reshaping it. These leaks of internal 'chats' are I guess the icebergs underneath the visible behaviours.
posted by davemee at 2:27 AM on April 17, 2020 [7 favorites]
more important to your understanding of the Milliband leadership than the 2015 Labour Manifesto?
Honey, that stupid immigration controls coffee mug is more important than the 2015 Labour manifesto to understand Miliband's leadership.
All the worst people with all the worst instincts and even the prettiest manifesto in the world won't cover that up. And it was weak sauce even on its own terms.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:56 AM on April 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
Honey, that stupid immigration controls coffee mug is more important than the 2015 Labour manifesto to understand Miliband's leadership.
All the worst people with all the worst instincts and even the prettiest manifesto in the world won't cover that up. And it was weak sauce even on its own terms.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:56 AM on April 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
Well, that's certainly a thing you've asserted.
posted by howfar at 11:17 AM on April 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by howfar at 11:17 AM on April 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
The reality, of course, is that major parties under fptp are always and inevitably broad coalitions, which will manifest different aspects at different times, in response to political reality. Or, in the case of Corbyn (who I was stupid enough to vote for for leader the first time, until it became entirely apparent he was more interested in his "principles" than actually doing anything to help anyone), political unreality.
But whatever, I'm sure that your memories of what British politics is like are more accurate than my lived experience of a decade fighting austerity.
posted by howfar at 11:24 AM on April 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
But whatever, I'm sure that your memories of what British politics is like are more accurate than my lived experience of a decade fighting austerity.
posted by howfar at 11:24 AM on April 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
Throwing the election to destroy the people who oppose austerity, isn’t fighting austerity.
posted by Caractacus at 3:49 PM on April 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Caractacus at 3:49 PM on April 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
Perhaps we should consider not implying fellow MeFites were part of the appalling behavior being discussed in this post..
posted by wierdo at 4:36 PM on April 17, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 4:36 PM on April 17, 2020 [5 favorites]
Throwing the election to destroy the people who oppose austerity, isn’t fighting austerity
No. Working my guts out, day after day, for people who are being fucked by this government is, though. Fighting to actually protect people, on the ground, from the brutality of a regime that is killing people, fucking is. I'm watching people die out here, and Corbyn did fuck all to help. He pompously stuck to vote losing positions while lacking all clarity on the things we could take to the Tories. He burned bridges with people you need if you want to be an effective opposition, let alone the government. Blame the press and the saboteurs all you like. I wanted Corbyn to do a good job. I even fucking believed he would. And he let me down. Over and over again. Fuck that selfish, dimwitted, third-rate prick.
You know nothing about me. Carry on enjoying your moral superiority. I've got work to do.
posted by howfar at 5:23 PM on April 17, 2020 [8 favorites]
No. Working my guts out, day after day, for people who are being fucked by this government is, though. Fighting to actually protect people, on the ground, from the brutality of a regime that is killing people, fucking is. I'm watching people die out here, and Corbyn did fuck all to help. He pompously stuck to vote losing positions while lacking all clarity on the things we could take to the Tories. He burned bridges with people you need if you want to be an effective opposition, let alone the government. Blame the press and the saboteurs all you like. I wanted Corbyn to do a good job. I even fucking believed he would. And he let me down. Over and over again. Fuck that selfish, dimwitted, third-rate prick.
You know nothing about me. Carry on enjoying your moral superiority. I've got work to do.
posted by howfar at 5:23 PM on April 17, 2020 [8 favorites]
If only there was a leader who was both actually desiring of implementing a leftist agenda, and somehow acceptable to the right-wing of the party. I'm sure this is a real thing that exists.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:15 PM on April 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 6:15 PM on April 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
I'd settle for one who was a leftist and in any way competent, tbh.
posted by howfar at 10:42 PM on April 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by howfar at 10:42 PM on April 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
Since we're discussing the accuracy of people's "memories of what British politics is like" I've just been reminded of this twitter thread collating contemporary news stories about how, for all the good things New Labour did, it was in many ways still very right wing. Just some grim, grim stuff in there. First five examples (it's a depressingly long thread):
Jack Straw – As Home Secretary stripped refugees of benefits and made them use vouchers to buy foodposted by Beware of the leopard at 3:35 AM on April 18, 2020 [3 favorites]
Harriet Harman – Pushed through benefit cuts for single mothers in 1997 shortly after winning landslide, arguing they would help them back to work
Caroline Flint – While housing minister unveiled plan to strip unemployed council tenants of their homes
Tony Blair – Boasted that he would leave Britain with the most restrictive anti-trade union laws in the western world
David Blunkett – Introduced bill to ban asylum seekers’ children from attending state schools
Yes. Of course. Everyone on the actual left was profoundly critical of much of the New Labour project. If you want a more substantive and lasting point, we could talk about the disaster that was PFI. But your point is what, exactly? Don't you understand that it's possible to think both that New Labour failed and that the Corbyn/Momentum project failed too? If both sides are shit, don't pick one.
posted by howfar at 4:02 AM on April 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by howfar at 4:02 AM on April 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
Sorry, I think I read too much into "major parties under fptp are always and inevitably broad coalitions, which will manifest different aspects at different times, in response to political reality" as implying a kind of Third Way focus-grouped approach to politics and hence support of New Labour. From which Milliband wasn't much of a break and seems to have informed his leadership's approach to immigration.
Don't you understand that it's possible to think both that New Labour failed and that the Corbyn/Momentum project failed too?
I completely agree that Corbyn/Momentum have failed* but I think it's harder to make the case that New Labour failed (at least on its own terms). Obviously, electorally very successful. And the news stories in that thread are about the views and successfully implemented policies of the Blair/Brown governments. Of course, there's also good stuff like pretty much eliminating rough-sleeping, reduction in child poverty, national minimum wage etc.
The failure was to essentially accept Thatcher's settlement on the role of the state so it was all too easy for the Tories to undo the good that New Labour had done.
* Ironically, in large part because Corbyn and Momentum "thugs" were nothing of the sort, didn't ruthlessly purge the wreckers from the party, and had to suffer being undermined for 5 years. Corbyn becoming LOTO was a fluke and provided a brief moment of hope that a shortcut had been found to get the left into power by electoral means in the current environment. The response of the entire establishment to essentially delegitimize Corbyn clears up any illusions on that front.
posted by Beware of the leopard at 5:40 AM on April 18, 2020 [5 favorites]
Don't you understand that it's possible to think both that New Labour failed and that the Corbyn/Momentum project failed too?
I completely agree that Corbyn/Momentum have failed* but I think it's harder to make the case that New Labour failed (at least on its own terms). Obviously, electorally very successful. And the news stories in that thread are about the views and successfully implemented policies of the Blair/Brown governments. Of course, there's also good stuff like pretty much eliminating rough-sleeping, reduction in child poverty, national minimum wage etc.
The failure was to essentially accept Thatcher's settlement on the role of the state so it was all too easy for the Tories to undo the good that New Labour had done.
* Ironically, in large part because Corbyn and Momentum "thugs" were nothing of the sort, didn't ruthlessly purge the wreckers from the party, and had to suffer being undermined for 5 years. Corbyn becoming LOTO was a fluke and provided a brief moment of hope that a shortcut had been found to get the left into power by electoral means in the current environment. The response of the entire establishment to essentially delegitimize Corbyn clears up any illusions on that front.
posted by Beware of the leopard at 5:40 AM on April 18, 2020 [5 favorites]
I wasn’t speculating about you howfar. I’m sorry if it sounded like I was.
My point was more along the lines of “members of a faction so far to the right that they think Andy Burnham is a ‘trot’ are unlikely to be much help in fighting austerity”
posted by Caractacus at 12:08 AM on April 19, 2020 [3 favorites]
My point was more along the lines of “members of a faction so far to the right that they think Andy Burnham is a ‘trot’ are unlikely to be much help in fighting austerity”
posted by Caractacus at 12:08 AM on April 19, 2020 [3 favorites]
Labour party faces financial peril over leaked report
I can’t decide whether the leaker of the report is merely thick (and didn’t foresee this) or incredibly vindictive (and intended it).
in large part because Corbyn and Momentum "thugs" were nothing of the sort, didn't ruthlessly purge the wreckers from the party, and had to suffer being undermined for 5 years
Mmm. While I have to admit that Jezza does ‘saintly forbearance’ very well (something about the eyes..?), in this particular case, based on - well, everything - I’d go with a variant on Hanlon’s Razor and attribute the lack of ruthless purges to incompetence and / or powerlessness, at least as much as to high-minded restraint.
posted by inire at 4:06 AM on April 19, 2020
I can’t decide whether the leaker of the report is merely thick (and didn’t foresee this) or incredibly vindictive (and intended it).
in large part because Corbyn and Momentum "thugs" were nothing of the sort, didn't ruthlessly purge the wreckers from the party, and had to suffer being undermined for 5 years
Mmm. While I have to admit that Jezza does ‘saintly forbearance’ very well (something about the eyes..?), in this particular case, based on - well, everything - I’d go with a variant on Hanlon’s Razor and attribute the lack of ruthless purges to incompetence and / or powerlessness, at least as much as to high-minded restraint.
posted by inire at 4:06 AM on April 19, 2020
Labour denies report police called in after alleged death threats
Labour has denied a report that it has called in the police after death threats were allegedly made to staff named in the leaked report into the party’s handling of the antisemitism crisis under Jeremy Corbyn.posted by Joe in Australia at 9:52 PM on April 27, 2020
Party officials were also said to have also been in contact with social media companies asking them to take down copies of the dossier after more than 30 individuals named online said they would sue over data protections breaches.
The Sunday Mirror reported that a member of Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) had confirmed to them that police had been brought in to probe threats and abuse directed at both former and current staff members.
« Older it's just wood, and paint, and damage | #sixfanarts Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The Judean People's Front!
posted by Freelance Demiurge at 9:55 PM on April 14, 2020 [41 favorites]