Unsurprising

 From the Guardian:

The Observer understands that as well as backing away from its £28bn a year commitment on green investment (while sticking to the overall drive to achieve clean energy by 2030), Labour will not seek to legislate on the creation of a new national care service in its first king’s speech.

Instead, it will focus on a fair pay agreement for care workers as well as issues of recruitment and retention, as part of a wider workers’ rights bill. Its plans for a complete overhaul of social care will, however, be presented as a longer-term mission taking at least 10 years and two parliaments.

In addition, despite Keir Starmer’s previous promises to abolish the Lords in a first term, it is expected to commit only to limited changes. This is likely to mean legislating only for the abolition of the remaining 91 hereditary peers.

Starmer appears to be on a mission to underwhelm and disappoint our (already very low) expectations.

Keir Starmer's abstract thinking

The grey man of British politics ... Original picture, ITV News

Anushka Asthana has written a generally favourable profile of Keir Starmer in the Guardian.  It is lightweight stuff, pandering to the typical Guardianista, though reading between the lines one can - perhaps - detect Asthana's frustration at the weak porridge Starmer serves up.

This, in particular, stuck out:

For many, growth is a longer-term solution, so what about other more immediate choices, such as taxing people’s wealth? I turned back to Blair, reading this quote: “It’s not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.” Did he disagree with that?

“No,” Starmer responded without hesitation about Beckham or a similarly rich footballer today. “I don’t disagree with that.”

But if you are prime minister, I went on, would you want to take more money from the super-rich (non-doms aside) and redistribute it to the poorest? Again, a “no”, without hesitation. “That isn’t how I want to grow the economy.”

Starmer argued that while, of course, Labour believes in redistribution: “I don’t think redistribution is the sort of one-word answer for millions of people across the country”.

So what is his multi-word answer for those struggling millions?

Dignity and respect.  

I kid you not.

He spoke of the dignity and respect of skilled work. “So I’m afraid if it’s just redistribution, I think that fundamentally disrespects people.”

 So all Starmer has to offer the working class is ... abstract nouns.

Its barely disguised Thatcherism, with 'dignity' and 'respect' of 'skilled work' hinting at their evil twins - the undignified, unrespectable spectacle of unskilled work or - Heaven forbid - unemployment.   Politically, we're a cat's conscience away from the least dignified and most unrespectable part of society - Daily Mail caricatures of dole bludgers.  I suspect many people struggling to make ends meet will take the 'disrespectful' benefits of redistribution, Keir.

(It is no surprise that Peter Mandelson also appears, like some grisly revenant, shaking his chains and gibbering.)

Mandelson's influence on Starmer is manifest.  Asked about the Hartlepool byelection defeat Labour suffered under his leadership, he responds by invoking the 2019 General Election, rather explaining how his party lost a byelection in 2021:

“When the electorate reject you as badly as they did in 2019, you don’t look at the electorate and say: ‘What are you thinking?’ You look at yourself and change the party.”

While he makes the usual noises about the futility of opposition, he neglects the salient lesson.  The 'moderate' wing of the Labour Party squandered a brilliant opportunity after the 2017 General Election.  They couldn't bear the fact the membership wanted Corbyn as leader.  Applying his own logic for a moment, the electorate rejected the 'moderate' candidates twice.  Decisively.  But the anti-Corbyn faction (the party) didn't change.  They simply set out punish the membership for making the wrong choice.

Conservative MP, Chris Skidmore resigns

Citing concern over expanding oil and gas exploitation. From The Guardian:

“I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm. To fail to act, rather than merely speak out, is to tolerate a status quo that cannot be sustained. I am therefore resigning my party whip and instead intend to be free from any party-political allegiance.”

Even Tories are starting to get it.

He's also resigning from parliament, triggering a byelection (the EIGHTH in a year); obviously, with a general election expected at some point this year (and absolutely no later than the 28th of January 2025).  Presumably, he looked at the opinion polls and figured he didn't have much chance of avoiding ignominious defeat and decided to resign on principal rather than be obliterated in the coming route.

One assumes he has a fairly lucrative exit strategy, as most MPs who decided to fall upon their swords do; but, never-the-less, he's acting on principal and forgoing a year's pay in in a pleasant sinecure.

May election in Britain?

The Guardian has a space filling piece about the possibility of a May election for Britain.

This bit caught my eye:

If he fails to call an election in May, Labour may start to spread the narrative that Sunak is a “bottler” and “squatting” in Downing Street, which were the tactics used by the Conservatives against Gordon Brown in 2009 and 2010.

I would hope not.  Short sighted political opportunistic point scoring always comes back to bite the left.

The British Prime Minister is not elected directly.  As long as they have the confidence of parliament and can remain in office until the end of the parliamentary term.

It was wrong and irresponsible of the right to attack Brown's tenure and it would be wrong to make similar insinuations about Sunak.

If Labour think Sunak does not enjoy the confidence of parliament they can demonstrate this by tabling a confidence motion.  They will, of course, lose because the conservatives have an 80 seat majority and turkeys are unlikely to vote for Christmas so soon after the festive season.

If Labour were to run a negative 'squatter' campaign it will legitimise future campaigns against Labour leaders.  And the right tend to be better at these, as they are more ruthless and fundamentally don't care about damaging the institution of government.  Every sneer about 'bottling' or 'squatting' will be repeated and amplified when the appropriate time comes.

Things We Already Knew - Jonathan Freedland is a Pillock

 Jonathan Freedland uses the fall of Boris Johnson to continue to fight two wars that any sane, non-obsessed man would have put behind him.  In an article titled Everything Tainted By Johnson's Lies Needs To Be Undone, he first decides 2022 is CLEARLY the most opportune time to have another go at Jeremy Corbyn and the buffoons who made him leader:

In 2019, it put to the electorate an alternative to Johnson who, by every possible data point, was shown losing and losing badly. By sticking with Jeremy Corbyn in the face of all that evidence, Labour flung the door of Downing Street wide open for Johnson and all but ushered him in.

No, Jonno.  YOU and your Guardianista, relentless anti-Corbynista partisans in the media flung the doors of Downing Street open to Johnson and ushered him in, because you would rather see that happen than see Corbyn win.

Don't try to shift the blame to the Labour membership who elected Corbyn leader twice - remember it is THEIR PARTY, you arrogant prick.  If you don't like their choices, feel free to join the Tory Party, or perhaps the Lib Dems - where you might feel comfortable as you (like them) like to enable Conservative governments.

Given your bully pulpit in the Guardian you COULD have supported the Corbyn project and helped 'usher in' a social democratic government that might have made things a bit better for the people of Britain.  Instead, you and your trendy journo mates and buddies in the rightwing of the Labour Party opted to torpedo the leader of the Labour Party.

And when your first attempt to do it failed, you redoubled your efforts and the result was an 80 seat conservative majority.  Which you clearly preferred - since you've never said so much as "Aw, rats, that sucks!"

Now, years later, instead of hanging your head in shame when you look at the consequences of your decisions back in 2017 you indulge in a spot of victim blaming, telling the membership they were too stupid and short sighted to see what was obviously going to happen.

Yeah, maybe.  Perhaps they were foolish thinking the right wing of the Labour party might tolerate a left wing leader.

I don't think you are stupid, by the way.  You knew what you were doing and could clearly see what was going to happen, and did it anyway.

The other war Freedland is still fighting the apparently unending attempt to turn back time and undo Brexit.  He is pretty explicit about the, not pining in maudlin mode for the good old days of ever closer union: "Surely, a country will lose faith in the product it bought when the man who sold it to them has been exposed as a fraud."

Mate, this is your delusions speaking again.  Boris Johnson did not "sell" Brexit to the British people.  They voted for it in 2015, remember.  He wasn't Prime Minister then.  He wasn't even the NEXT Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister who oversaw the crucial preliminaries, or triggered Article 50.  He was a part of the Leave campaign but only one - to characterise him as the one who "sold" Brexit to the public signals a height of delusion on Freedland's part that is almost Johnsonesque.  the arrogant assumption of superior insight and dismissal of those silly little people - with their Jeremy Corbyn and their Brexits - makes you wonder if Mr Freedland and Mr Johnson are not, in fact the same person.

But Freeland's bonkers narrative requires a magical re-writing of the past just like he had to re-write history to blame 209 on Corbyn and the dim witted members of the Labour party, and not the intractable MPs and journalists who set out to destroy him.  Somehow, the collapse of the Johnson administration negates the referendum, the 2019 election somehow means all that history can be undone.  Jonno, mate, the reason there are people saying leaving the EU was a mistake is the same reason they were saying we should leave in the first place - because they are unhappy with the way things are and are looking for a panacea or at least something to blame.

But like the pillock you are you think people being unsatisfied with life in general means they actually support your pet cause.  they don't, you sheltered Guardian column writing pillock.  They are fucked off because life is shit and it is shit for a lot of people all around the world and it is likely going to stay shit for a long time leaving the EU was only a teeny-tiny contributing factor to that shitness.  It didn't cause Russian to invade Ukraine, it didn't cause Covid, it didn't cause climate change, it didn't cause the cost of living crisis or the breakdown in the NHS or social services or fear of crime or mental health issues.

But YOU, by helping sabotaging a decent prospect of getting a half decent leftish government into Downing Street - by helping sell Johnson to the British public by focusing your energies on destroying Corbyn - did contribute more than any decent person should to some of those festering cankers.

You, Sir, helped bring all this about.  You are tainted by Johnsonism.  So hang your head in shame, or fuck off.

Dear striking British workers: F___ You! Love, the Labour Party

 From the desk of Keir "Patriotic Duty" Starmer:

“We have robust lines. We do not want to see these strikes to go ahead with the resulting disruption to the public. The government have failed to engage in any negotiations.

“However, we also must show leadership and to that end, please be reminded that frontbenchers including [parliamentary private secretaries] should not be on picket lines. 

 “Please speak to all the members of your team to remind them of this and confirm with me that you have done so.”

 So, yeah, there you have it.  Adulate the queen and to Hell with the revolting proles.  It's satirically hilarious but unfortunately true.  We must tug the forelock to the monarch, because she's a nice old bird who has been around forever; we must not do anything as vulgar as acknowledge the historical roots of the Labour PArty in the union movement or show solidarity with workers in general.

Because that might make Labour less electable and thus jeopardise the job security of Mr Starmer and his allies.  Lenin wrote about the aristocracy of labour - the privileged workers in the developed world who were bribed with the 'overflow' of profits from low wage exploitation in the developing world, and so politically neutered and inclined to support the ruling class.  Here we've got the aritstocracy of Labour - lead by a genuine knight, no less! - marshalling the supposed parliamentary champions of the workers against the workers.

And so much for freedom of conscience or association.  Apparently not a concern in the Starmerite Labour party.

Schadenfreude

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed the irony of Boris Johnson's desperate attempts to cling onto power.

I recall, almost immediately after Jermey Corbyn was elected, a bunch of memes based on the WW2 film Downfall, associating the mild manner Jermey Corbyn with Hitler in his final, lunatic delusional days, desperately trying to summon up armies that did not exist to resist the unstoppable hordes.

I am old enough to recall the aftermath of the 2010 election (after all I was blogging on a semi-regular basis then!) when people were gloating about how Gordon Brown would have to be dragged out of Downing Street, kicking and screaming, of course, in the end, Brown walked out of Downing Street having willingly pulled the plug on the Lib Dems attempts to try to wring concessions out of him he could not give.  

(His successor, of course, rather made a mess of things by making concessions he did not imagine he would ever have to give, only to find events have a way of blowing things up in your face, which is how we ended up with Brexit.  And Boris Johnson.  Cheers, Call Me Dave!)

Johnson, of course is a huge fanboy for Churchill, so it is bemusing to see him casting himself in the Hitler role, as his premiership enters in berserk bunker phase.

Go Away, You Ghastly Little Power Kissing Pipsqueak

 This makes me want to puke:

The Jubilee weekend isn’t just an opportunity for us to reflect on the 70 years since Her Majesty’s accession to the throne – although it will, of course, be that.

And it isn’t simply a chance for a country wearied by the extraordinary circumstances of the last few years to let its hair down – although it is, of course, your patriotic duty to do just that.

No, the first Platinum Jubilee in our nation’s history is a chance to celebrate a truly extraordinary Queen, to reflect on the difference she has made to her country and to consider what our Elizabethan age has meant – and what it will mean for our future.

This isn't Jacob Rees-Mogg or some other doublebarrelled myopic inadequate with a delusions as to wqhat century they exist in.  It's Keir Starmer the leader of the Labour Party and he's writing in The Telegraph.  The f%#king Telegraph.

The long process that began with Starmer's immediate post-election repudiation of the Corbynist legacy that he claimed to endorse while campaigning has been completed.  The Leader of the Labour Party is writing fawning pro-Royalist bilge in the most reactionary newspaper in the country and telling people how to be British, and implying that anyone who doesn't join him in an orgy of monarchist masturbation is unpatriotic.

There were so many signposts along the way - the refusal to support Rebecca Long-Bailey, the dishonest cliam that Corbyn's banishment was prompted by the EHRC report, every piece of 'alignment' with Johnson and the Conservative massif in the name of 'electability.'  Those were more important betrayals than this sickening piece of fawning he's penned.

But sometimes it's the symbolic moments that give the most clarity.

Conservative peer wants us all dead

 Says it all, really:

Lord Frost, who has led negotiations with the EU, is reported to have handed in his resignation letter to Boris Johnson last week. But the Mail on Sunday reported he had been persuaded to stay on until January.

The newspaper reported it was the introduction of plan B coronavirus measures, including the implementation of Covid passes, that prompted Lord Frost’s decision. It also said he had become disillusioned by tax rises and the cost of net zero policies.

He's essentially resigning because he's opposed to trying to stop people dying from COVID, having to pay more tax because of the costs associated with COVID and climate change response / mitigation.

In other words, he's happy for us all to suffer and die if it means his 'liberty' (i.e. wealth and associated privilege) are not impinged upon.

Because generally the wealthy will not have as rough a time of COVID - or climate change - as the rest of us.  Their privilege will insulate them from - more or less - from the ravages of the pandemic, in either the economic or health spheres.  They won't be stacked up in NHS hospitals, or struggling to find mney to pay rent, or worrying about their businesses collapsing.  Their main concern will be wether the bloody lockdowns or travel restrictions or - shudder - vaccine passports will affect their God given right to do whatever they bloody well choose.

Nor will climate change hurt them too much.  Again, wealth, power and privilege will insulate them and the won't be sweltering in poorly ventilated housing, or made homeless by flooding, or face the prospect of their home becoming worthless in the face of coastal erosion.  And they obviously aren't too bothered about the likelihood of it harming the prospects of their grand children or great grandchildren - so much for wealth cascading down the generations.  Because they are absolutely selfish.

Living history

 Boris Johnson is fond of history - the boyish, fun bits about wars, Empire and plucky Brits winning against the odds and what not.  He particularly fond of Winston Churchill and really, really fond of matching himself up against Winston Churchill.

Only, he is comparing himself to the wrong World War 2 Prime Minister.

Today over a hundred of his MPs voted against him, on the absurdly important issue of How We Stop People Dying Of COVID.  Which - since we're talking about Johnson here, never one to miss a chance point to history and claim he's somehow being Churchillian - smells a bit like the Norway vote.  Though Chamberalin won the vote, the rebellion undermined his authority and he felt he could not continue as Prime Minister.  So he resigned which resulted in Churchill becoming PM.

Only, of course, Johnson is in the role of Chamberlain here, not Churchill.  Though it is doubtful that he has the wit, honour or decency to follow Chamberlain's lead and step down when faced with the reality that he is not up to the job.

British Labour take a 9 point poll lead

From Opinium, reported in the Guardian.  This, the Guardian is at pains to point out is the biggest lead the party has enjoyed since 2014 or (as they might have preferred to put it since Before Corbyn.

You have to wonder how Labour might have done in 2017 or even 2019 if the right wing of the party had not spend four years trying to assail the hapless and affable Mr Corbyn, and instead directed their energy towards getting a Labour government elected.

Also described by the Guardian, the Lib Dems (remember them?) are threatening a Ribble Valley style upset in the absurdly conservative seat of North Shropshire.

I am horrified to realise I am old enough to remember Eastbourne and Ribble Valley - two glorious by election victories of thirty years ago, where the Lib Dems overturned massive Tory majorities in traditional Blue seats.  The Conservatives were at the wrong end of a decade in power, seen as being in office but barely in power, lurching from crisis to crisis and facing a Labour Party that had replaced its worryingly leftwing leader with a younger, more media friendly person - in this case Neil 'father of Stephen' Kinnock.

You'll remember Stephen Kinnock as the chap who was so delighted at Labour's gutsy performance in 2017 he almost looked unhappy.

Unrestrained Joy on the faces of Stephen Kinnock and his coterie as they absorb the 2017 election result.

With self control like that, he should play poker.  No indication of the internal celebration undoubtedly going on under that worryingly smooth pate.

Of course, one should be cautious.  Following the humiliations of Eastbourne and Ribble Valley, the Conservatives won the subsequent election in 1992 and remained in power for another six years.  Neil Kinnock went off to enjoy a long career of doing obscure, but probably well remunerated, jobs in Europe, so he can probably be blamed for Brexit as well as losing the 92 election.  Starmer has a lot of work to do to convince people - on the left as well as the right - that he is worth voting for.

There is a chance of a Labour government in 2024.  It's a long road.  But the process needs to start now.  Corbyn's tenure was derailed by factionalism.  Starmer has shown himself very unwilling to heal rifts.  That will mean labour going into a future election still licking the self-inflicted wounds of 2019 and risk returning another five years of Conservative misrule.

He needs to restore the whip to Corbyn and start acknowledging the left are a valid and legitimate part of the party.  He needs to remember the galvanising effect of the 2017 manifesto, with its clarion calls for social democracy and progressive policies.  He needs to reject the bland managerialism and unconvincing attempts to portray 'quiet competence' that won't 'spook the markets.'  That's not worth voting for.  Whatever it is that made Starmer want to be a Labour Party member and fight to become Labour leader, he needs to find it again.

The anti-Semitism report and Corbyn's suspension

It seems pretty clear to me that the outpouring or rage, directed at Jeremy corbyn, following the publication of the long awaited report on anti-Semitism in the Labour party is a phoney whirlwind, a sort of twitterstorm of the mainstream.

This isn't about anti-Semitism.  This is about making sure Corbyn is left holding the blame and - taking a longer term view - the leadership of the Labour Party.

As the report confirms:

The Labour party had - prior to Corbyn - inadequate processes for dealing with anti-Semitism. I don't see any claims that he took a good system and trashed it.  This was a party that had failed ot set up adequate processes for years - years and years - before corbyn became leader.  But it only became an issue after he was elected ... hmmmmm.

Things started to get better from 2018 after Formby took over. Before that, of course, the system was over seen by the likes of McNicol and 'whistleblower' Sam Mathews, who was meant to be overseeing the response to anti-Semitism ...

(as an aside, I'm bemused by the criticism of LOTO 'interfering' with the disciplinary process to speed it up so more anti-Semites could be expelled from the party, in a report that criticises the party for not dealing with complaints swiftly enough.)

This isn't about Corbyn. He's a scapegoat for the people who set up an inadequate system to deal with anti-Semitism,then tried to weaponize it to damage the leader.

None of this needed to happen, except, from the point of view of the self-proclaimed 'centrists' it did.

If Corbyn had been left to his own devices, he would probably have been leader for 3 years, stepping aside before the putative 2020 election to let someone younger and less controversial take over. In all probability, he'd have been content to see through the 'McDonnell amendment' so the left would always have been able to field a candidate.

Instead, the 'centrists' of the party decided to make a fight of it. You will recall they started tweeting their resignations and refusal to serves during his victory speech. No "Well, let's see where he's going with this" - just straight in with the attempts to sabotage his leadership, from the get-go. Then there was the conspiring, the planned rebellion before the referendum, the Chicken Coup, the second leadership contest, the deliberate breaking of the discipline system with the intention of making the party look anti-Semitic and so on, all sauced with briefings and leaking and so on, which the rightwing media lapped up and which the Labour 'centrists' were too dim-witted to think 'why?'

So instead of May trundling along with the majority she inherited from Cameron until 2020 and suffering the same fate as John Major, we had the 'blood in the water' election intended to finish Labour off, which instead broke May's government. Then suddenly Corbyn looked potentially electable - so the campaign intensified, culminating in the 2019 election and the election of a thumping Conservative majority.

The concern for the 'centrists' was that Corbyn would stand down to be replaced by an ideological soul-mate.  So getting rid of corbyn wasn't the point.  The point was to get rid of him and make sure no-one from the left ever wanted to be Labour leader again.  So the demonisation and the undermining was ramped up, resulting in the disaster of 2019.

That's all down to the 'centrists' and their dim-witted 'grown up' politics. I hope they are pleased with what they achieved.

Though I suspect they actually are - leftists will look at how Corbyn was monstered and think twice about standing for the leadership, even though they know they will be in with a good shout. Because who would want to go through what Corbyn was put through, and is still being put through, by the right wing media and their enablers in the Labour Party?

This isn't about anti-Semitism, or even Corbyn per se, but about showing any prospective leftwing leadership candidate what they are in for.

The 'centrists' can't win under one-person-one-vote, so they are making sure no-one from the left will ever want to be Labour leader again. 

Johnson spreads the blame

 Apparently, the resurgence of Covid-19 is down to the British people getting 'complacent':

In total, at least 16.8 million people in the UK - about one in four people - face extra coronavirus measures on top of the national rules, including two-thirds of people in the north of England.

The prime minister, who has been speaking to BBC journalists from around the country, denied that a lack of testing in north-east England had caused the virus to get out of control in the region.

That's not the reality… the nation came together in March and April, what happened over the summer was a bit of sort of fraying of people's discipline and attention to those rules," he said.

Nah, Boz.  this one is down to you.

 You failed to take obvious, timely measures.  You failed to provide effective leadership.  You didn't manage to get a clear message out.  You and your cabal of goons and carpetbaggers and borderline sociopaths didn't stick to the rules you did come up with.

People died.  Tens of thousands of them.  Because you got it wrong.

You had TWO chances to get it right.  You blew both of them.

To nick something from Oscar Wilder, to screw up the biggest challenge of your premiership once could be regarded a misfortune; screwing it twice looks like carelessness.

Left Out - a serial review

 So, a few weeks ago a book was published, under the title of Left Out.  It was written by Graham Pogrund and Patrick Maguire and purported to tell the tale of Corbyn's leadership from its zenith in June 2017 to the disaster of December 2019.

I hadn't been terribly interested in reading it, frankly, because of some of the immediate media coverage had suggested it was going to be something of a Corbyn bash.  Hell, the Daily Mail got into a lather about it, though I won't link to their write ups.

Then I happened upon Pogrund's twitter account and I thought, "Well, he might work for Rupert Murdoch, but that doesn't sound too bad."  So I acquired a electronic copy of it and will now treat you - my riveted readers - an occasional chapter-by-chapter summary of it.

So now ...

THE PROLOGUE

This is very interesting.  Obviously, I am pro-Corbyn and am mostly interested in things that show him to be the luckless victim of the 'centrists' in Labout who thought they new better than the leader of the party and the membership who elected him (twice.)  But I'll try to be honest and reflect the opinions of the writers.

I am glad to report the opening pages offer plenty of rick pickings.

It opens - almost inevitably - at the moment of neesis, as the exit poll is announced on the 12th of December, 2019, and whatever hopes Labour supporters had of a repetition of the miracle of 2017 were dashed.  I was there, I remember how it felt.  The authors note - without comment - that Corbyn was viewing the exit poll at the offices of a charity called Freedom From Torture.  Perhaps, after the travails of the past few years, that was appropriate.

The authors note that Corbyn's inner circle had been aware they were up against it for sometime - that the grim, static polls in the run up to the election were reflecting what their own polling was showing (if anything, Labour outperformed their private polling, which indicated the party would win fewer than 180 seats.)  Never-the-less, the sense of shock and misery is well described in these opening pages, and rendered sympathetically.

The prologue quickly defines the fault line at the top of the party - between Corbyn's inner circle (McDonnell, Milne, Murphy and a few others) and those who opposed him, implacably, from the start.  Here the authors do not hold back, describing the latter as "the seditious officials at party HQ."  Dwell on that word for a few moments - "seditious."  That isn't all of it.  A few lines later, they quote an email from Corbyn complaining about "self-absorbed disloyalty" following the leaking of the party's campaign grid.  Think on that - someone had opted to divulge information they were trusted with relating to the conduct of the election campaign.  This isn't small stuff.  I'm nervous of throwing words like 'treachery' around, but sabotaging your party's camapign ... what else do you call it?  Let's foll the lead of Pogrund and Maguire and call it sedition.

Later on, they hark back to the happier result of 2017, commenting how that apparent high point really marked the beginning of the decline.  Though "the Project" had earned the authority to try things its way, in the face of "two years of bitter resistance from its internal opponents" it would really be all down hill from June 2017 - "the hostility of MPs and party officials did not abate" the authors note, referring to the leaked report on anti-Semitism, cataloguing the "toxic, distrustful and openly mutinous culture of Southside".

It isn't effusively pro-Corbyn, however.  The authors do note, even ain these aearly pages, that Corbyn and his inner circle aren't blameless in their undoing and offer some wanings of what may come, commenting on the issue of anti-Semitism in ambivalent wording, "Corbyn's own stances on anti-Semitism and foreign affairs came to wreak such damage on the Project."

FOX news for Britain?

Seriously, as the BBC and the Guardian have demonstrated over the last few years, this really isn't necessary:

Rival efforts are under way to launch a Fox News-style opinionated current affairs TV station in Britain to counter the BBC. 

One group is promising a news channel “distinctly different from the out-of-touch incumbents” and has already been awarded a licence to broadcast by the media regulator, Ofcom, under the name “GB News”. 

Its founder has said the BBC is a “disgrace” that “is bad for Britain on so many levels” and “needs to be broken up”. 

A rival project is being devised in the headquarters of Rupert Murdoch’s British media empire by the former Fox News executive David Rhodes, although it is unclear whether it will result in a traditional TV channel or be online-only. 

Both are pitching to a perceived gap in the market for opinionated video output fuelled by growing distrust of the BBC among some parts of its audience, especially on the political right over culture war issues such as Brexit and whether Rule, Britannia! should be sung at the Last Night of the Proms.

Obviously, this will greatly improve the quality of journalistic discourse in Britain.

The BBC and the Guardian will doubtlessly respond to a challenge from the gutter-right by providing high quality, impartial and balanced news.

No way it would be dragged further and further to the trash heap.

We already have the Mail, which supplies plenty of bias and bile in print form.  Why the need to add 'opinionated video'; or is it a tacit admission that a substantial part of the target demographic aren't capable of reading the hate speech and propaganda of the Mail and the Sun?

I haven't gone away. Neither has this problem.

 The attempts to sabotage Corbyn's leadership seems likely to do more damage than Corbyn supposedly ever could have done, even if all the stories about him were true:

I was reluctant to say anything but this is too important, the full story needs to be told.

Don’t let anyone ever tell you anything different: without the actions of some Labour Party staff we would have won in 2017. #LabourLeaks https://t.co/8OazhNBELz

— Joe Ryle (@JoeRRyle) August 7, 2020

So, yeah, six months down the line, I'm still raging about this.  And bear in mind, gentle reader, I'm far, far removed from all this.  British politics has almost no relevance to me (though it does affect directly many of my friends and family.)  So if I am incandescent about this, think how angry people intimately involved in Labour - members and those who worked in 2017 and 2019 towards victory, not against it - must be.

Ryle's account is fascinating and depressing - how juvenile were these people, nicking off with computers and leaving offices untidy?  It almost makes you wonder if the sort of people capable of such petty spiteful acts are capable of the grander allegations against them - the alleged diversion of funds which is identified as possible fraud alleged by Corbyn and key members of his team, which even the Guardian has felt compelled to report on.

And the frankly bizarre story of the Facebook ads and promos that were prepared just for Corbyn's team to see:

Perhaps the most kafkaesque example is the bizarre story of party officials designing Facebook adverts to be seen by only Corbyn’s team. A party official helpfully explained the strategy to the Sunday Times: 

 “They wanted us to spend a fortune on some schemes like the one they had to encourage voter registration, but we only had to spend about £5,000 to make sure Jeremy’s people, some journalists and bloggers saw it was there on Facebook. And if it was there for them, they thought it must be there for everyone. It wasn’t.”

 This souns like something from the latter days of the Soviet Union, with the Great Leader being assured by his self serving toadies and placeholders that everything is being done, everything is just right and the new tractor production statistics are most impresive, as the nation collapses all around them.  Or, more pertinently, the bonkers press appearances of Donald Trump citing - apparently with complete conviction - misleading Covid data offered up by his staffers.  Only, of course, Trump wants to be told everything is awesome and rejects anything that suggests otherwise - he's a willing participant in his own deception; Corbyn and his team wanted the truth, but were being lied to by people they should have been able to trust.

If accounts like Ryle's - and the allegations in the leaked report - are true, people behind this grim farceshould be expunged from the party.  Their work contributed to the Conservatives winning a further five years in power, with the prospect of another them beyond that.

Instead, apparently, they are calling for Corbyn to be thrown out.

I was, of course, completely right - the plot against Jeremy Corbyn

The right wing of the Labour Party actually preferred the party to lose elections than see Jeremy Corbyn become Prime Minister.

This is made clear in a massive internal report that has been leaked.

It's stunning, as it reveals not just the vindictive, self-destructive madness of the supposed 'centrists' and 'pragmatists' of the party, accustomed to being in charge and reacting with fury to the discovery that they were not.

This is how they responded to the 2017 exit poll:

08/06/2017, 22:48 – Patrick Heneghan: Everyone needs to smile
08/06/2017, 22:48 – Patrick Heneghan: I’m going into room of death
08/06/2017, 22:48 – Emilie Oldknow: Everyone needs to be very up beat
08/06/2017, 22:48 – Julie Lawrence: Its hard but yes
08/06/2017, 22:52 – Iain McNicol: I’m not in smiling and mixing and doing the 2nd floor.
08/06/2017, 22:53 – Iain McNicol: Everyone else needs to do the same.  08/06/2017, 22:53 – Iain McNicol: It is going to be a long night.

It goes on an on, example after example.

They were ecstatic at the idea of Labour losing an election; they celebrated polls showing substantial Tory leads and fretted about ones that showed the gap narrowing. And when reality hit them in 2017 they were devastated:

"They are cheering and we are silent and grey faced. Opposite to what I had been working towards for the last couple of years!!"

The response of Tracey Allen to the 2017 exit poll. She's not a Tory and the people she identifies as cheering are pro-Corbyn members. She's identified in the report as 'executive assistant/office manager, general secretary’s office'.

So, what had she been 'working towards for the last couple of years'? The overwhelming defeat of the Labour Party?

I note she is now identified as an ex-Labour staffer.

Remember how we were told - repeatedly - that Corbyn and his supporters were professional protesters and campaigners and weren't really interested in winning elections? Turns out the people saying that were self describing. They weren't interested in winning; in fact, they wanted Labour to lose.

Further, the report seems to back up claims made by Jon Lansman that the anti-Corbyn faction (that maintained control of the party apparatus until 2018) neglected to take any meaningful action over anti-Semitism:

They did nothing to address what they were later to claim was an incredibly pressing and urgent issue; it's hard to escape the conclusion that this failure to act was wilful and their goal was to discredit the leader, in spite of the damage this would cause the Labour Party - in the hope of forcing Corbyn to resign, either before or after an electoral defeat.

After discovering that Corbyn wasn't the hapless mook they thought he was they concocted an active smear campaign against him, resulting in two years of constant smears and exaggerations about anti-Semitism before they finally got what they wanted.

That's the 'pragmatism' of the 'concerned' Labour centrists for you.

Keir Starmer elected

Comfortably, in the very first round, with an impressive 56% of the votes.

I wonder, did members of the Shadow Cabinet start tweeting their resignations during Starmer's victory speech, or is that only a trick the right pull?

It is odd how all the talk of how the next leader "needs to be a woman" and how the party is "too Londoncentric" and too "elitist" we've just elected a male lawyer who was born in Southwark and represents a London constituency.  I won't even mention his hue - a whiter shade of pale - I don't expect miracles.  But I think he serves as something of a rebuke to the more radical / woke / open-minded (delete according to preference) part of the party.  You can be Labour and small-c conservative as well, and the preference of the party membership for older white blokes has been made abundantly clear, everytime we've been here.  How we respond to that, I'm not sure, but you can't just wish it away.

In spite of that carping, I think Starmer will be adequate.  I don't expect miracles from him, though if Covid 19 takes off proper, he might not need one.  The political and economic landscape in a couple of years time will be utterly, utterly different to just now.  History books will perhaps congratualte Corbyn on his strategic nous in passing on winning in 2019 - can you imagine what the press would be doing to a Labour government just now, trying to deal with Covid while still getting lost on their way to their ministerial offices and forgetting which side of the House they are meant to sit on?

It will be interesting to see how Starmer adjusts his position now he's got the prize - was all that somewhat leftish talk during the campaign just a tactic to stall RLB, and will he stomp right?  Or is there a genuine, if rather paternalistic, social conscience there?

Everyone, we must be united and work together (now we've got rid of the Corbyn)

Yvette Cooper has written a piece in the Guardian outlinig 'Seven things Labour Must Do To Win The Next Election'.

I'll overlook the absurd headline - no-one is talking about Labour winning the next election and I assume that Cooper didn't write the headline (she doesn't mention winning the next election anywhere in her piece); I assume it is typically witless work by someone in the Guardian, drawing to much inspiration from the style of clickbait ads. There's enough wrong wirth what Cooper says to set that nonsense aside. She shows a spectacular lack of political self-awareness, attempts to duck all responsibility and implies everything is the fault of Corbyn and the 'narrow hard-left'; effectively continuing the condescending and arrogant attitude towards the membership.

According to Cooper, the party must:

1 Face the scale of defeat with humility.
2 Stop the factional infighting.
3 Be a party for the whole country – not just a liberal-labour party for the cities.
4 Learn to love the achievements of the last Labour government.
5 Be a strong and credible opposition, as well as a radical alternative government.
6 Bring kindness and integrity back into politics.
7 Get involved.

The seven basic points she makes aren't too wide of the mark - though one can't help but think 'trite' and 'obvious'.  I mean, would anyone advocate more factional infighting or call for increased unpleasantness and bitterness?

(Actually, plenty have done just that - since the December debacle I've read plenty of people demanding 'Corbynists' and 'Momentum' need to be 'eradicated' and 'driven out' of the party.  Cooper's oddly silent on that.

It is the commentary she expands them with that tastes foul. Who else but Yvette Cooper could write Labour must "Stop the factional infighting" and then continue "We cannot be a narrow hard-left party. That doesn’t reflect our values or history. Nor will we win next time if we collapse into polarised factional infighting. Parties are teams. If we can’t compromise with each other, we can’t hold any coalition of voters together"?  Remember, this is the person who refused to be part of Corbyn's cabinet - showing a distinct lack of team spirit - and And it is has only bothered to issue this fatwah on the importance of unity after Corbyn has been endured four years of undermining and back-stabbing. Strange she didn't bother to say anything before.

A more honest appraisal would have acknowledged infighting and factionalism originating on right wing of the party contributed massively to the failure of the Corbyn project, and that the party's 'establishment' never accepted the membership's choice of leader and worked to overturn it from the moment Corbyn was elected.  She does not even mention the Chicken Coup of 2016, or the rantings of Margaret Hodge and others.

(She then turns the rest of her commentary on that point into a puff piece indicating she isn't going to stand as leader this time, although people have been begging her - literally begging her - to do so. Because she knows this "isn't the time" as "there are many in our party who won’t see me as the person to pull all sides of the party together" - which isn't surprising given the attitude on display here. The implication being that she might stand next time - when the post-Corbyn leader has brought the party back to something like electability, and those pesky leftists (aka members) have been rooted out of the party.)

So not much effort to build bridges and heal there.

This is good

Still feeling very kicked in the head.  Took some time off over Christmas and New Year to think about stuff, contemplating the unthinkable idea that i might have been ... wrong.  But, after a thorough deconstruction of my cerebellum and rigorous self examination, I conclude I was not, am not.

Okay, obviously, I was wrong about the whole Labour-being-the-largest-party and the shy-Labour-voters bit, but I don't think I was wrong in y fundamental diagnosis post-election; that the catastrophe was brought about by the revolt on the right of the party, the sustained, deliberate attempts to undermine the Corbyn project and demonise a decent man.

This, from Corbyn's erstwhile spin-doctor, Marc Zarb-Cousins, shows I am not alone in thinking this:

I have been asked by some to "own" the defeat. I am happy to hold my hands up and say I misread the mood of the country. But I won't apologise for voting for the best candidate in both leadership contests, and then supporting the leader of the Labour party. I won't apologise for campaigning for a Labour government, or for working harder than I've ever worked as Jeremy's spokesperson 2016-2017. With what little profile I actually have, what did the people asking me to apologise want me to do? Did they think me using my platform to attack the leadership of the party would have made a Labour government more likely? 

People who have spent the past 4 years undermining the Labour party and the leader are now telling us to "own" this defeat, while we've been campaigning relentlessly -- in some cases for certain hostile Labour MPs who now have the temerity to say to us: "Look what you've done, this is all your fault." None of us, least of all those with a profile or a safe Labour seat, are passive observers in politics. We are all active participants, able to affect change and influence those undecided. If you've spent the past few years attacking the leadership of a political party, it's not exactly endearing to now be having a go at those people who had in the meantime been giving up their time and money to help bring about a Labour government.

He then goes on to suggest that the leadership contest will be between candidates all essentially claiming the 2017 / 19 manifesto policies.  Which is interesting as it suggests that even in their moment of triumph, the right of the party are already defeated.  The next leader will be elected by the electorate that twice voted - overwhelmingly - for Corbyn.  There will be no swing to the right.

Which will then reveal the Great Lie of 2017 and 2019.  When the new leader is monstered in the same way that Corbyn was monstered - by the right wing media and by the increasingly bitter right wing of the Labour Party - it won't be possible for them to claim that the problem was Corbyn.  We've been hearing that for four years.  It was never true.  The problem was that Corbyn challenged the hegemony of the Blairites over the party, and the policies that he put out there threatened wealth, power and privilege in Britain as a whole.  Only a tiny, tiny bit, but enough to bring down the fires of Hell upon him.

The right wing of the Labour party feared they would never get their party back (they won't) and so they were willing to crash the party and deliver the country over to Boris Johnson.  The Establishment didn't like to see their position under threat, so happily connived with them in a project that suited them even more than it suited Tony Blair and his successors.

And if Corbyn had been as hapless and hopeless as he is portrayed as he would not have been subjected to this - an epic, four year campaign of character assassination, intensifying to an unparalleled degree after 2017 when it looked like he might actually find himself in a position to do the things he said he would do.

Will the next leader be subjected to the same fire and brimstone?  Probably not.  The Conservatives probably have enough of a majority to make the next election another round of First-Past-The-Post attritional warfare.  Labour are in the position the Conservatives enjoyed in 2005 - no prospect of winning, but having to do the groundwork for the next again election.  Though a lot can happen in five years.

I think - once the dust settles a bit and the Blairite wing of the party realise that, in spite of everything, they still haven't got their party back - they may realise that they are and were the problem, not Corbyn.  They will slowly go through the process of realising that - if they ever want to taste power again - they need to actually accept the judgement of the membership and come to terms with Labour being a left wing party.

Right now they are accusing the left of being in dnial, or going through the stages of grief, or having their heads in the sand.  Truth is, it is them doing all these things, and they've been doing them since Corbyn's election in 2015.  Time for them to face up to the reality and accept it.  Theyre always going on about how to succeed in politics you need to be pragmatic, and be ready to sacrifice principles.  Always, this is directed at the 'naive' and 'idealistic' left; while the right don't budge. Well, let's see them doing some sacrificing and compromising.