Neil G

Well, some Tories were worrying that their messaging had been too effective. Looks like they’re trying to put that right.

Greens moving in on it already. https://mobile.twitter.com/sianberry/status/1259082513701654529

The proposal itself is weak and will do very little to help private renters who’ve been hit by the crisis. I set out two alternative policy proposals in my post, Labour could have advocated either of these or something else with more ambition, and gone with a major media blitz on it: interviews, articles, Facebook and YouTube ads, petitions, a press conference with Starmer and Debonnaire, try to get a campaign going with the likes of Shelter and local renters’ groups. Then follow it up repeatedly at PMQs and every other opportunity in Parliament. That kind of sustained visible pressure is how oppositions get governments to change course, not with a few well-honed questions once a week in an empty Commons chamber.

Really weak response from Labour to the looming private rent arrears crisis. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/08/labour-extension-emergency-rent-protections-housing Two years is nowhere near enough time to pay back the arrears. Millions of private renters are struggling or failing to make ends meet as it is. Having to pay back accrued arrears in such a short space of time on top of their rent and other outgoings will be impossible, especially with so many going into debt through the furlough scheme and the economy set to flatline for years to come. If the government is determined that landlords don’t take a hit from this then it should be covering the rent of everyone unable to pay, and if not writing it off altogether then at least deferring repayments until after the economy has recovered and spreading them over a longer period to make them manageable. This is another issue the Tories will only make concessions on if Labour go big on the injustice of the situation and vocally demand bold solutions. Even if the Tories don’t give any ground then at least Labour will have marked themselves out as being on the side of ordinary working people, which will matter come election time. Private renters are part of Labour’s core vote. If Labour don’t fight for them that’s another group they’ll end up losing.

He didn’t officially put himself forward I don’t think? He was riding high after leading the Leave campaign to victory. Polls showed him as the favourite among Tory party members, he’d given them the thing they wanted more than anything else and they loved him for it. He probably would have got fewer nominations from MPs than May, but assuming he finished second to get onto the members’ ballot - and I don’t see how he wouldn’t have given it was Leadsom in the end - he’d have won. We saw in the general election what a hopeless campaigner May was, completely lacking in charisma, warmth or debating ability. He’d have wiped the floor with her.

Mad that today was supposed to be the day that the next general election after this one was held. So much has happened since, it feels like another universe. All kinds of what ifs in the past five years, most of them hinging on individual decisions and/or close contests, any one of which could have taken UK politics in a profoundly different direction: - Corbyn fails to get on the ballot for Labour leader in 2015 - Remain wins the referendum - Johnson runs for Tory leader after Cameron quits (I reckon he’d have won comfortably) - Corbyn throws in the towel after the 2016 coup - Owen Smith beats Corbyn (the least likely of these imo) - May doesn’t call snap election in 2017 - May calls election, avoids dementia tax debacle and increases her majority - Corbyn agrees to October 2019 GE, leaving Johnson to run with no-deal Brexit as his main policy Chaos with Ed Miliband indeed.

I was originally going to post that it seems to be anything associated with Corbyn that you want to throw out, but didn’t as I thought it would come across as snarky. You’ve said it yourself though. I think it’s an overreaction. Formby may well have done a shit job in the campaign for all I know, I’m not saying she didn’t. I’m not presenting the anecdotes as evidence that she didn’t, I’m doing it to question your assertion that she must have done. I’d be genuinely interested to hear why you think she did a bad job on antisemitism in light of the leaked report, as it has implications far beyond her own individual performance, but fair enough if you don’t want to as yes, it will probably turn into another boring shitfest. The investigation into the report will hopefully cast more light on who did and didn’t do what. The reason I’ve been going in to bat for Formby is that she’s set up to be the next target for the right of the party in their campaign to purge the left. That’s not an overreaction, it’s what they’ve wanted to do for the last five years and lots of them are completely open about it.

Has Starmer made a statement about Hancock’s disgraceful comment to Allin-Khan? He’s RTed her tweet about it, but surely it merits a direct response from him?

Yes, the idea that Labour under Corbyn ignored this demographic doesn’t hold water. The policy chief’s allusion to public opinion-led policymaking isn’t promising, ditto her “fund less of X so we can fund more of Y” thinking. Big Miliband era vibes there.

I didn’t say you hold either of them solely responsible. I’ll expand on my post by reiterating what you said in your reply: you think that Corbyn was very clearly the most important factor in the scale of the defeat, which is backed up by polling (obviously I agree). This being the case, you’ve attached too much blame to Formby. You’ve gone further than just saying she has some responsibility for the scale of the defeat, you’ve implied that her contribution to it was important enough that Labour need to avoid appointing a replacement like her, whatever that means. If you’ve got evidence that she fucked up that badly then by all means present it, but I’m not aware of any, and if it had happened I would fully expect the right of the party to have laid it all out by now to discredit a GS they’ve clearly wanted rid of. The communication and the messaging for the campaign were terrible, but Milne and Murphy will bear much more responsibility for that than Formby. Formby will have been ultimately responsible for the deployment of staff resources during the campaign, and the management of this was poor in places - Section has referred to this - but this is as much the responsibility of regional organisers as it is of Labour HQ. I’ve heard anecdotally that some regional office staff seemed uninterested in supporting campaigns in certain constituencies, the way they were in 2017 when there was a clear wrecking effort being undertaken by the right. It seems highly plausible to me that there were some holdovers among party staff two years later who would still have been determined to stop Corbyn becoming PM, or at least not go all out to make it happen. Any assessment of Formby’s performance as GS in the campaign has to take account of this possibility. You’re taking a baby and bathwater approach to the defeat. You’ve picked up a bunch of unrelated factors, implied that because the defeat was so terrible they must all be responsible for it in some way, and argued that they all need to be dispensed with. Using that logic you might as well say we should get rid of Starmer as leader, as he was the driver of the Brexit policy which was clearly a factor in the defeat and which will still be a live issue at the next election - the Tories will make sure it is and the Lib Dems will most likely make it one too. (I don’t think we should get rid of him, just using the example to illustrate the point).

I assumed by “another Formby” AoT meant someone prepared to work with and support the leadership rather than actively undermine it if it’s too left-wing for their liking. Not sure why you’re blaming Formby for the scale of the defeat when you’ve been adamant it was Corbyn’s disastrous leadership that did for Labour. GS is appointed by a vote of the NEC. Stand by for more infighting over the timetable for the appointment, i.e. whether it happens before or after the full NEC elections in the summer.

I wish I’d bookmarked all the tweets from the last five years saying “imagine the reaction if Corbyn / Labour had done this” in response to the latest piece of Tory shithousery. The thread would be epic.

Is it such a high price to pay for the safety of two universes?

Forget Berlin, as soon as this is over Rico’s heading straight for Spain with a bunch of flowers and a guitar. Hope you’ve got a balcony in your gaff Jairz.

I would think the reasoning for a lot of people is “yes they got off to a bad start but they’re working hard to put things right.” The current reality is that a majority of people in the country don’t as yet have first or second hand experience of serious or fatal cases of the virus. They won’t have family, close friends or colleagues who’ve either been victims or have witnessed it up close as frontline workers. They’re therefore unaware of the multiple government failings in resourcing and supporting the NHS and care system to deal with the pandemic. And they certainly won’t be hearing about them in any meaningful way from the media. Labour’s low key approach is a factor here, I don’t see that there’s any getting away from that regardless of whether it’s the right long term strategy politically for them. The one government measure that everyone is aware of is the lockdown, and that continues to enjoy widespread support. I can only see their ratings falling significantly if they’re perceived to ease it too early and there’s a serious spike as a result, or if there’s an absolutely calamitous error or scandal which the media can’t possibly downplay.

Very disturbing article about lack of workers’ rights regarding protection from infection. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/dont-buy-the-lockdown-lie-this-is-a-government-of-business-as-usual/ If Labour aren’t going to go on the offensive about the Tories’ handling of the pandemic itself, they should be kicking up a stink about this. The Tories never concede ground on this issue through discussion and gentle persuasion, it always takes public pressure and vocal criticism. And if Labour are scared of the pushback they might get for standing up for the workers keeping the country going, what are they good for?

Hahahaha. https://mobile.twitter.com/mikewizz1960/status/1256859208273858561 I don’t know how to embed tweets / videos, can somebody do the honours.

No, it’s a bit more complicated than that. The term Zionism, dating from the late 19th century, originally meant the belief that the Jewish people should have a secure homeland in the historical land of Israel where they could be free from persecution. Supporters of that idea still use the term Zionist to describe themselves, including people who are highly critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Since the creation of the state of Israel it’s also been increasingly used as an insult by critics / opponents of Israel who say Zionism is a racist undertaking which deprives the Palestinian people of their right to land and self-determination. Whether you can have some arrangement in Israel/Palestine that meets the first definition without meeting the second is a subject of ongoing debate. As well as different meanings used by pro- and anti-Zionists, there have always been lots of different conceptions of Zionism held by Zionists themselves. Some don’t even see an official state of Israel as being necessary, while at the other extreme some think the state of Israel should encompass the entire biblical land of Israel which includes the Palestinian territories. It’s a complicated and emotive subject which is made even more problematic by the inflammatory use of language that surrounds it.

I assumed Rotpeter’s post that you replied to was made in the context of the investigation, i.e. Starmer is prepared to brush this under the carpet because he didn’t care about the left’s reaction.

It’s not about left or right, it’s about impartiality in carrying out the investigation. Selecting someone who’s publicly endorsed factionally motivated statements from one of the main people implicated in the scandal calls this into question.

Assuming the WhatsApp messages are confirmed as authentic - and that surely has to be one of the first things for the panel to ascertain - the individuals responsible will be expelled from the party if they’re still members. If that doesn’t happen it’ll tear the party apart and could easily bring Starmer down. Not even the most obstinate or out of touch NEC members can fail to see that. Beyond that I expect there will be efforts to prevent anything else of significance coming to light, especially deeper structural issues about party organisation, complaints handling and misuse of funds.

Jon Lansman and Rachel Garnham from the NEC saying that Starmer and Rayner presented the four names as a fait accompli allowing no time for background checks. Direction of travel seems pretty clear here. Members will be key in holding the party to account and making sure this is dealt with properly. Another reason why people on the left need to stay and fight.

Not such an independent investigation then. Three of the four are Labour peers. Wilcox retweeted Laura Kuenssberg quoting Iain McNicol celebrating the departure of Corbyn. This isn’t going to end well is it.

Johnson is at least as likely as Starmer to lead his party into the next election. The moment of truth will be after the pandemic is over and the focus turns to the public inquiry. If Starmer doesn’t push hard for an effective independent one then there’s really no point having an official opposition. If he does the Tories and the media will throw everything they’ve got at him and it’ll be a completely different ball game to the polite civilised discussion he’s promoting now.

How did that work? The other two candidates were women.