Sharon Hodgson MP has written a telling account of why she quit as shadow children's minister in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow team. I recommend it.
She's not the first to have written in this way.
What she says echoes what I saw and what I've heard. And confirms that there was no chance of a team lead by Jeremy Corbyn forming an effective opposition.
That I can recall I have never met Sharon. She strikes me as precisely the sort of person who might be selected by constituencies to represent them in the future.
And it did not work.
I am sure much unfair comment has been thrown at her as a result. But those doing the throwing need to think hard.
She gave working with Corbyn a good go and could not make it work.
Will his leadership ever work in that case, however much wishful thinking is applied? Or is re-electing him a project doomed to failure that guarantees continued government by Theresa May?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Hodgson says: “As MPs such as Owen Smith, Kate Green, and Lisa Nandy left a meeting with Jeremy and resigned, it was clear that the situation had taken a turn for the worse.”
This alludes to the crux of the issue. Many MPs felt it was safer to follow the crowd.
When sufficient high-profile colleagues go, you follow in the direction where you think the wind is blowing.
The crisis is self-fulfilling: if enough people join the chorus of “untenable leadership” then you stand a good chance of *making* it untenable.
And what if it was untenable?
What if that was true?
Maybe I haven’t made my argument clear.
It’s not a question of what is “true” (partly because ‘truth’ is a dodgy concept in this context).
My point is that you can *make* something ‘true’. For example, if MPs got behind Corbyn-McDonnell and gave them a decent chance (which six months – the period after which the mass resignations occurred – certainly is not, and plotting from day one by Blairites is the antithesis of), then you can make ‘Corbyn is a great leader’ appear ‘true’.
All western intelligence agencies and mainstream politicians concurred that Saddam possessed WMD and posed an imminent threat. That made it ‘true’ and therefore invasion-occupation appeared a reasonable policy. In parliament (*not outside*), Corbyn was an outlier, a rebel against mainstream Westminster opinion. This is just one example from history illustrating that a ‘weirdo’ can be right and everyone else wrong.
Why did so many MPs (e.g. Angela Eagle, and probably Owen Smith too had he been around at the time) follow Blair and not Corbyn?
Because it feels safer to side with the powerful and mainstream, not with the ‘weirdo’ outsider.
Bernie Sanders has thrown in the towel and fallen into line.
Compared to him, Corbyn demonstrates tremendous strength of character and principle.
Ot outright and wanton recklessness based on a desire to lead a social movement that will destroy the parliamentary left – and yes, I know it has warts
Don’t bother again
I’ll off and read it now, Richard, and I dare say it’ll echo many of the points made by the ex shadow minister for transport (Nottingham South MP), consequently it’ll be dismissed by the Corbynistas as sour grapes/plotting/blairism/etc, etc. Let’s be frank, this whole episode has descended into a tragi-farce of the highest order. Some days I find myself thinking how did we get to a situation where Thatcher resigned after a vote of no confidence showed her with 54% support; Callaghan resigned with 49.9% support; and even Ian Duncan Smith resigned when “only” able to gain 45% support in a vote of no confidence. But Corbyn – 17.4% support from MPs and he continues. Of course, this can be dismissed because of his support from the membership thanks to Labour’s latest attempt to turn a political party into a social movement. But seriously, in what other walk of life would someone who lacks so much support from their colleagues be so arrogant as to continue. Oh yes, that would be an MP whose spent his life representing a safe London seat and thus never felt the need to tow the line/compromise on anything other than what he believes. Someone lucky enough to be paid a good salary to maintain his “purity” outside the system who now he’s inside that system has no idea what to do or how to do it.
I agree with you Ivan
There is literally nowhere else where this could happen
But it is
He doesn’t seem that interested in money for its own sake though, going by his expenses. If it’s money that’s his motivation, he has a strange way of showing it.
No one says he is interested in money
He clearly is not
He is interested in a form of power that is contemptuous of parliamentary democracy
MPs’ are elected.
By people: voting.
MPs’ are picked by committees separate from those people.
People are voting not for “their” representative but one picked for them by people who consider him/her will represent the views of those who picked the MP, not necessarily the people.
Labour “sowed” the seed of Corbyn-politics by largely ignoring people, and largely ignoring socialist policies, in favour of building a system.
They became indistinguishable from the conservative party.
Well, Corbyn has a very sizeable following of ordinary people, going not by news items of newspapers, (which are trying their best to ignore Corbyn, and thereby displaying that they are controlled) but by internet news from various sources.
By ignoring people, labour has shot itself in the foot….
The conservatives never made that mistake, they represent their followers.
Seemingly, the “Corbyn effect” is a classic case of labour quite simply counting the chickens not only before the eggs are hatched, but before they were even laid.
Arrogance has caught-up with them.
Going by CLP meetings, it looks like the central planners may meet a host of “we don’t want your implanted mummies-friend MP anymore, we want one we picked” CLP decisions soon.
It seems…we have a divide between what people (or some people) want, and what the “parliamentarians” say we shall have.
I remain puzzled by your disdain for people (or some people) and their choice/s?
Interestingly, and yet to hit the fan, a large international company is presently quietly removing all data stored in the UK about its business over to the EU….one suspects that quite a few will follow…
I have no such disdain
I have disdain for a party leader who thinks that parliament is not the focus of our democracy
It is, and it has to be
And I have massive problems with a leader who can’t lead
Please don’t get my position wrong
I am entirely happy with local parties having a say and the LP has clearly got some candidate selections wrong
But that’s not the big issue here
https://medium.com/@ROY_MADRON/the-corbyn-model-of-leadership-a7a006405f27#.5vqi9lveq. A good read regarding leadership.
Sorry Carol but thus assumes large numbers of people with vast amounts of time are available to do this
I wholly agree it can work locally
But not more broadly
And definitely not conceptually
If it could Labiur would nit be in the mess its in, for a start
It’s “toe the line”.
To which the right response is ‘you are a pedant’
I don’t know about the alleged poor communication between Leadership and PLP and I share your concerns about the failure to follow up on a solid economic plan when so much good will was on offer but I wrote this on my FB page on 23rd July in response to allegations about Labour’s supposedly “poor performance” and I think it addresses Sharon Hodgson’s incorrect claims in that area:
“The month before Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party, in September 2015, it’s worth remembering that Labour were a staggering 14 points behind the Conservatives in the polls. Just before the PLP chicken coup, Labour were actually ahead in the polls… Remarkable success surely?
Labour’s Sadiq Khan was elected Mayor of London in May 2016, beating Conservative Zac Goldsmith by a monster 13.6%.
With the local council elections, the BBC projected national vote share (if the results were repeated at a general election) Labour would be 1% ahead of the Conservatives. The Conservatives lost more council seats than Labour… four times as many actually.
The Brexit Referendum? Alan Johnson remarkably had the chutzpah to blame Corbyn for the “leave” result but in reality Labour got 65% of their constituency out for “Remain” – The Conservatives only managed 40%. Digest that. Jeremy Corbyn made five times more public appearances to support Remain than Alan Johnson, who was supposed to be in charge of the campaign… over 120 appearances in fact… remarkable dedication. Corbyn got a 75% Remain figure in his own Islington constituency… better than anything Owen Smith managed… You can’t find that figure mentioned anywhere. Perhaps because his constituency voted Leave?
There have been four by-elections since Corbyn was elected party leader… Labour won them all. Tooting the most recent (16.6.16) was an 8.7% swing to Labour. In Ogmore – a super safe Labour seat (May 2016) there was no swing but the Conservative vote was almost halved from 5620 votes to 2956 and Labour were 30 plus points ahead of their closest rival. Sheffield (May 2016) was a 6% swing to Labour and Oldham (Dec 2015) was a 7.8% swing to Labour.
We now see all that success wiped out. July polls are showing Conservatives are several points ahead again. Guess who fire-starter chicken-coup leader, Owen Smith blames for that? Your starter for ten:
I am not a socialist or a so-called Corbynista… I’m not even within the Social-Democrat wing of Labour… I’d be uncomfortable in either camp. I have criticised Corbyn’s shortcomings on many occasions. I have no idea if Jeremy Corbyn would make a decent PM… He seemed to be doing a pretty decent job as Opposition Leader picking apart austerity policies attacks on the most vulnerable, prior to the kamikaze tactics of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I do know that he didn’t take us into the most disastrous foreign policy decision (the invasion of Iraq) in living memory, where the man who was “electable” in the sharp suit did.
The media’s collective bullying, remorseless, misrepresentation of what is going on here is in danger of making the election of Jeremy Corbyn look like some kind of freak coup by the hard-left… It wasn’t and it isn’t… and they and the Labour Party MPs who are bad-mouthing, really need to give it a rest and allow the Labour Party to sort itself out without continuously smearing and demonising Jeremy Corbyn and giving further aid and comfort to their real rival, the Conservative Party and more dangerously, UKIP.”
A week is a long time in politics and now we see Labour 12 points behind in the polls and the PLP talking about forming a faction after Corbyn’s re-coronation if it happens despite proven media bias, including the BBC. I don’t see Labour back in power for at least three elections. They will be punished for this indiscipline as all parties are when they conduct themselves like this
ThenCorbyn should have resigned when 172 MPs – the vast majority of whom had tried to work with him – said that was impossible
I couldn’t agree with you more. The Progress wing of the Labour Party, ie all the coup plotters, were determined from day one to oust Corbyn. It’s nonsense to suggest that they all “tried really hard”; they were just biding their time. The MPs have a duty to accept, support, and respect the leader as chosen by the Party members; they do not have a veto. To do what they have done, completely disregarded the membership, and in so doing sent a wrecking ball right through the Party, is disgraceful. It is the Progress MPs who have caused all the damage, and the voters won’t forget when it comes to the ballot box; who seriously would choose to vote for an MP that had decided to attack their own leader instead of the Conservatives?
Of coursed some plotted – just as JC did for years without ever accepting a leader
But the vast majority are not Progress
I don’t doubt a word of what Hodgson has written. And it’s another very clear indication that Corbyn is a disastrous parliamentary leader. But as we’ve discussed elsewhere, maybe thats not what he sees as a priority.
I would encourage anyone to go to Youtube and check out the very honest and revealing interview Owen Jones conducted with Lisa Nandy. Lisa is a darn good MP, who also did her best, but ultimately couldn’t work with Corbyn.
And that’s the whole problem
But then she is a neoliberal Blairite too – by default now
Because anyone who lacks the faith is
It is hard to know what we are looking at here. Are Corbyn and his inner team incompetent, interested only in developing a populist movement or holed up in a bunker by internal opposition. My support for Corbyn has been only based on a desire for a government that pursues the kind of economics Richard Murphy, Ann Pettifor and Marianna Mazzucato have been advocating, where the state takes a confident leading role unhindered by neoliberal doctrine. I can’t see that Owen Smith is more than an opportunist B list politician. Where do we go from here?
If you want a government with a chance you can’t go for Corbyn
Smith is then your only choice
I am not saying an optimal choice
I am saying all there is
Maybe in a progressive alliance
From your dealings with the Corbyn team, what has been the nature of your experience, Richard?
Confusion as to policy
Inaccessibility at all times
Incompetence at issuing any coherent press messaging
No solid economic policy
Inability to run meetings – even to set agendas so that anyone has a clue why they are taking place
Mistrust of colleagues
Take that for starters
Richard,
I believe your are arguing against yourself in being against Corbyn and then for wealth redistribution. The Neoliberals in the Labour party did not deliver this when ruling for 13 years and will also not deliver on stopping tax avoidance which you also rightly argue for.
From a party member who will be voting for Corbyn
regards
Corbyn will never deliver anything
I live in the real world
I suggest that if you care you should to
And note that Corbyn makes no note of anything about tax now
These MPs have no understanding of the Labour party outside of parliament. They follow the Tories in trying to make capitalist work. Most were parachuted into parliament by Mandelson and Co because they did as they were told, Hunt,Eagle and Field are examples of this
This began in the 1920’s when the rules were changed to allow the middle-class who were allowed in without trade union backing
Stafford Cripps epitomised this attitude when he said ” The working class is not intelligent enough to rule”
Sharon Hodgson is not
Why not deal in facts and open your eyes to the fact you’ve joined a cult?
If you object to anti-Corbyns all being smeared as ‘Blairites’, then you shouldn’t indulge the analogous tactic of smearing pro-Corbyns as a “cult”.
That’s transparent hypocrisy.
(But it’s actually good if you continue like that, because it’s more likely to boost Corbyn support – rather like Blair berating Corbyn is a *gift* to Corbyn.)
I myself don’t label anti-Corbyn MPs, e.g. Nandy, as ‘Blairite’. I characterise them as fearful and/or lacking conviction: they don’t dare stick with Corbyn when they see so many powerful forces ranged against him.
Richard, you have a curious style of debate with some people, e.g. me, who disagree strongly with you: “Don’t bother again” (and/or banning) is not a counter-argument; it looks instead like petulant sulking by a child who’s been caught with his pants down.
Except quite obviously there is a cult
And quite obviously those who are not in the cult are not all Blairites
But as a cult member you can’t see that
And why do I treat you as I do? Because I have no time for those who threaten parliamentary democracy and you are
In this situation had I been in her shoes I’d have talked to the high heid yins well before drawing up a final statement on children’s policies. In the new leadership team people clearly need to bring in their leaders early in the process, keeping them briefed, asking for their input on drafts.
As a side note Corbyn attended twice as many Remain events as any of his critics did (124 of them). That he wasn’t seen to be doing so is a question for the BBC (who, it is reported, told their reporters to bin anything that didn’t put him in a bad light) and other news providers.
You clearly have not read a word
Getting any meeting was impossible
Angela Eagle interview in the Guardian today tells a similar story. Scheduled meetings with McDonnell being repeatedly cancelled.
You can run a sect that way but not an effective, let alone truly democratic, political party
Corbynistas won’t hear it
I know it is true
Unfortunately it is impossible to make a judgement unless we can here why the meetings were cancelled. We just do not know what these meetings were like.
Do you have no judgement left?
Do you really think everyone who says such things is stupid?
How do you think that makes you look?
Richard, another anti Corbyn piece, do you not think we sort of know your position by now? Oh I know you’ll have some sanctimonious bilge about how important it is and how you’re fighting for the good of the people. Well you should know that you come across as a shill now.
I used to value this site as a resource but your subjective political approach lacks any of the depth or understanding of your technical work. It’s a shame but there you go.
Nothing has changed here
You may have
I have not
Farage headed UKIP and stood as an MEP even though he hated the EU. Now we have Brexit. Corbyn is the Labour leader who has no respect for Party views unless they match his and who probably treats Parliament with the same contempt. Scary stuff.
What slightly worries me is that bloke, Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov, as a leader of a left wing party was said to be highly divisive. Indeed he finished up with a rump group who were going nowhere until the Kaiser offered then a ride on his train. Then what happened……..
I read the piece and there are 2 examples of actual mismanagement given. Other than that there are general points about leadership/lacklustre EU campaign. I don’t doubt that Corbyn’s team could have been better managed. That can be improved by hiring/being more business-like etc…
What I do question though is the timing. If it had been so terrible all these months then why the need for timed, mass resignations? Would it had happened if the vote had been Remain?
I am afraid it does not matter how many of the resigners explain their actions, the whiff of an organised coup will not abate. Hence the actions of thousands of ordinary people to defend democracy.
I think this would have happened at sometime if the vote had been remain
The incompetence was not just on Brexit
I was in the Labour Party in the late 90s when they started recruiting right wing people. The type of right wing people who would cheerfully and dishonestly say they were left wing, or centre left. A government which functions for and under the control of corporate power isn’t centre left.
I’ve also been working for a number of years helping people who have been suffering under the ATOS (now Maximums) Work Capability Assessment regime. ATOS of course who got the contract after they didn’t receive a contract for ID cards in 2005. Sharon Hodgson will have been serving when the decision was made. I’ve seen the disabled suffer, and kill themselves whilst this among many issues has been ignored by our Labour opposition.
You will know, if you are demanding facts, that austerity is an economically incomeptent policy which is harmful to the country. Milliband went, with the support of this MP you now claim as a sensible carting voice, into the 2015 election promising a different form of austerity. He also of course backed the government in that grand promise to the Scottish people which was signed but not signed before their referendum.
I take it that the right wing of the Labour Party would prefer it if the Labour Party went back to the 2015 electoral efforts of disparaging the left wing parties, or those who might suggest left wing policies, like Green, Plaid Cymru, SNP, etc and try to court Tory voters. This was such a success one Blair had destroyed Labours loyal electoral base with his, quite frankly fascist, political economic mode (used advisedly based upon Mussolini’s description of fascism as government by and for corporations).
My knowledge of the type of people chosen as Labour MPs by Blair leads me to think they are people who do not care about the pain and suffering caused in this country, they do not want a left wing government, they want rid of a man in Jeremy Corbyn who may actually mean it when he says he wants a left wing government.
Your particular motive is more difficult to identify. You do seem, however, to be making a stirling effort, and when the Blairite Labour Party inevitably is found to be full of shit if they get rid of Corbyn, you should be remembered for your efforts.
I’ll still be trying to talk people out of topping themselves, it’s odd for a lawyer to have to spend so much of his time doing that but a dead client is not going to have an improved future and it doesn’t do their loved ones any good either. Those people will still be ignored.
I have no truck with New Labour as is glaringly obvious
I have worked tirelessly to beat corruption and build social justice
But I also have no truck with people who have no respect for parliament
And who want to guarantee years of oppressive government in this country because they destroy all chance of an alternative government being elected
Nor do I have time for people who hurl abuse in defence of the right wing economics that Corbyn has too readily embraced
Like you do, it seems
“And who want to guarantee years of oppressive government in this country because they destroy all chance of an alternative government being elected”
There is the nub of the problem, I believe, as I and it seems many others simply cannot conceive of a Smith (or any other Labour right-wingert)-led government being anything other than sycophantic yes-men to the Neoliberal corporates parasites. Elect NeoLabour or the Tories and get the same result – a dreadful one.
Please see http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/07/30/corbyn-comments-a-change-to-my-moderation-policy/
Further comments of this sort will not be posted
Why don’t you use full stops?
Because I don’t always feel like it
There is nothing in my comment to indicate my acceptance of or support for right wing economics. I am no devotee of Austrian School ideas; I believe Modern Monetary Theory has it right more often than not and that Beardsley Ruml was about right in his appreciation of the functions of taxation in his speech published in Januray 1946 in the journal entitled American Affairs. I do understand that the shadow chancellor seems to be too willing to accept ideas of debt and deficit, though hope that despite this in government when properly advised he will be mor elikely to benefit the poor and any of the other available choices.
I’m very much Egalitarian, which as a system encourages full socialism, and a supporter of democratic socialism from the state. I support the idea of a system of Universal Minimum Income, set with care to ensure that none of the problems which occurred with Speenhamland occur, and that the benefits experienced in trial by Guy Standing.
I’m not in agreement with the idea of accepting the need for austerity, and I think I say as much. I am in support of the need for taxation of the rich simply to reduce their level of wealth and in doing so to reduce their ability to pervert out economic system.
Obviously I am in contact with a different group within society than you might engage with every day. I am in contact with people who are going hungry and suffering due to the actions of successive governments.
It might be equally obvious that I have some prolonged experience in politics, and having been a member of five different parties, and always willing to work where possible with those who will work towards a more equal society, I have been a member of and worked with many more of the parties proposing left wing solutions; in the original meaning from the Elysee Palace of favouring a more equal society through government action. This however is not about me.
Many of those who say they wish to be, for instant, socialist, one of the most misused words in our language, are not sincere. They have through action or omission demonstrated their dishonesty. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that Jeremy corbyn is sincere. I also believe from the cohort of people who are not rich, that Jeremy Corbyn, despite the attacks of the right wing media, will win the election.
It is unfortunate that, to the voices of the Murdoch media and BBC, we may add the largely Blairite Parliamentary Labour Party and people who again claim to want a more equal society, If anyone is doing harm to the possibility of a government which is headed by someone who, whilst imperfect as we all are, genuinely wishes to help the poor in society, it is the people who are attacking Jeremy Corbyn. I would prefer to give him the support and occasional defence he needs, and the chance to lead this country, over the winning of the election by a Blairite liar who will make life even worse for people suffering an intolerable strain.
But Owen Smith is not a Blairite
And I have no evidence at all that he is a liar
You were going well until then
At that point you exposed yourself as just another cult member
I make no claim Owen Smith is perfect or an ideal candidate
But at least he can deliver opposition
Jeremy Corbyn can;t and if you think that’s OK for the people you care about then you’re badly failing them
How can you support Owen Smith for leader of the Labour Party when he is in the pocket of the huge US conglomerates and in favour of the TTIP, which would hand financial and probably political control over to the US and these conglomerates?
What evidence do you have that he is in the pocket of a US conglomerate
And please don’t say he worked for Pfizer
I worked for KPMG
Does it look like I agree with them?
Why do you think because he once worked for someone he is in their pocket
It takes extraordinary inability with logic to reach that conclusion
I am perfectly prepared to accept that these events took place – ie, that minsiters had difficulty meeting with the leader/chancellor.
However, I believe that in order to come to fair conclusions you have to try to think like a solicitor.
That means that we cannot listen to one side of the story. We cannot make judgements unless we here the answers to these charges from John McDonell and Jeremy Corbyn.
Judging by their history, I feel that either mistakes have been made or that there were bad timings.
Apparently as Lillian Greenwood said, a reshuffle was organised when she needed Corbyns attention. But it was found that derogatory leaks to the press were happening and post the humiliating behaviour in the Syrian debate, and this reshuffle became necessary for a stable shadow cabinet. Many MPs were complaining bitterly in public about Corbyn just for winning in the very early stages, as they were neoliberals, not left wing. One was even making peurile jokes threatening to stab him in the front, on an Owen Jones interview. All very sickening. I just don’t know how he puts up with it all.
No room is made in these complaints for any of this, Corbyn was supposed to be perfect all of the time when his ministers were not being very helpful either.
Similar charges were made by Heidi Alexander when John McDonell held meetings without her.
In this case, a retort is at hand. Apparently Junior doctors were not satisfied that Heidi was supporting their cause. It was explained here.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/heidi-alexander-attacks-john-mcdonnell-labour-nhs-policy
I must confess, I never saw eithe Heidi or Owen at the doctors strikes, but I did see Corbyn there – credit where it is due.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=corbyn+at+doctors+strikes&espv=2&biw=1517&bih=741&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEhfae05vOAhVIJcAKHeqZD98Q_AUIBygC&dpr=0.9#imgrc=tFEsdpBZoy2qUM%3A
Solicitors act for a client. They can be as biased as they like, as you are being
Judges appraise evidence
We have a mass of evidence
Overwhelming evidence
And you are ignoring it
I leave you to decide what that’s called
Well said, Sandra.
Richard
You say “after what I saw”. But what you actually saw of Corbyn was last summer; you haven’t been anywhere near hin since. Last summer everything was great, you never said a word against him. All that has changed has been the opinion of others. Was it your judementia lacking then or your integrity now?
You really are very willing to form incorrect views
I saw last summer
I decided not to take the offered job in September
I advised regularly – not always to the top team but to the shadow team thereafter
I last had discussions with John McD on several occasions in May
I last spoke to Jeremy in May
And despaired
I saw intimately , I appraised, I learned
The facts changed
I changed my mind
I think it was Keynes who suggested that was wise
I must say that I am deeply worried. a Corbyn victory would be a disaster for the left; the Labour party will be utterly ineffective for at least a decade. Richard is absolutely correct in his analysis. Corbyn despite being a thoroughly decent human being and having the correct values is totally incompetent at leadership. I can see nothing good coming of a Corbyn victory and no path forward. The sad thing is that after Brexit there is a greater need for a well functioning opposition than at any period within my lifetime. Maybe Corbynistas are hoping for revolution upheaval on a level not seen in Britain since the Civil War?
Sean
I referred to that Cicil War experience the other day as it is the only precedent for what Corbyn seems to be trying to do
It did not end well
I share all your concerns
I remain resolutely left of centre – thing has changed there – but I cannot see how labour can deliver with Corbyn
Worse, I see it doing considerable harm
Richard
Richard sorry I missed your Civil War reference; do try to read your blog but life gets in the way sometimes. Oliver Cromwell was not popular in Ireland!
I think the shit is still to hit the fan over Brexit and I worry that those who need hope and improvement most will be again the ones to suffer. It will be very interesting however to see what deals are done over the “City” with Michel Barnier running things from the EU side
I am well aware of Cromwell’s Irish reputation
I live close to Cromwell’s house in Ely
My boys are not his greatest admirers but there are lessons to be learned, not least on parliamentary democracy
And you are right re the Brexit fall out but no one is discussing it
Sean, your views reflect my own. The problem is that I don’t see any evidence from the behaviour of the PLP that they recognise the scale of change required within the Party. The sheer disillusionment with safe Tory Lite policies. The annoyance with campaigning on the basis of meaningless slogans.
The PLP lost me to a large degree when they failed to oppose austerity. They are the authors of their own downfall. They have allowed the right to set the narrative in their own language, completely unopposed. They have promoted politics as bland managerialism and PR. And as a result they have allowed nationalist populism to move deep into their territory. Until we get some self awareness from them on these issues it’s hard to see how they can escape the mess they’re in.
And now, the best they can find to stand against JC is an MP I had honestly never heard of 10 months ago, who has a background in corporate PR that reflects the failings above. He has to do much much better than offer neoliberalism with an increasingly weak safety net. That’s not enough.
Except that’s not what Owen Smith seems to be doing
If you want to comment again please see http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/07/30/corbyn-comments-a-change-to-my-moderation-policy/
Fair enough Richard. Challenged by you I went to look at Owen’s offer afresh…
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/opinion/house-commons/77746/owen-smith-mp-i-will-offer-hope
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/owen-smith-makes-20-pledges-8502852
There’s some great stuff here and in parts it does feel like a jink to the left but some also feels like the usual vapid witter about investing in NHS, education, homes that you get from all politicians. No mention of environment to speak of, or climate change (and as an environmental professional I am interested in and knowledgeable of these things) and certainly nothing of electoral reform. Or interestingly on his future stance on Brexit and A50.
Don’t get me wrong, I desperately want Labour to emerge from the current mess stronger and I don’t believe that can happen under JC. But I’d like to see a broader prospectus from OS and I’d like to be confident that some of his more radical proposals won’t get shot down and diluted by the wonks and focus groups.
I agree,band have said so
It’s a good start
It needs serious fleshing out
I oresume that will happen
Then we will know more
But at least he is committed to parliamentary democracy
Richard, I hope this will pass your screen if not your boredom threshold. I can well believe that Jeremy Corbyn is a poor manager and organiser. (Though I have an unworthy suspicion that he was tolerated within the party as a harmless eccentric. If he had been an effective organiser, he would have been thrown out years ago.) As new Labour member and a continued Corbyn supporter, I may be a Trotskyite infiltrator, but I am also a retired scientist and my problem with his opponents is over honesty.
One pretext for the coup was that Corbyn was “unelectable”. However, his colleagues have made clear they did not want him, some have refused to work with him at all, and others have briefed against him from day one, none of them apparently considering that this might affect his electability. Cognitive dissonance or worse? The trigger was supposed to be Brexit, but I suspect he delivered more Remain votes by simply being himself. Is it being honest to suggest he should have stood with Cameron and spouted half-truths? (Which clearly didn’t work.) I think it is fairly well documented that his opponents were simply waiting for a pretext.
Nearer to home, our local Labour party has been suspended on the basis of anonymous complaints to the NEC about behaviour at the AGM. The testimony of a large number of those present suggest that the anonymous complaints were at best highly exaggerated or at worst malicious. The elected pro-Corbyn officers and committee have been removed on the grounds of a improperly conducted election. However, the chairman who supervised the “improper” election has not been suspended (I would add that he is highly regarded by all factions). It would have been inconvenient, since he is currently standing as a councillor in a key by-election.
The rules for the leadership election seem to have little to do with reasonableness, and more to do with how difficult the anti-Corbyn faction could make it for him.
To sum up, I have found my year as a new member fascinating, though at times depressing. I will still vote for Corbyn. I see the choice as between incompetence, and equal incompetence allied to greater dishonesty.
This is a quote from that other quitter Lilian Greenwood, which you linked to: “You can agree or disagree about whether it’s Ok to take 5 days holiday 3 weeks before the most important vote in my lifetime.”
Here’s a quote from NEC member Christine Shawcroft: “There seem to be stories going around that Jeremy was on holiday for 5 days during the Referendum campaign. He was quite clear about this at the last NEC – he stayed the night in Exmouth between engagements. So he was “on holiday” for about 20 hours!”
Your readers can draw their own conclusions.
It’s irrelevant
It’s not irrelevant. It was an untrue smear.
Oh for heaven’s sake stop stooping into a gutter
It only leaves you covered in mud