Latest post on Left Futures

There is a concerted ‘Anyone but Corbyn’ campaign organised by the Labour right

Labour Leadership Candidates and now they are 4_edited-1The story of the Labour leadership election has moved firmly from which of the four possible contenders could win, to whether or not it could be Jeremy Corbyn – and how to stop him. For many on Labour’s self-proclaimed ‘moderate’, austerity-backing wing of the party, this has become an all out campaign to stop Jeremy winning – and all the dirty tricks are coming out.

Labour First activist and blogger, Luke Akehurst, whose views and politics we have reported on before, sent an email in which he outlined Labour First’s campaign to fight Corbyn. He has also tweeted, “Labour First is fighting to stop nightmare of a Corbyn leadership.”

The story first broke in the Huffington Post, who reported Akehurst as having written, “We clearly do not share Jeremy Corbyn’s politics and believe these would destroy Labour’s chances of electability. We would therefore encourage supporters of Andy, Yvette and Liz to transfer votes to each other at CLP nomination meetings so that as few CLPs as possible make supporting nominations for Jeremy.”

This was then picked up by the BBC, and earned Luke an interview on the BBC’s Daily Politics, to promote his view that Corbyn must be stopped. One can hardly think Akehurst would be opposed to this, being platformed on the nation’s favourite news channel in a slot purely to discuss the ‘Anyone but Corbyn’ campaign.

This was followed quickly by a leaked poll reported by Stephen Bush in the New Statesman, showing Corbyn on course to win, to which the Burnham campaign responded by saying, “they are unaware of any such polling and that the findings don’t stack with their phonebank data”. Cooper’s team also distanced herself from the poll, saying, “Conflating CLP nomination numbers and unseen private polling – briefed by individual camps – might be good for something. What it clearly isn’t is any sort of meaningful indicator of what the outcome of this election will be.” Only Toby Perkins, Kendall’s manager, responded positively when he told the Statesman, “These reports suggest Labour members realise that carrying on with a continuity leader will result in another defeat – the question is what kind of change Labour will embrace.”

It is not clear who leaked the polls to the Statesman, but Jon Trickett has tweeted, “in whose interest is the leaked private poll? Perhaps the candidate whose campaign is fading slightly?” It is certainly true that if you were a Kendall supporter, with just five CLP nominations, it would be in your interests to rack up the vitriol against Corbyn and shock the membership into thinking Corbyn is some kind of dangerous fifth column, and that what we need is stability and a ‘moderate’ voice who refuses to oppose the cutting of child tax credits and the Tories tuition fee regime. The narrative of the last day or two can only help her.

Bush’s article has now been followed up by coverage from the right-wing press. The Times this morning ran with, ‘Corbyn on course to lead Labour’, while the Daily Telegraph has gone one step further, encouraging readers to join as registered supporters to ‘consign Labour to electoral oblivion’. Even The Guardian have covered this as ‘Daily Telegraph urges readers to ‘doom’ Labour by backing Jeremy Corbyn’, giving a higher profile to an entryist campaign by Tories which will only further paint Corbyn as the candidate likely to do worst at the next election.

The commentators have weighed in too. Communist-turned-neoconservative David Aaronovitch has penned an attack piece in The Times, titled, ‘Comrades, can’t you see the revolution is over?’. Implicitly comparing Corbyn to Sinn Fein and the Militant he argues Corbyn only won the backing of Unite on the basis of support from the Socialist Party elements in the United Left, and places the campaign in some kind of international fit of leftist madness. He argues ‘the progressive centre-left party, clear-eyed, practical, committed, reforming and internationalist, that could threaten the real Tories, may be – right now – abolishing itself.’

Dan Hodges has of course been on this for weeks, writing when Jeremy secured the 35 nominations necessary to stand, “You know what, I hope he wins. I hope Jeremy Corbyn amazes everyone, wins the whole contest, and gets himself elected Labour leader. I’d love to see him standing there at the dispatch box, opposite David Cameron. Because then, and only then, the Labour Party might finally get it.”

This rhetoric has made its way from the pages of the Tory press onto Labour’s own blogging community, in particular Labour Uncut. In just two days the site ran three negative pieces on Corbyn. Frederick Cowell argues that a Corbyn victory would be the equivalent of taking Britain back to ‘the wilderness years’, while John Slinger writes that if the Labour right did what the Left are doing with Corbyn, and, “foisted an extreme right-wing candidate on the ballot and coalesced around him or her” people would be up in arms. This is again framing Jeremy as ‘extreme’ and the others moderate, the irony being that Liz Kendall is expected to abstain on a Tory welfare bill and the only Tory cuts she has criticised are on defence spending.

Finally, the most hyperbolic example of this, Kevin Feeney, an arch-Blairite has argued Corbyn would be responsible for turning Britain into Greece, calling Syriza an “extremist government” and that, “this shower of clowns is what we could yet become if the Corbynites have their way in the short term, or if modernisers fail in the longer term to make the Labour Party an electable, centrist force for progressive governance once again.”

All of the coverage has been distinctly negative, portraying Jeremy’s politics as automatically destined to consign Labour to electoral defeat. The framing of this debate is both deliberate and negative campaigning. By taking the assumption that Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable as a given, without needing to interrogate it, commentators are then free to debate questions in terms of ‘Will this unelectable man win the leadership election?’ or ‘Just how many seats would we lose under Corbyn?’.

There are clearly a lot of people in the Labour party who wish to see Corbyn as leader. His success in CLP nominations confirms that. Yet there are many who clearly don’t, and they are dragging up every right-wing caricature and cliche they can get their hands on to wreck the Corbyn campaign.


  1. David Pavett says:

    At the very least this “Corbyn alarmism” is fun to watch. People who felt secure in their phoney-baloney politics and political careers suddenly feel challenged. About time too!

    If Luke Akehurst is bothered then probably something worthile is happening.

    Jeremy Corbyn has transformed a leadership bore-in into a genuine clash of opinions. Many thanks to him for that.

    1. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

      I share your amusement and I suspect also a certain indulgence at all too familiar folly of my fellow man, as a political animal.

      The local Labor party where I live has just organized a closed meeting, (strictly members only,) to decide which of the candidates they wish to adopt for the Deputy and Leadership roles.

      However some of us have noted and not without some amusement that their local MP was in fact the first person to support Burnham’s, (someone noted or infamous in some quarters for being a leading English Roman Catholic,) nomination for leader and that this meeting is coincidentally being held in Roman Catholic Church ?

      Looks more like desperation than anything else, but we shouldn’t laugh.

      But then again why not?

  2. Timmy says:

    Of course there is! For the very same reason that the Telegraph is telling Tories how to vote for him.

    Having Corbyn as leader would turn the Labour Party from a serious party of opposition and an alternative Government into an irrelevant rump of eccentrics and fantasists.

    The thought of PMQ’s in that circumstance is tragi-comic. No wonder Cameron is advising him on how to run his campaign.

    1. Robert says:

      So which right wing Blair-rite would you vote in do not tell me Kendall.

      We have a really good solid right wing party in the Tories and UKIP if labour keeps on the way it’s going it’s period in power would have been 1997 to 2010 and then it died.

      1. Timmy says:

        On the basis that you should do what your opponent would find most difficult, yes, I think Kendall is the best choice. Cameron will wipe the floor with Burnham, so Yvette would be my second.
        Farron as leader will soon start taking leftish votes for the Liberals, on top of the impact of the SNP and Greens, so only a big tent approach (what is referred to here as Right Wing ) will work. Corbyn will lead a crusade into irrelevance if not stopped.

        1. John says:

          If Farron can “… start taking leftish votes for the Liberals…” why can a left Labour party win those votes instead?

          Your arguments just don’t stack up.

          1. Timmy says:

            If Labour have a leader from the harder left who is not a credible PM in waiting the leftish votes will drift elsewhere. If the Liberals have a leader with whom people can identify themselves, that “elsewhere” will start to include them again. Farron might be that person.
            For different reasons neither party had credible a leader at the last election and we know the results.

    2. John says:

      Well at least Tory MPs won’t be asking JC to come & join them like they did with HH this week.

      1. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

        An amazingly good point which would apply equally well to Kendell, Cooper and Burnham as well, but then again perhaps they, (the Tories,) were really only thinking in terms of their, (Harman, Kendell, Cooper and Burnham,) proclivity to fiddle their expenses etc………..

  3. has anyone wondered why Toby Young and other Tories are running a Corbyn for Labour LEader campaign?

    Its been in both the Telegraph and the Guardian, so why has Corbyn not denounced the Tories who can join the party by paying £3 to deliberately get him elected?

    They are not people who want LABOUR to recover.

    Trevor Fisher

    1. Robert says:

      Recover to what, Kendall or Cooper or Burnham that’s not a recovery it a continuation of opposition of a right wing labour party which is not wanted or needed.

  4. Nick Wright says:

    Describing Aaronovitch as communist turned neo conservative has about as much explanatory power as describing Dennis Healey as communist turned … What? iMF surrender monkey!
    Even when an actual member of the CPGB his actual connection to any variant of proletarian dictatorship was so vestigial tha his eventual anchorage on the right seemed seamlessly accomplished.

  5. Chris says:

    Guys, I’m not a convinced Corbyn supporter, but what do you actually think he’s wrong about?

    1. David Pavett says:

      Good question. It is amazing that there is so much discussion about whether he would a good or bad thing for Labour without any mention of anything he advocates or does. This willingness to discuss a politician purely in terms of the labels attached to him is the way the mass media like to handle things. One might have hoped for a different sort of debate on Left Futures.

      I have plenty of doubts about Jeremy Corbyn but I agree with far more of the policies he advocates than those of the other candidates. I also think that leader he would stop the domination of the Party by useless spads and apparatchiks and put it in it the hands of ordinary members. For these reasons I will vote for him.

      Kendall is too aburdly right-wing to consider. Burnham and Kendall represent more of the same. Labour Badly needs a change and that change needs to be based on first working out what it believes in an then and only then working out how best to realise its aims both inside and outside Parliament. If that is right then there is only one serious canddate and it is Corbyn.

  6. Mervyn Hyde says:

    The nasty red Tories talk about electability whilst forgetting they have just lost two elections.

    They also neatly forget that Blair and Brown lost 3-4 million votes, why didn’t they try and recover those before talking about being electable.

    Could it really be, they would be more comfortable with the Tories in office than a real Labour politician, after Liz Kendal has said just as Blair did, they would carry on with Tory policies.

    I think even the public have woken up to that one.

    One thing though, polls are meaningless and Jeremy needs to remind supporters that this might be lots of Tories deliberately interfering with the process.

    When I last went to the Swindon hustings, I asked two young men what they thought, and responded by saying that they thought Yvette performed well enough to switch support away from Jeremy, but if either of the other two succeeded, they would see little point in remaining in the party.

    1. John P Reid says:

      The idea Red Tories lost the 2015 election is sh@te, Miliband built his career denouncing New labour, I’m not Tony BlIr,and Blairs name was booed, or the bloke who said to kinnock we’ve got out party back,

      1. Mervyn Hyde says:

        I rejoined Labour because that was what he promised, I lapsed again when I understood just how committed he was.

        I don’t believe for one minute you believe Ed was anything other than New Labour.

        Have you ever seen him on anti austerity marches?

        1. John P Reid says:

          So the difference between, denouncing new labour and being Pro new Labour was anti austerity?
          Peter Mandeslon said Ed Miliband was right to say new labour was over..but what he needed to say was what it was replaced with, didn’t know Andy was anti Austerity.

          1. Mervyn Hyde says:

            You are doing what the Tories always do and obfuscate. It must be a right wing trait.

            Ed Miliband pretended that he was not New Labour but I lapsed as a member because I recognised he was not being honest.

            No labour leader that wanted to save the NHS would leave the privatisation mechanism in place, calling it the Preferred Provider. The clue is in fact in the name,

            There really is little difference between you right wingers and the Tories.

          2. John P Reid says:

            But if he did pretend it fooled enough of the electorate who thought he was too left wing,so they voted Tory, I can’t believe that the electorate looked at Ed,said, Ah, he’s only pretending to have spent the last 5 years denouncing New labour ,let the 2 people who got him in place,Mkclusky and Paul Kenny, get Blaitites Liam Byrne, Frank fileld sacked, then say as opposed to new labour he had a social conscience ,yet when it comes to it, he’s really new labour as he’s not left wing enough, I’ll vote for a party who are right wing, they’d have all voted greens if they wanted it

  7. Barry Ewart says:

    It could be refreshing having Jeremy as Leader and returning Labour to being a political party again that stands for what it believes in and is bottom up plus empowers its grassroots members.
    We also need to embark on a crusade to try to win and politicise the 15.9m who did not vote and who seem to have given up and may see them all as being the same.
    We need to nurture a society (and World) of critical thinkers – working with international partners.
    We are the party (or need to get back to) being the party of all those who have to sell their labour to live.
    We also need to get back to our working class roots as well as appealing to the progressive middle class, and to try to win the general middle class (who are socialised to vote Tory by the Right Wing media to keep power with the rich and powerful) to the progressive middle class.
    But we perhaps also need to learn to communicate simply, clearly, effectively and with passion.
    Of course those who want power for themselves in Labour are rattled as some democratic socialists in Labour attempt to free themselves from the Neo-Liberal straight jacket.
    Of course the Right Wing media and the Tories will want Jeremy.
    As with welfare (setting neighbour against neighbour and making millionaires invisible), setting establish citizens against newcomers (to compete with UKIP) setting England against Scotland; with Jeremy they will vilify, slur, make distortions and exaggerate.
    But perhaps we need to learn how to communicate simply, clearly, effectively and with passion.
    Perhaps the problem with a Left leaning Labour in the 1980’s was perhaps it was middle class dominated and was using language to talk to insiders – we should have progressivecvpolicies and use language to outline them that can be understood on the high street, on the estate and in the workplace.
    With Jeremy it will be Labour HONESTY against RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA!
    I’m happy to support Jeremy.

    1. John P Reid says:

      I don’t think I’m going to convince you but, I wouldn’t say that Militant were left wing, but they were, about 50/50 working class, as was Heffer, Livungstine Bernie Grant
      And the Tory press was read in the 80’s by working class people, of all those at my level in Essex who are new members backing Corbyn, I’d say they’re all middle class, mainly young, OK it’s not their fault they were born into middle class families.

      You say the non voters seem to have given up, maybe they were never interested in politics, so they couldn’t have been interested to have given up.

      1. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

        I can’t help but note, if somewhat wryly, that skeptical as I am about the British Middle Classes and pernicious as their influence within the Labor party and post war society more generally has been been, you’d be hard pushed to find 3 typically middle class individuals that Fidel Castro, Che Guevara or for that matter Osama bin Laden.

        Personally I’ve always been interested in politics but the whole modern spectacle of thieving, lying, low life, people such as Harman, Laws, Cooper, Miller, Balls, Blair, (ye gods,) and the list goes ever on is so repellent and toxic it’s managed to repel even the most ardent political voter, (and that with having disabled and other people people ejected from conference by G4S or their equivalent,) personally I voted UKIP at the last election out of sheer despair not conviction and Jeremy Corbyn is probably the only person who could get me to vote Labor again.

        It’s been said time and again that, we didn’t abandon Labor, Labor abandoned us.

  8. Darren Styles says:

    The more I read about the other candidates the more I am convinced the 2020 election will be another car crash waiting to happen

    What have we got to lose by a Corbyn led party?

    Trying to out-Tory the Tories (what did Nye Bevan call them?) just won’t work, but I’m not sure any other candidate has grasped that simple truth.

    I do hope Jeremy includes as broad a selection of opinion as possible in his shadow cabinet, uniting around the common goal of defeating the Tories, because I dread to think what may happen if we don’t, but I see it as the only way forward.

    I spoke with a centre right thinking Scot a month or so ago who was clear in his reason for supporting the SNP

    “They speak for me”

    Let’s elect a leader who speaks for as many people as possible, vote Corbyn

  9. Grace says:

    I really don’t find that there is anything extreme about Jeremy Corbyn. He is a left wing Labour politician, that does not make him extreme. His views and approach are sincere and honest. Describing people who support him as an ‘irrelevant rump of eccentrics and fantasists’ is immature and says more about the commenter than the people he comments on. I think that respect and integrity have been sorely lacking within the Labour elite and within politics in general, for far too many years. It befits us all to refrain from making sneering hyperbolic remarks. I welcome this debate about what the Labour Party should stand for. However, I do not respect the actions of Luke Akehurst who demonstrates an overbearing sense of entitlement that has been prevalent for too long within ‘New Labour’. It has all the hallmarks of a Mandelson approach to dissent. The Labour Party does not belong to Akehurst or Mandelson, and contrary to what they might think, it is not an exclusive club reserved for those who agree with that inner circle.

    1. John P Reid says:

      Grace did you denounce militant when they, used Militant local party members meetings,to exclude at a CLP level, others then used undemocratic ways to deselect sitting MPs from re selection,like they did with Bill Rogers?

      What about Falkirk getting union members signed up paying their fees to join,getting them to meetings to vote in their preferred choice?

      How about putting up non labour candidates against labour ones?

      1. Grace says:

        John, I was not a member of the Labour Party at the time but as passionate and persuasive as people may feel inclined to be, I don’t like and have never indulged in backroom scheming or personal attacks. Over the years and in several forums, I have had more discussions/debates than I can count and they sometimes get heated but I respect good old fashioned dialogue. Spin and intrigue have been too much in evidence since New Labour came along. For me it isn’t complicated. If a union has a preferred candidate and can state why it thinks that candidate’s policies and approach are better than the others, that is fine by me, as long as they are open and above board. My complaint at Luke Akehurst/Labour First is that they are not above board. Most ordinary members know nothing about them, what they are about and who is pulling the strings. Likewise with Progress – maybe it’s just me but when I look at where there funding comes from I am left open mouthed. Am I ‘old fashioned’ and ‘out of touch’ because I object to some of the organisations that fund Progress – they are so clearly and directly linked to the Tories and are a prominent part of those interests that are doing so much damage to the country and for which ordinary people are being made to pay the price. As I say, it isn’t complicated.

  10. John P Reid says:

    Even if there is anyone but Corbyn view,it’s not dirty tricks, Luke Akehurat and labour first send a email it’s made public he got in the TV to say why

    The leaking of a poll to the newstatesman, that corbyn may win the first round,may fuse some to panic,it may cause those panicking to get CLPs to support one of the others

    Dan Hodges not a labour member/supporter who constantly said Miliband going to the left,from the centre was going to lose us the election was proved right,same as 1983′ it was then said as is now ‘we lost as it wasn’t left wing enough’ so Hodges entitled to his, view maybe A Corbyn victory,and wipe ou put in 2020 may convince some of this,he’s entitled to his view, again not a dirty trick, you say the Kendall criticisms the defense cuts is ironic,well it was Thatcher who cut the army that caused the Argentinians to invade the Falklands,and labour should have made a point of the Tory cuts too the army at the recent election,when we need a strong army

    The Labour uncut articles reference various things, the civil war of the 80’s and Us Blaming the electorate for not voting for us,
    The fact labour list is full of people trolling, the Liz for Tory leader ones,where the phrase of anyone pointing out a swing too the left would be electoral suicide as being called A fascist or a Tory,the Kevin Feeney article is B@@@@cks admittedly

    As for CLPs nominating him, yes they’re all in areas where labour does well already the Midlands inner London , the right of the party being burnt out after 20 years,but it’s not the CLPs it’s the voters in the street,how many CLPs nominating people ,know what their electorate think,as for Dan Hodges, whatever you think of him, can you deny he believes what he says about labour being massacred if corbyn took us into the 2020 election.

  11. John P Reid says:

    Sorry to soil leftfutures pages, but this labour uncut editors article in the sun, will give you some strength, here’s another sun article from Labour member Rod liddle knocking Cameron on fox hunting

  12. since Robert does not understand what recovery means, it is a simple concept. Recovery to win a General Election, preferably in 2020. There is no way anyone with a brain wants the Tories to win in 2020. Except the Tories.

    And I still have not heard anyone on this site condemn Tories for Corbyn. The campaign exists, has been reported in both the Guardian and the Telegraph, and is not led by Toby Young as such but is supported by Toby Young the leader of the West London Free School and a writer for the Telegraph.

    The reason the Tories want Corbyn is obvious. If he is elected leader, the Labour Party has no chance of becoming electable on whatever basis for the time he is leader.

    They just won a general election by knowing what they are doing. I ask again, why does the purist Corbyn camp not oppose the attempt of Tories to join the Labour Party to elect their candidate?

    Trevor Fisher

    1. Timmy says:

      I won’t condemn Tories for Corbyn, just like I won’t condemn people moving to this country, because we have passed laws that allow them rights to come here. People change their behaviour to their own advantage according to the rules that are set, it is basic economics.
      Stupid rules are the problem. The Tories didn’t impose them, they are just exploiting what has been gifted to them.

      1. Matty says:

        Also Toby Young’s application to be a Labour Supporter was rejected. See

        1. Matty says:

          From Noah at Socialist Unity re Tories4Corbyn
          “This is a spoiling tactic to smear Jeremy as ‘Tory-backed’ and label him as a leader who can never win a general election, It is designed to affect the vote, but by putting Labour Party members off Corbyn, it aims to reduce his chances of winning.

          It’s important that this con is challenged not promoted, as it is being used by the right wing inside the Labour Party to undermine support for Jeremy.”

    2. Grace says:

      I find the whole ‘Tories for Corbyn’ campaign pathetic and shady and unreservedly condemn it. I don’t think anyone who supports Corbyn should have any tolerance for this and I don’t believe that the vast majority do. I think it is more or less irrelevant and will not attract a significant number of Tories. I think what many of those who don’t support him, are failing to grasp is that his supporters are inspired not just by Corbyn but by connecting with one another through the his election campaign. We want him to win but that is not the only thing that his campaign is about. there are so many people who have felt unrepresented in British politics for man years and it has been a breath of fresh air to hear someone talking the same language, being sincere and behaving with integrity.

      1. John P Reid says:

        I knew of Tories in affiliated unions, who in 1988 tried to get their union to vote for Benn for leader, I recall the Sun in wanting labour to lose the election after 1992 wanted Livingstone to replace Kinnock

    3. David Pavett says:

      I support Corbyn for leader and will vote for him. But I do not recognise myself under the label if the “purist Cobyn camp”. I disagree with Jeremy Corbyn about many things but he is vastly closer to the ideas that have always motivated me in politics. I can hardly recognise anything I believe in when I consider the general political stance if the other candidates. Therefore I will vote for Corbyn. Just how does that make me a “purist”?

  13. David Ellis says:

    There is a concerted campaign but it is the concerted campaign that is boosting Corbyn’s support. New Labour simply haven’t realised yet that they are walking dead. Their politics which bought labour to the point of destruction in only 20 short years no longer has any objective grounding. It is an ex-Parrot.

    1. Mervyn Hyde says:

      Thank you for your last comment David.

      I feel sick to my stomach every time I hear politicians that call themselves modernisers, say that they will create jobs, when they are utterly powerless to do so.

      the right in the party do not support or believe in our public services, yet that is the only area they would as a government have any control over.

      The Idea that Yvette cooper expounds is because she is “business friendly” that she would get all these business to forget the depression and encourage them to create jobs and pay real wages, which of course is just fantasy, and Thatcher promised that, we are still waiting. Not to remind ourselves that only a matter of weeks ago Goodyear announced it was moving abroad with 600 real jobs lost.

      The reason we need change is that as David says, capitalism is fundamentally finished in this country and Europe, unless we have a new perspective the future will just spiral downwards with politicians wildly claiming as Yvette does that there are jobs for the picking.

      Government can create jobs, but if we wait for the private sector then it will never happen.

      There are millions of jobs needed to care for the people of this country, we have energy requirements that need engineers and scientists to develop them, we need a 21st century transport system that the private sector are not delivering, only the self seeking can’t see the potential of a dynamic Labour Party leading a modern revolution as Harold Wilson saw in the white heat of technology.

      The capitalist system is strangling the life out of our economy, they want to ration demand because they get more profit by paying less for everything, large pool of cheap Labour, less health and safety, suppliers that need to price goods and services at the cheapest possible rate, self employed with low overheads and can be picked up and dropped at will.

      This is the race to the bottom and it has been going on for over forty years unabated and will continue unless we have change.

  14. David Ellis says:

    The Third Way was basically reformism’s last throw of the dice. Capitalism is in a meltdown from which it can never recover. It took the world to the brink of globalisation behind the greatest imperial power the world has ever seen but is now furiously rowing back from that oh so violently achieved high point to a New Dark Ages as its economic model crumbles. The violence of degeneration will be a lot worse than the violence of progress.

  15. Chris says:

    The Tories believe in something, the Labour left believes in something, the few remaining members of the old Labour right believe in something. What do the Blairites believe in? Winning? Winning for what reason? Are their few differences from the Tories reason enough to bother with politics?

    1. John P Reid says:

      What do you think the Tories believe in, is it the economy which is what the voters who backed them,who we in labour,need to get to vote for us to win, think.

    2. Grace says:

      Yes I agree Chris but I think the answer is that they believe in themselves. It is interesting how much personal benefit there is for some of those politicians that are ‘business friendly’. We have always known that the Tories are protecting their own power and privilege but it is appalling that the same thing goes on to the extent that it does in the Labour Party. We are not talking about ex MPs getting a decent job advising some progressive organisation, when they leave Parliament but of some people making vast amounts of money in league with people and organisations that are extremely questionable. The whole Iraq War thing – not just the terrible instability that has resulted and the ongoing suffering that has come about but it was not a a ‘mistake’ or a ‘misjudgement and we all know that. It was deceitful and calculated and as a result of that and other policies and decisions, he is now personally reaping so much reward from them. For the Iraq War alone, I cannot trust or forgive those who were a part of that, in our name and for personal ambition. As far as I know Burnham, Kendall and Cooper voted against an investigation into the Iraq war and Corbyn was the only one who voted for it. He has my respect and trust for being principled on this one issue alone. For those who say ‘get over it’ I say look at what is happening in the world each and every day as a result.

      1. Mervyn Hyde says:

        Grace: Just look at Cherie Blair, when you think of her background and she was prepared to profit like this.

        1. Grace says:

          I know Mervyn and it’s just the tip of a bloody big iceberg. They have no shame.

      2. John P Reid says:

        Kendall wasn’t a MP then

        1. Grace says:

          Yes, sorry you are right Kendall wasn’t an MP then. However, Kendall has been schooled and mentored by senior New Labour Politicians – and she is part of that cohort of bright young things from Oxbridge who get fast tracked because they have a certain level of competence, total compliancy and ruthless ambition. Such individuals don’t just exist in politics – institutions of all kinds are full of ‘yes’ people but there are a few too many in the current Labour Party. So Kendall was not an MP but I don’t need to imagine her position on it because she would not have risen so far, so quickly if she had expressed anything against those who were a part of it. Sorry to be long winded but my point is about integrity and having MPs with the courage of their convictions. Kendall is a member of Progress and we don’t have to dig deep to find some unsavoury connections there. I am not sure who set it up, Draper I think but it has Mandelson’s stamp all over it and to me it stinks.

          1. John P Reid says:

            Bit like Ellie Reeves,oh no wait,she wanted an inquiry

          2. John P Reid says:

            Draper set up labour list,it was lord Sainsbury,
            Recall militant half set up CLPD

© 2024 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma