Unless and until Jeremy Corbyn initiates the secret bombing of Cambodia and orders a break-in to bug the phones at Progress HQ, I’m inclined to disregard any proffered comparisons between him and Richard Nixon.
But that’s the level of hyperbole to which one unnamed MP stooped last week, following publication of a hitlist of ostensibly Corbynista provenance, outlining the perceived friendliness or otherwise of Labour parliamentarians. Its origins are disputed.
This, we are asked to believe, is a straightforward lift from the Tricky Dicky playbook. Why, no Labour leader in history has hitherto sunk to the foul depths of working out who is on his side and who isn’t, nor would even have contemplated so doing.
And just to exacerbate the damage, the publicity the story attracted even enabled David Cameron to deflect attention from the Tories’ internal woes following the resignation of Iain Duncan Smith.
Prominent among the attack dogs has been John Woodcock, whose spectacularly profanity-studded Tweet assessing Corbyn’s most recent performance at the despatch box at least had the merit of condensing the entirely of his analysis into two aptly-Nixonian words.
‘Fucking disaster,’ he told his followers. ‘Worse [sic] week for Cameron since he came in and that fucking stupid list makes us into a laughing stock.’
Offered the chance to expand on this thesis by a national newspaper, the member for Barrow and Furness somehow managed to avoid the potty-mouthed stuff for several hundred words, but sadly was able to offer little more insight than he did in his earlier Anglo-Saxon double whammy.
‘Jeremy is a nice man who is doing his best,’ Mirror readers were condescendingly reassured, in words one might use about a kindly uncle’s inefficacious low-level charitable fundraising efforts on behalf of the local orphanage.
But it is time to remember that our loyalty actually lies to the people who desperately need a Labour government and an effective Labour party to stand up for them.”
His musings contained not a single positive policy proposal. His only argument of any substance, even then made only by implication, was that Corbyn will lose the next election, and thus condemn the working class and the poor to a further term of Tory rule.
Coming at a time when Labour is ahead in the polls for the first time since the general election, and Jeremy’s personal approval ratings are higher than those of Cameron, this seems a curious moment to advance such a contention.
Sure, polls are just polls, and nobody should read too much into them. But the point remains that it is now demonstrably the case that a Corbyn-led Labour Party can be to be the most popular political force in the country at a given point in time.
The task at hand is to turn a miniscule and perhaps sporadic lead into a modest one, and then transform that modest lead into a sustained and serious lead.
Shrill enjoinders for Corbyn’s head on a plate are expressly designed to derail our chances of doing that, and show up the tactic of invoking the best interests of the disadvantaged by way of justification as a transparent and worthless concoction.
Woodcock’s gripe that Corbyn should have made more of the resignation of IDS in rhetorical terms is a valid tactical criticism, but there is no indication that Corbyn’s decision not to do so has made any material difference to Labour’s overall prospects.
The issue for the Labour left now is how much weight should be attached to this Jezza Must Go clarion call, which has subsequently been endorsed by a number of backbenchers, including Jamie Reed and Angela Smith.
They are pretty clearly speaking for others. Plenty of ‘Core Group Negatives’ and ‘Hostiles’ feel the same way, but prefer not to say so publicly for the time being.
The context here is the continuing speculation that Corbyn will face a formal leadership challenge within a matter months, perhaps after the EU referendum on 23 June.
At best diversionary, at worst akin to political sabotage, making failure at the next general election more and not less likely, such a development would instantly expose the hollowness of the 4.5%ers’ ‘we’re doing it for all the good Labour folks out there’ shtick.
If we face a democratic contest, the left will fight it again and the left will win it again. Of that, the Labour right should harbour no realistic doubt.
But if – as reports indicate that some plotters envisage – Corbyn is toppled by rulebook manoeuvre and an alternative imposed, the risk to the party could prove existential.
That, Mr Woodcock, surely would constitute what would no doubt have been referred to in the Watergate tapes as an [expletive deleted] disaster.
If your loyalties are as you say they are and it’s not too late already, let me put this to you in the sort of language you are seemingly given to using; shut the fuck up, respect the verdict of the party membership, and work for Labour victory rather than Labour defeat.
I suspect that the ‘real plan’ by the moderates/Mandelson is to alienate the Corbyn supporters into leaving, and then they have Dan Jarvis and the shadow shadow cabinet ready in place for replacing JC after a vote of no confidence.
Nothing else makes sense as a strategy because as you say, Corbyn would win another contest with the current membership but preventing him from standing would iniate a mass exodus which would only leave the moderate membership to vote in the 4.5%ers. It is counterintuitive to think that ‘they’ would want to lose so many members but how else will they get ‘their’ party back. However, the risk to the LP is existential … pasokification the most likely result.
Dan Jarvis backed Andy B,who got 21% of members votes, not 4.5%
It’s still only a third of the vote that JC received.
Which means of course that NEW Labour would lose about two thirds of it’s membership. Oops!
no because 10% of the JC vote was from non members!
49% compared to the 59% he got
And what about the £3 tourists who became members? As I understand it membership has doubled since the general election, many, I think it is safe to assume, because of Corbyn.
Not that I anticipate this argument swaying those intent on toppling Corbyn, but it is now way above 49% of the party who support Corbyn. This is why the plotters continually talk of the needs of the electorate over the wishes of party members, it justifies their actions, to themselves at least.
I largely agree with you; in fact most of the people that I know personally, (many of whom are well to the left of me,) already regard the post Blair labor party as sick and tired joke, (Cobyn’s defeat by the PLP over Syria was a benchmark of political cynicism,) in fact some of them regard even bothering to try to talk sensibly to the far too well heeled, completely out of touch and wholly uninterested and anything but socialist , “Nu,” Labor legacy MPs and CLPs seriously as an entirely pointless and even as a risible exercise at this point.
It’s become increasing hard to argue that they’re wrong.
The most accurate and perceptive comment along the lines of, “why do you even bother with these people,” was made recently by a woman I’ve know for over 40 years and who I stood toe to toe against the excesses of the British Police under Thatcher; and with plenty of expletive.
As for the opinion poles; who gives a fuck ?
“There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion.”
Winston Churchill
“The polls are just being used as another tool of voter suppression. The polls are an attempt to not reflect public opinion, but to shape it.”
Rush Limbaugh
Excesses of British police, they were stopping criminal strikers trying to intimidate people who weren’t on strike.
Why do you persevere in soiling this Left Futures site with your Daily Mail view of the world drivel, Reid ? No-one reading or contributing on here is interested in your endless Right Wing nonsense. You obviously have far too much time on your hands, to waste it so pointlessly.
This is an excellent article. John Woodcock and his kind are enemies of both democratic socialism and Labour Party member’s democracy. A large majority of us supported Jeremy’s election and continue to support his leadership as polls have shown.
Please may I remind Party members and affiliates that when John Woodcock was selected as Parliamentary Candidate for Barrow there was a series of comments in Tribune pointing out a number of irregularities in the selection procedure which were overlooked by the contemporary New Labour Party machine. Woodcock’s own legitimacy as a Labour MP is therefore in serious doubt. Perhaps he should be de-selected on those grounds?
Gaye Johnston
in what way is woodcock a enemy of democratic socialism, if the one strong to oust his wing with their hate lists and deselections are undemocratic
why did you reply then
and its not daily Mail, view Penney ,everyone form Kinnock to Kim Howells shared the view that the police were fair the striking miners were violent
what I do with my time is upto me
if the left want to get votes they have to accept a few truths and if they read it here that the miners who killed taxi driver were violent then maybe accepting it will increase a few labour votes
Scarcely worth responding to I fully agree, (not least because John P Reid is always so tired, dull and so utterly predicable,in fact more like an attention seeking 14 year old, than a serious political commentator, or to put it another way, a, “troll,” ) and in point of fact my own comment about both my own and about many other people’s experiences as well, with the Police, during the worst of the Thatcher period insanity, (the Police, whom on a good day I still, “mostly,” trust and respect, and particularly so after their behavior during riots up here 10 years ago which was quite different to how they’d behaved during the 80’s) and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Miners, although Scargill was still basically right, as subsequent events have proven, and I still have every sympathy with them.
As I commented above, the broad left in the UK is a far broader church than most people here seem to appreciate and most of us are now well out side and increasingly at odds with the Labor party.
So anyone who points out lies is a troll, great so all the lies the CLPD have put about, there not being anti semeticism, or its all Israel,or that it’s everyone else fault Corbin’s not popular, they’re all trolls are they
With the renewed interests in speaking out for Labour, Leslie, Reeves, Cooper and others it seems that showing renewed interest in demonstrating superior worth. One part of the strategy would to show how much better spokespersons they would be as a less shadow alternative cabinet. But from behaviour and comments we can infer that there are others who in any case think they need to publicly challenge Corbyn to present themselves as an alternative, even when to do so results in a lost election. Of course there may be some who are so ‘hostile’ that they may use this as a test as whether to go or stay. Others may have decided to stay and value an earlier challenge as a necessary stage for a further attempt at better times. It looks rather like first attempted coup in Chile when Pinochet stood aside until his position was even stronger. It is a little worrying that McDonnell goes around complacently saying that so many now just want to get on with the job and it is not a major concern. Without the complacency element, I suspect none of this matters and McDonnell is right. Should it affect what the Left should do at all? My view is that continuing to work in the same manner is the only correct strategy. Of course they are plotting, both in a soft and a hard sense. Of course they will use multiple and disguised approaches to increase their eventual success but with strong campaigning; enhancement engagement of party membership; maintain and extending the numbers on the fringe of commitment; encouragement of the new, to take on further responsibilities is the only beneficial response possible.
Labour would already be dead if it had elected anyone else other than Corbyn as leader. New Labour, the `moderates’, the Blairites and the Brownites are all political kryptonite. With any of them in charge membership would have walked and voters as in Scotland would have looked for something else. But what, if they are a politically irrelevant force with no `Third Way’ to offer in these polarised times where the middle ground was definitively exploded by the 2008 financial catastrophe, is keeping these corrupt and criminal forces in the game? Only the Labour Left, Corbyn, by capitulating politically to them at every opportunity is giving them any relevance whatsoever and they will use that relevance to stop the working class in the back in 2020 when they refuse to form a government under Corbyn and enter coalition with Tory `moderates’ for a government of national unity or emergency. Except that Corbyn’s capitulations are so rapid and so fundamental that they will not have the opportunity to ride back into power on his anti-austerity coat tails before the pasokification of Labour recommences and is completed. Of course he still has Trident as Blair had fox hunting to keep the faithful believing there’s some radical core there but on the big issues he’s handed the party back to New Labour all the way down the line. The EU is the biggest and most obvious example and the one likely to cause the fatal damage for Corbyn’s Labour and Labour in general. Voting with Cameron will have the same ultimate effect in England and Wales as it did in Scotland.
Yes, it was exactly the same when Corbyn said he did not support a ‘shoot to kill policy’. Some Labour MPs quickly got onto the television to suggest that he was opposed to shooting people who were an imminent threat.
They could have rung his office up to seek clarification but chose not to.
Incidentally, it is possible that this document is not authentic.
‘Woodcock’s gripe that Corbyn should have made more of the resignation of IDS in rhetorical terms is a valid tactical criticism…’ And would also have had some political — and moral — justification had the Labour right actually proposed over the last six or so years some real opposition to Tory welfare policies.
I think there is a danger for us on the Left getting drawn into the utterly cynical “personalities not politics” narrative and practice of the Labour Right and their press pals, by believing that Jeremy “should have focused more on the IDS resignation” .
In fact Jeremy quite rightly focussed on the real story – the attempt by the Tories to rob the most vulnerable in our society – to directly transfer this “saving” across to the top 5% through tax cuts . And let’s not forget , it was Labour under Jeremy’s leadership that started and maintained the political groundswell that drew Tories , and IDs, on board, forced Osborne to abandon that entire attack on people with disabilities.
It is of course the exact same Labour Right who abstained on the Tory Welfare Bill , and will always run away from the hard world of actual Labour Movement politics (defending the working class) to instead embrace the trivia and tactical game playing of bourgeois politics. The Labour Right “strategy” is to attempt to never stand for anything that will annoy the billionaire owned press, but instead to hope to win elections by the lazy route of petty nitpicking at fine detail of Tory policies and internal disputes, hoping that the Tories essentially lose elections by becoming increasingly unpopular – rather than Labour actively WINNING elections by offering a genuine political alternative to the neoliberal consensus.
One could see this cynical Labour Right approach to politics in the recent stand-in at PMQ for Jeremy by the dreadful Eagle – as she backhandedly sneered and laughed, along with her Tory friends, at Jeremy’s questions from ordinary citizens, and a quite evident relief was apparent on both benches that ” politics as it should be” had temporarily returned to the House of Commons.
Good post.
The Right may be reckoning on many of the Corbynites failing to renew their memberships at one year. Many CLPs have tried to freeze them out.
I’m shocked if this is true, do many on the right of the party run CLPs, I don’t mean Blairites , but people on the a centre left Tom Watson, Angela Eqgle Kier Starmer, ones who identified with the labour governments of the 60’s 70’s
There’s not going to be a coup,and it won’t be due to Corbynistas not renewing their memberships, most of the people who voted JC, have been m the Bears at least 6 years, If many councillors who are on the centre,or centre right of the party voted for Jac due to the other 3 being rubbish,and they lose their council seats in 2017′ 2018 due to Labour being unpopular, they won’t even say that it’s important we don’t lose even more councillors in 2020′ and that Jc must go to stop it,they’ll carry on, until the last minute
Labour is a Democratic Socialist Party and as the Right is organising then so should the Left, around ideas.
So get left wing democratic socialist delegates to conference; get left wing democratic socialist resolutions and rule changes to Conference; get more Left Wing democratic socialists on the NEC; and next time in Parliamentary selections choose left wing democratic socialists; oh and turn outwards to help with the local elections and other campaigns (which some of us have been doing since December).
But you have to ask the question, in the run up to these important elections, who is it who is attacking the Labour Leadership in the media and promoting their ‘great men and women of history’ it is certainly not the Left.
It is some of the Right who are letting down the working class/working people and we deserve better.
To be honest with you and you always come across as a genuine and sincere bloke, (we could use more like you,) but for the first time in my adult life, (other than being out of the country when Blair was elected; so not my fault,) I doubt that I’ll even bother to vote at at upcoming local elections, our 60 local councilors have been so sidelined and so subordinated to McMahon’s cooperate Oldahm, there seems little or no point.
But perhaps I’ll change my mind.
That even before stuff like this wich probably as sad as it’s evil;
“COUNCILOR Kaiser Rehman was last night expelled by the Labor Party after allegedly impersonating a fellow councilor on Facebook.”
“The stunt is understood to have been a failed attempt to frame a colleague for sexually abusing a child in a bid to clear the way for a friend to take over as a ward councillor. Several Oldham Labor group insiders have told the Chronicle an accomplice of Councillor Rehman’s contacted the Facebook page of a well-respected male Labor councillor and accused him of sexually abusing him as a child.”
“It is understood Councillor Rehman, who has declined to comment, intercepted the message and pretended to be the other councillor and made it appear he was bribing the fake victim.”
“Councillor Rehman then presented his “evidence” to Councillor Jim McMahon – then council leader; his deputy, now leader, Jean Stretton and chief executive Carolyn Wilkins who told police.”
“Police found no evidence and the case was dropped.”
And so on and so on and so on…………..
Labor may have chucked him out, but he’s still a bloody councillor.
Which, like much else that goes on round here, is not very encouraging for me as a voter.
Or this now I think of it,
“A councillor convicted of downloading indecent images of boys has defied calls for him to resign.”
“Mike Buckley, a parish councillor in Saddleworth, Oldham, was found guilty of making indecent images of children at Manchester Crown Court.
“Saddleworth Parish Council’s chairman said it was “inappropriate” for the 68-year-old to carry on.
“Mr Buckley, of Dobcross, said it was his “responsibility” to continue serving his constituents.”
Lucky us.
Or this now you’ve got me started:
“Jim McMahon, (now our MP,) who is also leader of the council, has denied knowing that a company he is a director of is involved in a tax avoidance scheme in Luxembourg.”
“Mr McMahon reportedly said he was “unaware” of the scheme, but according to Companies House as a director he has a duty to “prepare the financial statements in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice”.
I don’t expect politicians to be plaster saints, (which is just as well,) and we all have to live in the real world; but seriously ?