OneGuyFromBarlick

Corbyn and his supporters have recently formed their equivalent of the right-wing Tories' European Research Group but with the objective of getting back in charge of the Labour Party.

I note that the Northern Tory MPs have formed a 'Research Group' as well. It seems to be all the fashion these days.
See this (LINK)
Peter, any evidence of that about Corbyn and taking over the party?

Stanley wrote: ↑30 Oct 2020, 03:40 Peter, any evidence of that about Corbyn and taking over the party?

I was going to ask that as well. Not beyond the realms of media hype and fake news, there is certainly a lot of it about regarding JC at the moment. As an activist in the party (but for how long?), I subscribe to numerous channels and with my roles I get regular updates etc and I have heard nothing to that effect.

I have to admit that I am vexed why Starmer should take the stance that he has. Unless of course this was an opportunity to good to miss. He has the media on his side and has rolled over accepting the report in full and is, in the words of the media "damming". If you actually read it, it has quite e few positive points but they have been ignored as a means to an end.

I am not sure if the party actually represents my values any more. It is moving back to having an anti socialism stance and from my point of view, what is a bloke to do?

Ever since the move from agriculture in 1830s to a capitalist wage economy the logic was always to have a pool of poor people who would keep wages down and add an element of fear into losing their lobs. Of course this approach helped to maximize profits. Rowntree's studies on the poor in 1900 help to offset the absolute poverty by the development of a more sympathetic support system rather than the cruel workhouses. Even then the amount of support was always less than that of the poorest wages. ie: to encourage the poor back to work but not upsetting the wage structure. Today we see Iain Duncan Smith MP still pushing the same ideology with reduce Universal Benefits with the logic that the underlying theme of smaller support as encouragement in getting these scroungers back to work. The drift into the gig economy removed support even further with zero hours contracts. The covid-19 epidemic has now seen wages reduced to 80% of the normal wage with further reductions to 70%. This could be a golden opportunity to claim that the minimum wage is actually too high and should be reduced. Along with this thinking the Benefits could also be reduced making further savings for the exchequer. Boris's insistence in not providing free school meals during holidays could be pointing to a drift into not providing any free meals at all. If they can manage during holidays they can manage through the school term.
I won't get onto pensions only that the more pensioners who fall to the virus the bigger the saving.
Safe in our hands?

Stanley wrote: ↑30 Oct 2020, 03:40 I note that the Northern Tory MPs have formed a 'Research Group' as well. It seems to be all the fashion these days.
See this (LINK)
Peter, any evidence of that about Corbyn and taking over the party?

This was in The Times on 17th October. I can't find anything else about it on Google but I read it in the paper that day. (The Times and the `i' on Saturdays are the only papers we buy.) I recall it being quite detailed and in the first few pages. I've linked the page here but a subscription is needed to read the whole article. I don't subscribe and the paper went out with last week's recycling.
`Corbynites create policy group to resist Starmer' LINK
`A group of Labour MPs have established their own policy research operation amid growing left-wing opposition to the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer. In a break with colleagues from the mainstream of the party, several allies of Jeremy Corbyn are using parliamentary office expenses to fund the Socialist Parliamentary Research Group (SPRG). The pooled research and writing service has inspired comparisons with the European Research Group that supported generations of Conservative Brexiteers in their guerrilla campaign to shift the Tory position on Europe and eventually brought about the ousting of Theresa May as prime minister. Labour officials see the emergence as a sign of a renewed intent to resist Sir Keir’s policy platform by the increasingly rebellious MPs on the Corbynite left who have sought.....[fades out].

Later... I've tried searching for the `Socialist Parliamentary Research Group (SPRG)' named in The Times article and found no such thing. But I did find `Socialist Research Group' on Twitter so perhaps the Times got the name wrong.

Labour need to accept they are not a `split party', they are not even `a party'. They are two parties each trying to use the same name. The two sides will never be reconciled. They need to re-form as two parties and take it from there.
`Jeremy Corbyn suspension 'could cost Labour next election' LINK
`Labour's decision to suspend Jeremy Corbyn risks "chaos" and could cost the party the next election, one of the ex-leader's most powerful allies has said. Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, warned: "A split party will be doomed to defeat."..'.

So basically it's the socialist MP's who have got a group together to combat the surge to the right of the party. Nothing wrong with that regardless of what you call it, normal politics really sensationalised by the media.

Tonight's all members meeting of the General Committee will be interesting. As it says on the tin, all members are welcome to contribute to these monthly meetings. Held by zoom,details circulated to all members. The GC of the Constituency Party moved to all member meetings a couple of years ago from the former branch delegate system. I have just had an email to notify of an Emergency Motion which will be on the agenda tonight regarding the suspension of JC without due process. If passed it will be forwarded to the Leader, Deputy Leader and the General Secretary of the party.

Just read your follow on post Peter, this latest act by Starmer has increased the risk of a split in the party. In the long game that might not be a bad idea. I read an interesting piece about how the "establishment" or the Lords of the Universe who pull the strings and transcend party politics view the political landscape. It said that until the election of Jeremy Corbyn they could always count on the Labour Party to roll over in times of crisis and support whatever was the hidden agenda of the day, decimation of industry, wars etc. Once JC was elected they knew he was man of committed principle and therefore was a direct threat so was targetted for removal from the day he took office. Sounds about right, Starmer is just attempting to complete the job.

I saw a possible prophetic comment yesterday on one of the local politics threads. It went along the lines of "It was a Keir who started the party and sadly another one who has wrecked it".

We all have our different views Ian and I'd say Corbyn had already wrecked it.

Of course you would and I would expect nothing less. Hundreds of thousands of Labour Party members myself included who consider themselves socialists would tend to disagree with you though. The current incumbents of both government and opposition are scared to death of socialism and will do anything to avoid the policies. I bet that if you asked the majority of them for a definition of socialism they couldn't give you one or any example of how it works, they would rather believe all that the media tell them.

I am probably already doomed going off what Starmer said yesterday. I have put my name to a letter addressed to him and signed as well as myself by a number of members of our Constituency Party. It criticises his position on this matter and calls on him to reverse hid decision. According to his threats to the membership in his deliverance last night, that in itself automatically makes me an anti-Semite. I will fight anyone who denies me the right to criticize the State of Israel and their Zionist policies against the State of Palestinian and it's inhabitants. Even Holocaust survivors have called such policies "acts of terrorism".

He does not represent my views so why should I continue to support him?

The trouble is Labour is now two different parties wanting to be under the same banner. I can see nothing but squabbling until the two lots separate. I know that means it's splitting the vote but you're never going to get enough votes anyway while all the squabbling goes on. It's just making Labour look worse than ever. I'm not against Labour, I'd love to see a strong party to fight the Tories but we haven't got one and I don't see there being one for a long time.

Here is some comment I found, that goes some way to explain why a lot of members are upset:

Source Direct - Is dissent allowed in Keir Starmer’s Labour?

PanBiker wrote: ↑30 Oct 2020, 14:25 Of course you would and I would expect nothing less. Hundreds of thousands of Labour Party members myself included who consider themselves socialists would tend to disagree with you though. The current incumbents of both government and opposition are scared to death of socialism and will do anything to avoid the policies. I bet that if you asked the majority of them for a definition of socialism they couldn't give you one or any example of how it works, they would rather believe all that the media tell them.

I am probably already doomed going off what Starmer said yesterday. I have put my name to a letter addressed to him and signed as well as myself by a number of members of our Constituency Party. It criticises his position on this matter and calls on him to reverse his decision. According to his threats to the membership in his deliverance last night, that in itself automatically makes me an anti-Semite. I will fight anyone who denies me the right to criticize the State of Israel and their Zionist policies against the State of Palestine and it's inhabitants. Even Holocaust survivors have called such policies "acts of terrorism".

He does not represent my views so why should I continue to support him?

Interestingly, while the internals of the LP have been going on The Present State of Israel has been getting on with building relationships with some of the Islamic nations in its Middle Eastern Areas ( I think back to the alliances and treaties of the same areas going back to around 4000-400 BC !!) without any interference from UK, or the Labour Party. That elements of Palestinan representitives see this as a sell-out or denial of their rights, in the world of political interests it may be good to think that wider power brokers might give some confidence to at least get Israel to be less worried about long-term ambitions of other islamic states, which might get some relaxation in the tension to the Palestine countries. I dont know, I dont think Trump supporting the changes to Jerusalem helped a couple of years back, but if UK loses its soft power the obvious will be a growth in China and/ Russia tugging behind the scenes to probably a more peaceful future (if resources can be shared less unfairly). In short , Labour, not in power , has no real influence in the middle east, Labour in Government, has little more.

Couple of recent thoughts
"opportunity to claim that the minimum wage is actually too high and should be reduced." I thought the idea of minimum wage was that the state should not subsidise the Employer, additionally for the public sector increasing wages in low paid jobs I think crudley reduces the benefits claimable at more than a 100% marginal rate , so the treasury (and some commenters are saying that taxation is currently shifting money from the general public to tory supporters and out to tax havens), actually saves money overall. ( pre-covid anyway)

Difficult to form a working socialist party that is popular accross England / UK. TUSC where they stood in the past got no more than 5% of votes, and the natural conservativism of the middle classes in suburban areas became clear in the last general election. The metro dwellers in flats still aspire to those suburban areas , so where can the change come? Is it time to abandon Labour as a whole. The SNP has embraced broadly socialist principles in its public services in Scotland, should the natural home for those seeking equitable distribution of resources, the provision of comprehensive properly funded health care , reasonable jobs of value and long term environmental protection be the Green Party ?

I forgot, didnt Gove write to Starmer to ask him why he didn't stand up to Corbyn while he was in the Shadow Cabinet. ?

Stanley wrote: ↑24 Oct 2020, 03:38 You're right Peter and I noted that Merlin Sheldrake was interviewed as part of the BBC coverage of the matter. Unfortunately they didn't give him long enough to explain why it is such a tragedy, perhaps the BBC hasn't read and understood his book about mycorrhizal fungi which are the foundation of the whole of plant life, not just the trees. Get his book, (LINK)

I would add bacteria in the soil are also important.


I remain annoyed with HS2 being the wrong solution to the wrong question, what I cannot understand is despite reasonable queries on route and terminals there has been a pressing on regardless - and the built environment in London has already been destroyed for a pointless terminal (why does every train line in London have to stop nowadays at the City Road?)

Peter if your definition of what constitutes a Party is it cannot be split you'd better have another look at the Tories and apply that logic to them. Normal dissent and variation in policy options is the root of debate and eventual unity in agreement in any negotiation. The problem arises when one or other of the parties develops 'red lines'. I'm sure you can recognise the dangers of that one in all Parties!
I have no problem with 'socialism', indeed I have always described myself as a 'social democrat'. I can see elements of those policies in both Nye Bevan and Harold Macmillan, party has nothing to do with it, as far as I can see it's one measure of basic decency. That's why I quite literally hate the policies of Osborne and Cameron, their policy of reducing the incomes of the poorest people whilst allowing the rich to get even richer and all the time repeating the mantra 'We're all in it together' is and was wicked and has caused so much misery and damage. I suppose what I am always looking for is the opposite of what those two did. Unfortunately I can only find it in isolated voices crying out in a political wasteland.
The Johnsons and Starmers of this world are not voicing the needs of the people who most need help, they are fighting ideological wars of succession but for what end? Is it to get to a position of ultimate power? Having crushed opposition will they then use their position to advance the cause of the most needy?
That's the question and I have my own opinions, I'll leave you to yours. All I will say is that at the moment I see no signs of hope. That in itself is a tragedy.

I'm saying nothing.

Except that it would perhaps be better for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to stop squabbling and ask what they could do to assist, in the national interest.

I dipped into the Communist Manifesto by that Mr Marx last night. In 1848 I'd probably have joined myself. Today - not so much.

Stanley wrote: ↑31 Oct 2020, 04:19 Having crushed opposition will they then use their position to advance the cause of the most needy?

Poverty Comes in two basic definitions. Absolute poverty and Relative poverty.
Absolute is generally classed as starvation and hypothermia. This is the support levels promoted by the Neo-liberals, (Thatcher's right wing) .
Relative poverty has no defined standard but generally considered as not being able to enjoy many of the basic standards of those in your environment. Politicians tend to discuss this ad nauseam and finish up doing the minimum possible.

Jeremy Corbyn still holds the headlines. As I see it he was in charge when the anti-semitic charges were at their peak. The claim being he didn't do enough fast enough. Also he didn't spot what was going on that was being hidden from him. It is also said that those put in place to investigate anti-semitic claims hadn't been trained properly which begs the question should he have delayed their appointment.
I suspect wiser council will prevail and he will be reinstated to the Labour Party. Keir Starmer will in turn have to declare his ideology and where he sits with respect to the working class.
The best review of the EHRC report can be found here.
EHRC report

What has upset the members more than anything is that JC was suspended without due process. When pressed on the reason for his suspension and which of the party rules he had broken with his statement, neither the Leader of the Party, Keir Starmer or the General Secretary, David Evens could not give an answer. JC has done nothing wrong but it took less than two hours to suspend him and remove the whip. More like summary execution than the democratic process which is afforded to every other member. It is this that has to be addressed. It remains to be seen if the present leadership has the bottle to admit that they got it wrong. Their knee jerk reaction wihout refering fully to either the facts or the party rule book have just caused a heamoraging of grassroots members which will continue until some santy is restored.

Some Barlick branch members have already made their decision, and the same is true for many other members from other branches in the Constituency and the wider party. Starmer is losing all the benefits of a strong membership as it stands at the moment. I will wait for the outome of the NEC election which is in about a fortnight. Perhaps a chage of the makep of the National Executive Committee will afford some return to rule.

Looks like it's going to be late to the party yet again for Boris and his cronies. Medics and the Scientific body have been asking for what he is likely to announce and has already been implemented by other UK nations and many others in Europe. They are not fit for office.

First it was 4.00 pm - then 5.00 pm - now perhaps at 6.30 pm.

My guess is that they are trying to find words which mean lockdown - without actually using the word lockdown.

I'm reminding myself that this only applies to England - not Scotland Wales or N. Ireland.

Shambles is inadequate.

Dominic has eaten the baby...

School leaders are calling for closure across the education sector with a move to a possible 50/50 in school / remote learning model adopted.

In the Labour party tiff that is going on. It's looking more and more like JC's suspension was a plotted event. Latest news is that the party is recruiting extra workers to fast track members resignations that have come off the back of the JC suspension. The knock on effect is that the party intends to invalidate their votes in the NEC election.

I think this is another case of ignoring party rule. If the vote has been cast it should stand, the only criteria that has an effect on whether you have a vote for the NEC is if you have had sufficient membership of the party in order to claim the ballot. What happens after that vote has been cast is irrelevant. In any other form of ballot you could change your view 5 minutes after you had posted the ballot but it would not be reversible. Looks like another attempted power grab by the right of the party. Shameful, I don't know how long I can remain if this is the case.

Tripps wrote: ↑31 Oct 2020, 17:07 First it was 4.00 pm - then 5.00 pm - now perhaps at 6.30 pm.

My guess is that they are trying to find words which mean lockdown - without actually using the word lockdown.

I'm reminding myself that this only applies to England - not Scotland Wales or N. Ireland.

Shambles is inadequate.

More like trying to word it so it doesn't sound like what Kier Starmer told him to do a couple of weeks ago.

Medics have been advising the same since early September.