Corbyn stands as an Independent May 24, 2024
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.trackback
Jeremy Corbyn has confirmed he will stand as an independent candidate in Islington North, vowing to fight for equality, democracy and peace.
The former Labour leader, who has held the seat for more than 40 years, says he will defend policies that have not been adopted by Labour or the Conservatives, including rent controls and the abolition of the two child benefits cap.
He was blocked from standing again for Labour, and suspended for remarks he made after the equalities watchdog report into antisemitism in the party. While he remains a Labour member, he will be expelled for standing against the party at the election.The Guardian understands Corbyn had hoped to announce his plans to stand next Tuesday, but Rishi Sunak’s snap election announcement forced him to bring forward his plans.
The Cedar Lounge Revolution 
He was blocked from standing again for Labour, and suspended for remarks he made after the equalities watchdog report into antisemitism in the party.
As remarked on by various BLP members on Xitter today, Keith’s motion to suspend Jeremy Corbin from the parliamentary party made zero mention of anti-semitism (probably to forestall a successful challenge of same).
The fiction that Corbyn is an anti-semite and that his BLP had an ‘anti-semitism problem’ was given credence and widely ventilated on this blog over the period when it was being used to get rid of him and his comrades; contrition is too much to ask for, I guess.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fiction that Corbyn is an anti-semite and that his BLP had an ‘anti-semitism problem’ was given credence and widely ventilated on this blog over the period when it was being used to get rid of him and his comrades; contrition is too much to ask for, I guess.
???
LikeLike
On this blog, the CLR? is that you EWI under yet another new username? Or someone else who has decided the CLR is insufficiently this or that. Sure we must be a nest of raving Starmerites.
Of course, we’re not, couldn’t be more sceptical of Starmer et al.
There was one post – one, I checked, on anti-semitism in the BLP across that period – and it was critically sympathetic to the BLP and Corbyn while still pointing to the reality that anti-semitism exists everywhere even in the BLP and that some of the responses weren’t necessary great for the BLP. Here it is:
The idea that the issue was widely ventilated on this blog is a crock, but this blog and those on it have their own opinions and aren’t going to pretend they don’t or just row in behind anyone in any party simply cos.
Worth reading the comments beneath the post for the views of people on here who absolutely weren’t hostile to Corbyn or the leadership but, as one said, thought the issue was being ‘bungled’ in some ways – something I still think is true even if it was disgracefully weaponised by others both inside and outside the BLP.
There were a few open goals missed by the BLP leadership in all this, for whatever reason. But that leadership was one that was critically and long supported on the site and I’ve long articulated that John McDonnell in particular is someone I’d support through thick and thin. Here’s a post on his subsequent take:
Given the fact we had Diary of a Corbyn Footsoldier every month or so written by a BLP member in London who was very strongly supportive of Corbyn and very very hostile to those suggestions and multiple posts defending Corbyn, I think you’re very very wide of the mark. Unless you just want uncritical acceptance of your view on all matters, whatever form you currently adopt here. Which is fine but if so this isn’t the blog for it.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Irish Times:
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-style/people/2024/05/24/keir-starmers-green-army-meet-the-irish-strategists-aiming-to-put-the-uk-labour-leader-into-downing-street/
LikeLike
The odd thing is that this character seems to think ‘identity’ politics is effectively all left politics. That doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
Translated as: first you lie about everything you intend to do, then you purge your opponents and finally you adopt the Tory agenda as your own.
If course he will win the general election and then his sub-Tory agenda will open up a massive space for the far right in the form of the Reform Party or an even more radicalised Tory Party. The only realistic hope from a socialist point of view is that this will also open up space for a renewed push for Scottish independence and Irish unity.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The brazen untrustworthiness of Starmer and betrayal of those who believed in him pre- and post-Corbyn being trumpeted as a virtue by the UK Labour leadership. Shocking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This. I imagine the Tories are going to hammer this home. May not make any great difference but it does hole Starmer’s leadership under the water in terms of credibility. What I find really fascinating is the idea that if you lie – because that is what was done – to the membership of the BLP that somehow that doesn’t count as lying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can see Tory PPBs featuring Starmer supporting Corbyn and then Starmer junking his promises with the catchline ‘You can’t trust Starmer’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They write themselves. The betrayal of the gains of that period, the incredible over exaggeration of the supposed off-the-scale radicalism of the Corbyn period – which as has often been noted was really fairly mainstream 1970s-style LP policy (and all the better for it), otherwise known as traditional social democracy, the betrayal of party members who were literally sold a pup in terms of Starmer’s programme – or supposed programme.
It’s beyond galling. But the real stupidity in this was thinking that it had no impacts beyond the BLP itself. This is going to dog Starmer. And it should.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could very well happen, Wes…
or if he treats his own party members like this … what will he do to the rest of us?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sunak has already made reference to his blatant dishonesty, I think, hasn’t he? Up against Johnson, there’d be two of them in it, but I don’t think Sunak does suffer from a clearly documented history of wilful dishonesty, much as I’ve no time for him.
Surely, eventually the “sensible politics” people who are still running around like headless chickens screaming “Trump” and “Brexit” rather than presenting any political alternative have to realise Starmer is of exactly the same ilk as those ‘anomalies’ they’re still trying to reject from the body politic like a liberal auto-immune disease that can’t recognise facets of itself.
LikeLike
Will Corbyn win the seat?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d hope so. Guardian seems to suggest he most likely will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seems popular in the area judging by the various vox pops done by news outlets
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t got a vote there but I don’t think I could vote for him. He’s just plain wrong on the Russian imperialist murder assault on Ukraine.
Wouldn’t vote Tory or Labour either. So maybe there’s a Green or some alternative leftie there who’d get my theoretical vote.
LikeLike
He isn’t great in Ukraine though a bit more ambiguous than some so I think I could do it. Well meaning is the way I’d put it. Not actively malign or self serving.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I doubt if any candidate would reflect my views 100% but Corbyn would go a long way – and, sometimes, one has to vote tactically even if you have differences with the Left’s best option.
Besides, a Corbyn defeat would be trumpeted by the Tory media as well as Starmer and Labour Friends of Israel.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think McDonnell would have been much better,.
There is something hapless about Corbyn. the term Allotment man sort of suits him. He surrounded himself with arrogant Stalinists, Milne & Co. He failed to act decisively about most things. Decisive action on the anti-semitism issue could have thwarted it early on.
He should have dealt with the right-wing plotters in a similar manner to which he is being dealt with now. In a contrast, Boris Johnson purged the Remainers in a ruthless manner.
His legacy is a destroyed and demoralised Left inside and indeed outside Labour. A decent man, out of his depth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
+1 re “a decent man out of his depth”.
Corbyn didn’t seem decisive and effective enough. While he inspired many, he failed to convince many more that he could actually lead a government. The appearance of being able to command even your own party was often absent.
And I can’t understand why he didn’t do interviews with opinion formers such as LBC’s James O’Brien to at least try to neutralise head-on some of the ‘Centrist Dad’ criticism from the Labour Right.
LikeLike
I’m afraid McDonnell fits that description much better than Corbyn – hellbent on seeking compromise with people who would never compromise with his tendency and conceding ground to them over and over again, including in the years since the 2019 election defeat when there was no longer even any theoretical reason to appease the Labour right – so I’m honestly not sure if you could have been paying close attention during that time; this idea that McDonnell was much better than Corbyn is very popular with people who judge things based on vibes rather than a close look at what happened.
If it was up to McDonnell, for example, there would have been complete surrender to false claims of antisemitism, total appeasement right across the board on every issue that arose (indeed, he publicly undermined Corbyn several times when he made some attempt to hold the line around the idea that facts and evidence count for something and Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as Israelis, which was always the core issue at stake). If you wanted to see more decisive action against the Labour right, McDonnell is absolutely not the person you were looking for; every choice he made between the 2017 and 2019 elections pointed in the opposite direction, so again, this seems to be relying on vibes rather than analysis.
LikeLike
‘Every choice he made between 2017 and 2019’? The guy who was shadow chancellor in a shadow cabinet led by Corbyn and presented the most leftwards economic programmes to the UK electorate twice is somehow now just a vibe than analysis? That doesn’t ring true. As to subsequently if one were his politics wouldn’t it be key to keep a foothold in the BLP for leftists in spite of Starmer.
As an ex-member of the BLP, it’s always been clear to me that the left is a minority within the BLP and talk of purges etc are implausible. That said, the Starmer right is also a minority and his time is limited. Surely that was evident from the 1990s and 2000s. A leadership, any leadership can only take it so far (Starmer’s advantage is it’s been out of power a decade and a half and sadly far too many members will jettison far too much now to regain it).
There’s no real space under FPTP for fourth parties in the British polity. Corbyn may well retain his seat as an indo but few others can or will. So ensuring that tradition survives inside the BLP is a good thing because Starmer won’t be leader for ever.
Finally, while Palestine is a very important issue it’s not the only or even the most important issue when it comes to ensuring a left govt in the UK.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The idea that McDonnell would have been more uncompromising that Corbyn in dealing with the Labour right is absolutely, 100% based on vibes rather than analysis; and yes, every choice that he made on every key issue that arose between the 2017 and 2019 elections did point away from the idea of being more uncompromising towards the Labour right. There was nothing hidden about this, it was a conscious strategy that he followed.
Let’s compare it to Sinn Féin. Imagine someone said 10 or 15 years ago: “Gerry Adams is a liability because of his association with the IRA campaign—Martin McGuinness or Gerry Kelly would do much better as leader, because they wouldn’t have that baggage.” It obviously wouldn’t make any sense. They might be right to describe Adams as a liability, or they might be right to say that McGuinness or Kelly would do better, but the rationale about being associated with the IRA campaign wouldn’t make any sense, because McGuinness and Kelly were just as heavily involved during the war in the North as Adams.
The same goes for saying “McDonnell would have been much better—they should have been much more ruthless and compromising in dealing with the Labour right.” The two arguments contradict each other, because McDonnell was the leading advocate of compromise with the Labour right and wanted them to compromise more than they actually did.
If you read the book by Owen Jones, for example, he’s a huge defender and champion of McDonnell; the idea of McDonnell being superior to Corbyn is one of the main themes of his book. But he recognizes that McDonnell was an advocate of greater compromise with inner-party critics and opponents of the leadership, and he thinks that was a good thing.
As you can probably tell, I don’t agree. I don’t have an issue with compromise as a general principle—I understand that you sometimes have to pick your battles in politics—but I think the compromises that McDonnell wanted them to make were self-defeating and counter-productive. Whatever interpretation you put on the facts, though, it’s important to stick to the facts and not just wander off into wishful thinking or imaginary scenarios.
Putting McDonnell aside, I generally agree with the idea that the Labour left should have been more ruthless and uncompromising when they had the leadership, but reducing it all to a question of willpower isn’t very helpful. You can say “they should have dealt with the Labour right the same way that Starmer has dealt with the Labour left,” but that’s a bit like saying all Premier League teams should play like Manchester City; ideally they should, but you have to recognize the massive advantage the City players have because of the structure that’s backing them up off the pitch.
At least when it comes to City, Pep Guardiola really is a brilliant manager, even if he also has the resources of a petro-state to support him. I don’t think Starmer is remotely like Guardiola; a better comparison might be with the days when Juventus bribed all the referees in Italy to award them dodgy penalties. You have to recognize the nature of the Labour Party, its role in the British political system, and its relationship with the state.
If the left faction had tried to drive out their opponents between 2015 and 2019, they would have run into strong opposition from the entire British media, various state institutions, and probably the majority of Labour MPs. The most likely outcome of large-scale deselection of Labour MPs and councillors would have been to blow up the Labour Party in its current form. I think they should have taken that risk and tried to build something out of the wreckage—it would have been better than the current situation—but let’s not pretend there was an easy path to follow.
LikeLike
I’ve never argued about McDonnell being more uncompromising with the Labour right. That’s not my critique of Corbyn and I don’t make that claim in my comment (I actually point to the difficulty in ejecting or purging the right), so you’re kind of arguing past the actual point being made though then trying to rope my point about his tenure in to that which is expedient to your argument but doesn’t make any sense.
What I’m stating is that McDonnell would have been a better leader in presentational terms – had it been possible. I made that quite clear in my previous comment and you’ve now tried to muddy the waters. But there’s a more basic problem to this than trying to deflect and evade the point I’m actually making as against the one you might prefer I was making in order to support whatever your argument is beyond boosterism for Corbyn and intense negativity about McDonnell.
What was said on here was some fairly low-level criticism of Corbyn, mostly around presentation, not about principle or policy.
I’ve no doubts as to your sincerity but you state again about ‘vibes’. You’re the one not merely criticising McDonnell but quite literally destroying his reputation and painting him as little better than a sucker and a traitor (actually you paint him as a sucker) in order to what, build Corbyn up? Why?
Politics isn’t about personalities, it’s not about saviours – it’s about parties and movements building across time. We don’t or shouldn’t bet the house on one person. Corbyn had two shots at the gig. He did very well but he could have done better. I don’t blame him personally for the defeats; there was so much more going on.
I personally think that with McDonnell at the helm there’s a chance that Labour might have done better. But – and this is crucial – that wasn’t the environment that was in place at the time.
You are raking over a fairly throwaway bunch of comments on the CLR about how in retrospect someone like McDonnell might have been better for the BLP. No more. Yet you respond to a hypothetical, largely theoretical, discussion in your initial and follow-up comments with something that paints Corbyn’s closest political lieutenant – the person charged with offering the economic programme at two elections, the programme generally acknowledged to be the most left-wing on offer in a generation and a half –/as an appeaser, a compromiser, someone who would surrender, ‘total appeasement’. Etc, etc.
Corbyn had many virtues (as had been noted) but he wasn’t a great communicator. It’s not doing Corbyn down, no betrayal on our part to think that. We work with what we’ve got. You can agree or disagree but to try to make out McDonnell is the worst in the world because people have made that point seems absurdly disproportionate to the again theoretical discussion on here.
Again, I’ve no doubt about your sincerity but there’s a troubling dynamic around an excessive intense personification around individuals and a form of personification where any criticism of the individuals is met with hyperbole. That’s not left politics as I understand it either in the orthodox Marxist home I originally had or a more libertarian left version I’ve moved towards. Say what one likes about the WP but we were deeply suspicious of personalities and rightly so.
Here’s a linked point. In relation to, Corbyn this site didn’t undermine him (not that it would have made a blind bit of difference) and supported his project throughout. It’s no betrayal years after the event to say, well, you know perhaps he wasn’t the greatest communicator and X, Y or Z might (had the circumstances arisen) been a better fit. In fact, it’s essential. It’s what will help the next time an opportunity arises.
As to your stuff about breaking the BLP apart. Again I know you’re sincere but it’s just doesn’t seem to engage in terms of what the BLP is and what it isn’t, the nature of third party runs in the UK polity etc.
McDonnell realised that the party was a certain sort of party – a left of centre, centre(ish) social democratic party of the modern type. The left didn’t have the ability or the will to take over, and arguably shouldn’t have on democratic grounds, because the membership wasn’t in the bag for that.
There’s no Party B in British politics for the left outside the BLP, at least not at the moment and not for years to come. Doesn’t mean anyone has to support a thing they do, and as currently constituted I’d be very leery indeed to the point of absolutely not voting for some BLP MPs etc. But that’s the reality.
To talk of wishful thinking or imaginary scenarios in the context of what you have written seems ironic.
LikeLike
Sorry to contradict you, WBS, but personalities did count in the WP.
People who were extremely odd fits for the WP stayed with them due to personal loyalty to the likes of Garland, Goulding and Mac Giolla.
In my own area, people who wouldn’t have had a clue about the likes of dialectical materialism, democratic centralism, the Industrial Dept, etc, stayed with the Sticks out of personal loyalty to Francie Donnelly. They and Francie are nearly all dead now and when the last of them depart this world the WP in South Derry will be no more.Their entire existence for decades depended on a personal loyalty with no emphasis or indeed, if truth be told, no empathy for the policies the party espoused.
Lest anybody thinks I am reverting to type, the main reason the peace process succeeded up here was also down to the immense personal loyalty that the likes of Adams and McGuinness inspired. People with doubts about the whole thing went along with it on the basis of “Gerry knows what he’s doing” and, thankfully, peace was achieved on that basis.
Never discard the strength of personalities in bringing about political change.People went along with policing and other issues that many of them did not really believe in on the basis of loyalty to personalities and this was enough to cement the peace,.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good caveat and I should have clarified I meant electoral politics and personality. WP posters were green and black in the 80s with candidate names and a slogan – no more. In my and Banjo’s area there was immense hostility to McCartan because many of us thought he was being personalised ahead of the party. The focus on PdR 88 onwards was very unwelcome to many particularly at the Europeans in 1989. A lot of scepticism about that campaign. Again in part because of elevtiralusn branding around a figure etc. but you are as absolutely right about internally – and even as a party – thinking of how it was the hunger strikes that saw a loss of people who’d hung on for years due to loyalties (sometimes to an amorphous organisational idea too). And at the splits as BH and SM note people went unexpected ways due to personal links.
LikeLiked by 1 person