I am troubled by many of the discussions taking place in the media suggesting that there is an outbreak of violent threats from left wing campaigning organisations.
Some of these claims look to be blatantly wrong. It was, for example, suggested that an angry crowd had besieged Stella Creasey 's home last week. It transpired that a vicar had led inter - faith groups in a peaceful walk to her office and police attended throughout without incident reported. The most aggressive act was to leave post-it notes on the window.
Other MPs have made a big deal of receiving death threats. Well I have had them too. And many other threats. I assure you it is not fun to be the recipient of such messaging, and those making them are unambiguously wrong and should be subject to criminal sanction. But to suggest that because some (and it will be a few) partake in such behaviour that the organisations of which they claim to be a member do in an way condone such activity is just wrong. That is an assertion that no logical person should make. I am deeply disappointed to see some people of whom I would have expected better making such claims.
Maybe it's because I am a Quaker. And maybe because tax justice is thought to be a left of centre activity, that I know a lot of people who do question whether it is right to bomb in Syria. But let's also be clear, many of those same people feel on their own behalf or on behalf of others that they know that bullying and intimidation has been used as a weapon against them. Whether that is by surveillance, or because of the language used about those on benefits, or because it seems that questioning the power of the industrial and military infrastructure that supports so much of the state is always suggested to be subversive when so often the questions raised are valid concerns, many on the left do feel intimidated, powerless and even hopeless. I will never as a result condone those who react by suggesting violence: that will always be unacceptable, but at the same time I do also condemn the intimidation that has been too often used by those in power. That is as unacceptable.
In that case can I suggest that those who are now shouting out their concerns wonder why some are so alienated that they might do this? I am aware many will criticise me for even suggesting that appropriate, but I think it is. If we do not ask why people are alienated we will never solve problems and create integration.
And in that context to suggest barring organisations and their decent, law abiding but concerned members from having their voices heard is most unwise. It is only on the basis of understanding of genuine concern that society can progress for the benefit of all, which is what those on the left of politics should want.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Sensible words Richard.
Thinking back to the last time Labour went through such paroxyms, when Hilary’s dad led the Bennite faction against the moderates and the subsequent formation of the SDP, I wonder how the discourse would have played out, had there been social media available then.
Use of social media appears to turn off a regulator in some people’s brains, such that they feel quite liberated in using language that they would never use if talking to someone face to face. Sadly, this seems to have become normal in social media discourse. I’m not sure that there is anything much to be done about it, apart from sanctions against those who make criminal threats online.
Some will certainly exploit the tumults going on within the Labour party to discredit the left in general, as well as encouraging people to “look over there” to distract attention from the growing scandal around the Tory party, the Young Britons’ Foundation, Mark Clarke and his pals.
Nevertheless Labour will need to be on its mettle to spot and remove entryists (and agent provocateurs) using the current chaos to stoke more chaos, and/or move into positions of influence, just as happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
It’s merely a tactic that the right have been using for years. I wasn’t fully aware of the extent of it until the IndyRef, where I witnessed first hand the complete misrepresentation of one side in the debate where those that supported Indy were painted as violent extremists, labelled Cybernats for providing linked evidence and for challenging the status-quo and in particular those in power.
The reality on the ground was that it was the No camp that was using intimidation and lies to win. It was them that was resorting to actual violence against people and belongings.
https://squidgybidge.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/the-post-indyref-perception-in-weni-wales-england-northern-ireland/
These exact same tactics are now being deployed against Corbyn and his supporters. I have no doubt that behind closed doors that it is the Blairites that are trying to intimidate (whilst screaming to the press that it is them that are being attacked). The right wing press (and the supposed Left wing press) will help spread the smears and lies. In reality papers like the Guardian are now just the most Left leaning of the right wing media empire and have all deployed against Corbyn, as the did Indy supporters, because his ideals are a genuine threat to their hegemony.
I agree with you, and have the distinct impression that they will resist any sort of left leaning government/party (even if it were led by Blairites). The press do not want the Leveson recommendations enacted, nor do large corporations want to have to pay their taxes. At the moment I fear we are drifting towards a neo-feudal world society where the corporate and media world have and unhealthy influence on governments.
100%Agree with your commonsense views & suggestions. Yestersday the Observer printed 2 Examples of accusations that were, to say the least, devoid of forensic evidence.
Well said Richard-the real bullying, was Cameron’s disgraceful and shameful utterance which was both amateurish, infantile and vulgar as you can get (worthy of the dorms at Eton). It is probably this that is behind the vilification. Vilification is the name of the gem with the Right and they are trying to project it onto a mythologised version of the Left.
The neo-libs are scared of Corbyn because he won’t play their game by trembling before the press which is why we get a daily attack in the Telegraph (even Oborne in the Daily Mail credited Corbyn with coming out of the Syria debate with the most integrity).
People have a right to their feelings of alienation and even anger (positively channelled). Millions have been let down by Labour who offered no viable alternative to the scorched earth economics of neo-liberalism. There’s a lot of needless suffering out here and Labour, so far have failed. I can understand the anger over Syria as wheel which is an echo of the disastrous Blair-machine whose halitosis hangs over the Labour Party like a cloud of guff. The ghastly windbag speech of Hilary Benn playing at faux-statesmanship made things worse.
I see Momentum as a hopeful force -It’s clear the establishment fear it and will do their worst in trying to vilify it.
Many thanks for this, Richard. Regarding the irrationality you referred to, a lot of ‘moderates’ in the Labour Party have been driven to all sorts of irrational behaviours in the past few months by their irrational hatred of Corbyn.
We seem to have democratically elected politicians who regard peaceful protest as disloyal… well as Brecht said, if the politicians don’t like the public then let them elect another public… Why do centre-right Blairistas regard criticism from the left as inherently threatening and try to silence it? If they ignore the left voters will just go to UKIP and the Greens, no correct that, they have already done so.
Quite right Richard. With all that in mind, I’d have thought that people who attempt to stoke the situation by doctoring comments to include fabricated death-threats should be in line for special opprobrium. Imagine how the media would react if an MP ever did such a thing? Resignation issue possibly.
Except you don’t have to imagine it – as Lucy Allen Tory MP for Telford has done just that:
http://order-order.com/2015/12/02/tory-mp-doctors-constituents-email-adding-death-threat/
Media reaction? It’s made the Daily Mail, but not the Guardian. Draw you own conclusions.
The Labour party is in the throes of a civil war – and, as always, the first casualty of war is the truth. Many of the the left-wing activists who left or rejected the party or were ejected by the party during the Blair/Brown years of thumping majorities have returned (accompanied by large numbers of naive and idealistic young people). Despite the unconvincing claims to the contrary by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the “no hiding place” threat was particularly ill-judged – these activists appear to be determined to purge the centrist MPs whom they view as being totally contaminated by corporate capitalism. In turn, these centrist MPs view their political stance as the only means of securing sufficient votes to generate a Labour party majority with what is increasingly becoming a (small c) conservative England. There seems to be little recognition that the Tories and UKIP together captured 50% of the votes cast in May.
It’ll be a long road back to power for Labour – and, currently, it looks like it will never again be in power on its own. But it will never happen while this internal fight to the death continues. During the short few weeks following Jeremy Corbyn’s victory there was a slim possibility that the economic platform he advanced might provide the basis for a broad consensus on the policy front – but which would require some consumption of humble pie by many of the centrist MPs. But there didn’t seem to be any willingness by either side to explore common ground.
The political situation that has emerged following the mass murder in Paris appears to have hardened the reflexive anti-western, anti-capitalist instincts of many of those supporting Jeremy Corbyn. In turn the responses of many of the Labour MPs who perceive themselves to be under threat has been neither helpful nor edifying.
It is almost certain that the combination of arrogance, ideology, duplicity and incompetence (h/t to Simon Wren-Lewis) currently exhibited by the Tories will provoke voter disgust and anger. But a divided Labour party will not benefit.
Paul
I took some objection
I do not see anti-capitalists
Or anti-western
Unless you think that corporate control of the state by monopolies who wish to be untaxed and not say what they’re doing is western and capitalist
If you make that claim it is you who is wrong
You are supporting totalitarianism and anti-capitalist abuse of markets in making your claim
For heaven’s sake open your eyes
Those supposed idealists have
Thanks for saying that Richard-I think Paul is not reading the writing on the wall with any degree of acuity. If even the Daily Mail can credit Corbyn for his politeness, integrity and decorum then how Paul can infer that there is no spirit of compromise, I just do not know. The Labour Party will probably need to sunder and hopefully it will be the messy birth pangs of a real opposition to the state/corpratist alliance we have now. We can see this birth taking place in Southern Europe.
let#s remember we’ve had nearly 40 years of neo-liberalism, it will not be pushed back quickly or easily so Pauls idea that Labour can just ‘unite’ when it is in this transition is naive-I’m proud that our young people are wanting something different; my generation allowed neo-liberalism to run riot, it will be up to us oldies to unite with the young-the next few years will be ones of great hardship for those that are least equipped to weather it-let’s hope by 2020 we have a basis to change this disaster.
You’re very quick to take objection. I’ll use a simple example to illustrate how you’ve gotten the wrong end of the stick about the case I’m advancing.
At 2013 Labour party conference Ed Miliband highlighted the price-gouging by the big energy companies (the Big 6). The Coalition government flapped around for a bit, but eventually consented to a full investigation of the energy supply market by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The group of the “great and the good” on the CMA panel strained every sinew to dredge up evidence that the market was working reasonably well and generally focused on possible deficiencies that have only a minimal impact on final prices. But it couldn’t avoid addressing the extent to which small businesses and households who don’t actively engage in the market (around 70% of households) are being gouged by the Big 6. They proposed all sorts of gimmicks to encourage greater engagement in the market plus a “regulated safeguard tariff” (RST). The Big 6 and the armies of advisers, consultants, PR operatives, tame academics and media lackeys they retain, not surprisingly, were vociferously opposed to this proposed RST. And the CMA Group has caved in.
In one of her last public announcements before she flounced off to the backbenches, Caroline Flint, Labour’s shadow SoS for energy, declared support for the RST. Nothing has been heard since from Labour – even though this was a policy area where Labour had the previous government on the run. All we have is vague woolly stuff about some sort of “renationalisation”, increased public participation in and democratisation of the energy sector. There is no consideration of establishing a collective energy buyer and supplier to protect the 70% of households who, perfectly understandably, have no interest in engaging in this faux rigged retail market. Meanwhile, following the cave-in of the CMA the Big 6 and the other greedy new entrants will continue to gouge final consumers.
This for me is a perfect example of how the Corbynistas, on one side, and the centrist Labour MPs, on the other, are so far removed from the concerns of a majority of ordinary voters – and neither side is capable of coming up with or crafting a solution that would benefit these voters. These failings by both sides are replicated across all of the vital utility and infrastructure service sectors.
I work continually for policy solutions
I am not Labour
I’m not sure what your argument with me is in that case
From eriugenus on 6/12 on the Oldham by election thread:
“Over the weekend, as the “good news” of Oldham was added to the increasing understanding that Cameron has lied, no I mean seriously LIED about the supposed 70k moderates in Syria, Tristram Hunt instead chose to take the media to his outrage that Corbyn remains head of “Stop the War”.”
How is it possible to craft any sort of solution, Paul, and get it out into the public domain when not only will the entire fourth estate, which is now nothing more than a fifth column against democracy, either ignore it or totally misrepresent it, but you have this party within a party, Progress (of which Hunt is a member), this cult acting as a Blairite sectarian guard openly going around the country undermining the party like a bunch of mardy five your olds. The tantrum shows no signs of abating.
Corbyn has bent over backwards to accommodate these people and his complete reasonableness is in stark contrast to the increasingly crazy antics of these wreckers who’s feet would never have touched the ground under leaders like Wilson. They would have been out on the ears with no appeal and signing on the dole under anyone else.
They plot and scheme from PLP meeting to TV studios and briefings with their tame excuses for journalists and then want sympathy for criticism levelled at them, labelling it as bullying and harassment and telling a willing press they are frit of de-selection. Many of these people started their careers parachuted into a constituency from Central Office by the Blair team over the heads of many good local candidates some of whom were hounded out of the party by these entryists. No one spoke up for them.
The message and the arguments are being drowned out by these people, their tame media pals, and their social media supporters who would rather see Labour lose permanently than allow any alternative to neo-liberal economic doctrine and subservience to foreign interests.
Richard,
I am grateful for the opportunity you provide me to comment here. I don’t have any argument with you, but I find it surprising, to say the least, that you do not see any anti-capitalist or anti-western activists among those seeking to influence the activities of Momentum – and, as a result, the policies, activities and parliamentary representation of the Labour party. I accept you are not Labour, and that other parties may advance policy changes you wish to see, but I think you will agree that the Labour party is the most likely to secure the ability to implement the broad range of policy changes you favour – and which I, and I’m sure many others, believe would be in the public interest.
I fear you may be misunderstanding or misinterpreting the points I am making. I believe that the Labour party is already engaged in a civil war that will keep it out of power for at least four parliaments. There does not seem to be any possibility of a sustainable compromise between many centrist Labour MPs (frequently inaccurately described as “moderates”) and Momentum. The former do not recognise the extent to which they’ve succumbed to the centre-right policy agenda, nor the need to row back from this and craft a policy programme that will attract majority popular support. Many of the latter are rightly disgusted with the apparent capitulation of so many Labour MPs to the centre-right, but the ideological purity they desire will never win the support of a majority of British voters.
A majority of voters, quite rightly, will never vote to be governed by a party that appears incapable of governing itself – and will leave the Labour party’s MPs and activists to savour the integrity of their internal struggle.
You develop two themes
One the need for a narrative
Two, that Labour is unable to deliver it
Both may be true, of course
Paul Hunt
“(accompanied by large numbers of naive and idealistic young people)”
Your argument is completely undermined by the use of these adjectives.
The more people become desperate to make ends meet, to be heard, to not be marginalised and exploited, the more the MSM will stoke fear of difference and give us permission to hate Muslims, lefties, terrorists, the poor, the feckless, hooligans, tax researchers, Jeremy Corbyn – you name it. They might even go back to the 80s and start demonising gypsies and New Age Travellers again. The intensity of the deliberate divide and rule strategy will be in direct proportion to the mounting failings of neoliberalism’s brittle hegemony.
Spot on Jim!
Don’t assume that there aren’t people playing some very dirty tricks behind all these stories.
How easy would it be to post anonymous objectionable or threatening messages to Blairite MPs and supporters on social media, or fictitious accounts of marches past MPs’ houses, in an attempt to discredit Corbyn supporters?
Very easy indeed, and I wouldn’t rule out the Blairites themselves, or even those “dark forces of which we know nothing”…. to quote Her Majesty.
it is, at the moment, a field day for agent provocateurs of all colours.
Without wishing to fuel conspiracy theories, it is clear to anyone descending below the line in the Guardian CommentIsFree, that there are agents provocateurs in abundance posting every day: people who openly boast of having joined the Labour Party for £1 in order to disrupt it; who adopt multiple new identities whenever there is a new line of attack; who pretend to be both offensive left wing Dave Sparts, and at the same time pretend to be offended Blairites; who write pre-digested responses from Tory Central; who pride themselves on getting the first comment on any article about Labour, many of which are first publshed online in the early hours; who are probably paid for their efforts.
If this sounds fanciful, you could spend a few minutes in that particular swamp. Regular posters have been tracking the various identities that spring up, identical comments that appear under different IDs, and my conclusion is that there is a very effective and organised campaign of disinformation, that is highly successful.
I think that highly likely
I see no reason to think that fuels conspiracy theories: it seems like a fact to me
Having seen some of the comment threads on CIF, I can only agree. Given that the widely reported story about (with apparently no attempt to properly check it by the MSM) the ‘march’ and protest to Stella Creasey’s office was a complete lie, we should be aware that is no limit to which certain parties will go to discredit Corbyn and his supporters.
The only question in my mind is whether the Conservatives or Blairites are the most guilty in this respect?
The irony is of course that the anti war Corbynites are alleged to be dishing out the death threats yet the pro war-ites justify their pro war stance on the danger of Isis to the UK – that’s another death threat. So rather than the one death threat we are all (allegedly) under, it’s obviously the double whammy of two death threats that the pro war lobby finds really frightening;)
Methinks they do protest too much.