The award for best question of the morning must go to John Harris in the Guardian, who asks:
Why, if you want British society to be radically changed, the climate emergency tackled via a Green New Deal and the basic notions of democracy and empowerment rolled out into the economy as well as the political system, does that agenda have to be coupled [within the Labour Party] with fringe ideas that only speak to a tiny minority of people, and have played a key role in Labour's current mess? Put another way, why does 21st-century socialism have to be bundled up with all this weird stuff?
What's the weird stuff? He suggests:
Thanks to an accident of history, these people's politics came to sit alongside and often blur into a cliquey, closed-off strand whose roots go back into the mists of the British left's past. Alongside a belief in top-down power structures, among its key features are hostility towards the EU, and an affinity with the old Soviet Union that is now manifested in sympathy with Vladimir Putin. These things go with the grain of a supposed anti-imperialism that doesn't only criticise US foreign policy and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, but sees those things as unsurpassable evils. All too often, its adherents seem to apply entirely different moral standards to events depending on who is held to be responsible (witness responses to foreign intervention by Russia and the US), and keep the company of very rum people indeed: the tendency of some anti-imperialists to associate with or endorse antisemites is part of the reason why Labour's current problems started in the first place.
If only Labour could endorse the sense without the weird stuff.
Is that really so hard?
Or too much to ask for?
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:
Buy me a coffee!
To me, sweating the small stuff in the LP is a by-product of (1) the Blairite swing voter chasers undermining Corbyn and (2) a lack of self- confidence generally in policy development due to lack of intellectual rigor, imagination, courage, poor ideology and the persistence of Thatcherism.
It is very, very sad when one considers the complete horlicks the Tories have made of the country and themselves.
Top Tip: Don’t read the Guardian, it’s mostly bollocks these days.
I have to say I completely disagree
Maybe there’s less weird stuff than our opponents would claim.
Sure, there are ant-Semites everywhere (incl. 0.06% verifiably in Labour) and, yes, some in Labour are ideological lexiters, but it would be weird if we didn’t have such unorthadox opinions in a marvellously large and dynamic political party.
Truth is, some powerful people are frightened by Labour’s political rejuvenation and seek to derogate Labour’s much-welcomed and worked-for revival with accusations of weirdness (and worse).
Should we be surprised?
With respect, this is complete denial of the truth and the path to political oblivion, as many left wing members of Labour tell me, often
I suggest you stop the BS and face the facts
Including, as is widely reported to me by party insiders, that anti-Semitism is commonplace
I’m not DENYING either, Richard, just saying anti-Semitism is *exagerated* by some of our oponents and particularly their press.
As a Jewish pro-EU remain and reform member of Labour, I think I am reasonably sensitive to both anti-Semitism and militant lexitism of the Kate Hoey MP variety but feel threatened by neither in my party.
More fool me you might think.
All I can say is others confirm the very clear existence of both to me
And the evidence looks compelling
Denying it is, then, no solution
Well quite.
Good article by John Harris. The problem is what he calls the ‘weird stuff’ – anti-Semitism, unconditional support for Putin and other unsavoury regimes, public defences of communism, etc. is that it is not the views of the lunatic fringe as it did in the past. It is the basis of Corbyn’s views and those of his inner circle.
A Labour Party led by Yvonne Cooper, Ed Miliband or Andy Burnham would be 20-30 points ahead in the opinion polls.
That might stretch it a bit fair
And their economics still needs reform….
I just don’t know why the ideas we need have to be linked with every conspiracy theory under the sun
“I just don’t know why the ideas we need have to be linked with every conspiracy theory under the sun.”
My point (above) being exactly that. Maybe our opponents are using the technique quite deliberately to weaken the appeal of Labour’s radicalism. To update and paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they demonsise with conspiracy theories, then you win.”
If, for example, the Labour leadership were suddenly to propose the feasability of Modern Money Theory (and how, say, an EQ-type measure could efficiently provide UBI, or public libraries, or social housing, etc.,) there would suddenly be a myriad of delicious conspiracy theories about Labour’s intent to “venezualize” and bankrupt the British Economy – just like there were few noteworthy instances of anti-Semitism in Labour until 12 September 1215, the very day Labour got its only (so far) pro-Palestine rights leader.
There’s nothing vert radical about what Labour is proposing
The public love it
They hate the baggage the Left bring with it
Or even Yvette Cooper… however, people like myself who recall her as DWP SoS approving legislation which allowed benefit claimants to be treated as though they were far more mobile than they actually were, this when lack of mobility was crucial to a successful claim, still refer to her as the Imaginary Wheelchair Woman and would be horrified by the prospect. She’s at worst a Tory, at best a Blairite, either way a Neoliberal. She shouldn’t be in Labour.
She doesn’t much like me
But she is in a Labour tradition and you cannot deny it
I agree with Bill………….Cooper is a big disappointment to me.
Richard, I believe that you are a proponent of a “fringe issue” – more a fringe idea – that if adopted by the current Labour leadership would be weaponised immediately by the media. Obviously the “fringe issue” that John Harris is referring to is a much better weapon, but MMT could be played up nicely – cue Zimbabwe and Venezuela.
Also I can’t believe that you, of all people, would agree that the price of pursuing social justice in this country should be that we become very relaxed about the plight of the Palestinian people, the propensity of the US to threaten and use military force against any countries that disagree with it, dragging us along with it. And so on.
For John Harris to say that Labour should dispense with fringe views is ridiculous. How? The fringe issue that he is referring to was exactly that, until a lot of different people with one common aim saw an opportunity.
I can be both pro-Palestine and not anti-Semitic.
I have always believed in a two-state solution.
I think Israel quite emphatically has a right to exist.
As I do believe the US has rights
I do think it can defend its interests. I think it gets them wrong sometimes. As do we. It does not make me anti-US to say so.
I have no truck with Putin or the Soviet era
And I do not think the Venezuela arguments would last 5 seconds
I am not relaxed at all
But being pro-justice does not require subscription to conspiracy theories
It does, in fact require the exact opposite, as John Harris rightly said
Unfortunately, I don’t think you’re correct in your assessment about the ‘Venezuela arguments’. I know they are mostly nonsense, you know they are mostly nonsense, but will Joe Q. Public know they are nonsense when faced with an onslaught from every Tory MP, the right-wing media, a plethora of secretly-funded ‘think tanks’, combined with a supine response from the BBC (which I guarantee is what you will get)?
It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you…
So we have to take on big issues
Do we have no aspiration any more?
How will we save the planet?
I must admit I find it so perplexing when otherwise intelligent people fall for such blatant propaganda. Have you read Orwell’s unpublished forward to Animal Farm? Upton Sinclair’s the Brass Check? Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent? It is undeniable that the press tells absolute total lies to manipulate public opinion. Iraq’s WMD? Literally everything about Julian Assange has been pure lies according to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture; https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-assange-b252ffdcb768. Just to name two recent bald face lies sung with unanimity by all the leading news outlets whose sole mission it seems is to afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable.
Really, Maduro is a dictator in need of regime change and sanctions with the express intent of murdering civilians despite according to former President Jimmy Carter “of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.” But MBS is allowed to commit Genocide in Yemen and only after he kills a journalist is there any mention of so much as stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia in the press, and certainly not enough pressure to do anything about it.
Or Russia Hacked the election for Trump, except, that was a pile of lies. Even the ‘Russia did the hacking’ part is purely on the say so of literally the exact same people who said ‘Trust us WMD’s’.
You’d think with all that people might start to wonder why it seems that the press constantly frames things to prop up rich and powerful interests and demonizes anyone that doesn’t go along with their narrative.
We need to be open-minded
But to suggest the whole world is a conspiracy theory? No, come on…..not all of it is
And Labour is – I know from what I have seen myself – pursuing some very weird agendas
And I happen to believe its staff in the Panorama programme
Absolutely amazed that you didn’t see that Panorama programme for what it is!
I know you are a very busy and productive person, but alternative views to those in The Guardian and on the BBC are available – and not just conspiracy nuts!
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/statement/bbc-panoramas-is-labour-antisemitic/
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2019-07-11/panorama-hatchet-job-labour-antisemitism-bbc/
These tell a different story
I saw it for exactly what it was
I believe the staff involved
I know Milne et al. I know the deep prejudices and mad ideas that they subscribe to. John Harris is right. And if the Left really thinks that this Panorama is not a wake-up call then it is in deep trouble and Labour will be rightly consigned to history
I recollect that the Labour Party set up its own Economic Advisory Committee a couple of years or so ago. More than a few distinguished economists were recruited to it. Some slipped away quite soon after the Committee’s establishment. I don’t think it ever reported back with any economic advice. Is that right?
If so, it might help explain the lack of a coherent plan, the overall sense of befuddlement and drift and the salience of ‘weird stuff’ when anyone asks Mr Corbyn & his associates what is to be done?
I was involved in setting it up
It met twice and was not listened to
Most are now considered ‘unforgivable’ as Seumas Milne said of me to my face a while ago
Aaahhh……….Seamus – he of the white trousers. Every time I see him wearing them it seems like an act of surrender to me – a symbol of the whitewash of more radical ideas from a once great political movement reduced now to what exactly?
“I can be both pro-Palestine and not anti-Semitic.” I sure wish the BBC could. 🙁
https://gilad.online/writings/2019/7/14/why-the-bbc-acts-as-a-propaganda-outlet-for-israel-an-insider-view
I’m not convinced the present Leader of the Labour Party really wants to become PM.
His choice of advisers (Milne especially) suggests he is not ready to tackle political reality in the UK in the 21st century.
He has surprised himself winning the leadership elections. He has behaved like a populist leader all along, appearing to have some difficulty with pragmatism. He seems to associate himself closely with the kind of people who, in the past, would have been working towards a revolutionary regime, which does not seem to appeal to a majority of Labour supporters, let alone to the British population at large, so I doubt he will be Prime Minister, but who knows these days…
His anti-imperialism seems to only work when it concerns neo-liberal capitalist regimes. Russian imperialism receives a muted response. Dombas is never mentioned, unless I’m mistaken. I’m not aware of Russian-led air raids on Syria being a massive issue either.
I have seen no evidence that he is personally anti-Semitic, and I’m quite sure the media are biased against him, so I’m very wary of what I read in the press, including the Guardian. But all the evidence points to extremely slow reactions to accusations of anti-Semitism at least, and perhaps to cover-ups too, some say.
Europe for him is a danger zone for his brand of socialism, so his lack of support for the Remain camp is logical.
It’s a disaster for the UK that, just when they’re a few hours away from having their worst Prime Minister in History, they are stuck with an Opposition leader who is incapable or unwilling to win a challenge.
Mmm… I read that article too, at least twice in fact because I thought there might be a point there, but it seems rather a muddle really. I simply don’t recognise Harris’s apparent characterisation of the LP: that there being some sensible Green New Deal people on the one hand and centralising Stalinists on the other. It seems more the kind of slur one expects to read in the Guardian than serious analysis.
No one is going to say that JC is a great centraliser and has keep tight control over the PLP. Or perhaps you and Harris do??? Likewise with Momentum: Lansman may be of the old left, but the election of Willsman to the EC, which Lansman opposed hardly shows a top down structure.
In my branch in Cambridge the divisions and dynamics are different. On the one hand there those who have worked hard for the party over many years and went on a journey with it. To a greater of lesser extent they bought into the compromises of the New Labour years, and gave themselves to that. They are small “c” conservatives. They are welcoming to newcomers, but read Prospect and feel the party should really belong to them. They are not ones, so far as I can see, to talk much about Green New Deals or MMT. They are used to being on the back foot.
And on the other there are the returners, older people who left during the Blair years and have now come back, and newcomers, Momentum type people if you like, although few are members. People who have probably fallen out of love with the Guardian, but still read it. People who may be interested in the GND and MMT, and read blogs like yours, but who also, not always uncritically, go to things like Media Lens, Evolve, Jewish Voice for Labour, Skwawkbox and even (I understand why you don’t like him) Craig Murray. These are people who don’t care for Putin, but equally are sceptical of both US and UK foreign policy and, particularly post Iraq, know not to trust every word the government says.
Both groups incidentally are fervently anti-Brexit.
Now it doesn’t seem to me that the current leadership’s stance is very far from the latter position, and I do not see it as “weird stuff”.
The current leadership is fervently anti-Brexit?
Pardon?
At that point you really lost it
Please don’t be so insulting. That is not what I said and you know it.
You address none of them points I made, and as a portrait of Labour in Cambridge, I’d suggest my own outline is rather closer to the reality of the LP, both here and elsewhere, than Harris’s rehashed Guardian talking points.
I know Cambridge and quite a number in the party
I gather that what Harris has to say is true of Cambridge LP
It will be to its loss, I fear
I’d say Cambridge was with Harris, desperately wanting a left-wing party that could drop all the ‘weird stuff’ that too many in Labour do want to encumber it with and which will alienate increasing numbers of over time – as the continual denials do already
Well I’m not really sure what Harris is trying to say, or what this “weird stuff” is supposed to be. As I said before I find it a bit of a muddle. But I’m thinking, when you take out all the stuff about centralising cabals, it may come down to foreign policy and anti-Semitism.
Well, if that’s what it is, the supposedly “weird stuff” people had £1-2m people on the streets to oppose a war that was illegal, ill-planned, badly executed and a strategic mistake. And yes, I suppose there are still people in the PLP and in the Guardian who supported that war and don’t see the need to learn anything from it. But good sense would suggest otherwise, even if Harris finds it all a bit weird.
As for anti-Semitism, you set out your position on another post. You’ve simply said people have told you it’s really bad.
I’m not going into this, but there was a good article by Peter May on Progressive Pulse recently, linking to another. That other article seems well researched and includes a proper argument, and it and Peter come to rather different view to the Guardian, which seems to rely instead on repeated assertion.
http://www.progressivepulse.org/politics/anti-semitism-is-not-labour
Research and a proper argument eh? Something today’s Guardian finds really weird.
You are in denial
And I admit I have serious reservations about Peter’s claims
If you cannot even follow Harris’ argument it’s really not worth discussing further
What you have said here is best described as nonsense. I suspect the vast majority who opposed Blair on Iraq, as I did, would agree
A fair summary for me Marie, and consistent with both John Harris and Richard’s comments.
Richard makes the fair point that at face value the Labour manifesto is not especially radical. I happen to think that it is very light on sustainable wealth/job creation, but my bigger concern would be that I don’t trust the team around Corbyn not to take it in a very different direction if elected. There are decades of deep rooted anti-Western (including Europe) and anti-capitalism (in any form) which I don’t think have gone away. The one sided criticisms of conflict are just part of it. As people are keen to point out, Corbyn likes to ‘stick to his principles’. He wont change
For me its time to break with the old politics. Both Labour and Tory are trying to cram too wide a range of views into single parties that makes them intrinsically unstable. Yes, that means proportional representation and coalitions or collaborations between parties. That and a new and different debating chamber.
Thank you for your replies, Richard.
I support a lot of what you blog about, but I wonder if you might reflect whether three insults in three replies may make you a difficult person to like.
You might like to reflect on why I had to object to what you said