It seems a very long time ago now that the Labour leadership contest was underway and Paul Mason was describing Sir Keir Starmer, seemingly with a straight face, as one of the "left" candidates. That looked a bit of a stretch even at the time, but it's true that Starmer was presenting himself as reasonably equidistant between Corbynism and Blairism, and as someone who wouldn't trash either period of the party's history and who could bring different factions together. Today that pretence has been cast to the wind. There has clearly been a pre-planned drive, straight out of the Blair play-book, to demonstrate to the public by some theatrical means that Labour has "changed". The sacking of Rebecca Long Bailey and the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't have been precisely mapped out in advance, but there can be little doubt that the new leadership were just waiting for even the slenderest of opportunities.
In my view this is a terrible strategic misjudgement from Starmer. You don't suspend the person who was leader of your party only six months ago (and at the general election less than a year ago) on such feeble grounds, or if you do, you can expect to reap the consequences. This is how you entrench intra-party warfare, and the electorate generally punish parties perceived to be divided. Blair got away with it in the 1990s because the left had essentially already been vanquished by Neil Kinnock and John Smith. That is not the situation just now - Corbynism remains a strong force within Labour, and research shows that a large proportion of the Labour membership regard Corbyn as having been one of their party's best ever leaders. One extreme outcome could be a Corbynite exodus to a new party, which would be a lose/lose for all concerned - a new left-wing force would be highly unlikely to win any seats at the next election, but it could well knock a few percentage points off Labour's own vote and help keep the Tories in power.
With the current witch-hunt mentality, some would probably say this is grounds for suspension. Which begs the fascinating question: is Leonard a branch office manager or something more? Can the "leader of Scottish Labour" be suspended by UK Labour?https://t.co/GWJlDQFERS
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) October 29, 2020
"Replace Jeremy Corbyn as MP for Islington North with Luciana Berger." This is the kind of zealotry that could rip Labour apart. Do please carry on, guys.https://t.co/lNPOajY9f4
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) October 29, 2020
Weird action by Starmer. The tories will be happy. I feel sorry for the many good people in England who will be under tory misrule for many years to come. Thank god we in Scotland have a choice... that's if the SNP/SG get radical in time.
ReplyDeleteEarly Christmas present for the tories from Starmer. Decent people in England now facing decades of misrule by tory governments. Thank god we in Scotland have a way out... that's if the SNP/SG gets radical in time.
ReplyDeleteThe current party leader suspends the previous party leader in Labour. Nothing compared to the SNP who tried to put their previous leader in jail.
ReplyDeleteYes, Nicola Sturgeon managed to get 7 Whitehall civil service employees to perjure themselves in court to further her own career by dragging the SNP through the mud with a sex and internal fighting scandal.
DeleteMakes so much sense! Doesn't sound like unionist bollocks from southern English blogs at all.
So what is it then? Are ALL these civil servants incompetent, conspirators, suffering short term memory loss? If you don't think something is amiss here (even if it doesn't involve NS directly), this whole thing stinks to high heaven.
DeleteSS - I am dealing with evidential truths. Facts. The motivations of the people involved I never claim to know but their actions are clear - smear Salmond and then when that failed try to shut him up by sending him to jail.
DeleteThese civil (not really civil) servants were "approved" by Westminster or higher up were appointed by Westminster/Tories. Never think what their true remit was or is? This all stinks of typical "British" (Tories) sleekit set up they do that when shit scared.
DeleteHaving got rid of GWC we still appear to have our own conspiracy theorists trying to damage the SNP and its leader for some obscure reason.
DeleteMalkie is that you call an argument. The only people damaging the SNP are the leadership and its members who let the leadership get away with their disgraceful activities.
DeleteMaybe Starmer thinks that now is the best time to fight the left.
ReplyDeleteFour years from a general election and with Covid, brexit and the decline and fall of Johnson all as 'cover' to hide his own mess in ?
He was always a 'neo Blairite' and knows that to establish his credentials as the safe B Team Captain of UK capitalism he will have to publicly behead the left - again. He understands Labour's role in history - unfortunately !
Starmer could hardly be less left wing or socialist if he tried, he is a Tory though and through. England has NO opposition to their ever more far right wing regime...Scotland is obviously in great danger to say the very least, in still being shackled to that regime.
DeleteIn previous posts I have stated that Sturgeon knew about the complaints to the Scotgov in Nov 2017. Not as she claimed from meetings the following year with Salmond. She has lied about this to parliament .
ReplyDeleteToday Linda Fabiani SNP chair of the parliament inquiry has written to Liz Lloyd Sturgeons Chief of Staff.
An excerpt is a follows: " in the course of the Commission, documents appeared from the Scottish Government, which had previously not been produced, despite a court ordering that they be so. Some of those documents confirmed that one of the complainers had met with the Private Secretary to the First Minister on two occasions in November 2017. On the second occasion, another individual was also present. The identity of the second is not known to us. It was Senior Counsel's intention to ask that question of the Chief of Staff, Liz Lloyd and the Private Secretary, John Somers, when those witnesses came before the Commission."
So there you have it. It wasn't just Judith MacKinnon who was in contact with the complainers during the time the new process was being devised. There were others - Sturgeons own Private Secretary Somers being one of them. Sturgeon knew about the complainers and their complaints right from the beginning. She lied. People lie to cover up misdeeds.
No doubt SS my personal stalker and person who thinks we need to wait a further 5 years before going for independence will be along soon to say Linda Fabiani SNP MSP is a UK civil servant and a Unionist.
DeleteSS = 🤡
The truth matters.
If Sturgeon did know about complaints earlier and did not act properly, she'll be found guilty of that and need to resign.
DeleteShe has already reported herself to the parliamentary standards commission over this some time ago. Just like her predecessor, she does the right thing.
At the moment, you sound like unionists ahead of the Salmond trial. They had him guilty too.
Sensible, fair people, will wait for those with access to all the information to make their judgement on Sturgeon and ignore unionist English politics blogs.
Do you have no other interests. Did that wee scottish woman Bully you in school. You must spend a fortune on drumsticks.
DeleteAgainst my better judgement, coming back to the comments section of this blog to say:
ReplyDeleteYes. So much this. And it absolutely cements Scottish independence as inevitable.
Corbyn spoke to a lot of central belt voters (myself included) who were also persuadable by the SNP/Yes. They will make the difference between <50% and >50%. And then 'Sir' (lol) Keir really will have fucked himself out of any hope of No. 10.
The only person I've heard mention the Salmond thing since March is IfS, incessantly.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can ascertain, nobody I know in daily life gives a rats ass about the Holyrood committee thing. Most people don't even know about it.
'Salmond was found innocent', to varying levels of surprise. 'He doesn't seem to get on with sturgeon any more, probably because he was a bit too much of a ladies man for her liking'. If you are lucky, that's all people know/say.
What is important to people is covid, their jobs, the EU, brexit etc. These are the things talked about every day.
Nobody will vote in iref2 based on the Salmond story. What kind of idiot decides the fate of an entire nation based on 'cos Alex Salmond' or 'cos Sturgeon'?
Politicians come and go; they are ten a penny.
Only unionists ever say Salmond and/or Sturgeon are key to the whole thing for them.
If Sturgeon goes, someone will take over and the SNP will march on along with the Scottish nation. Voters don't idolise her and didn't idolise Salmond. It's just unionists that stupidly think nats do. It's why they are losing the battle and the war.
Scotland will have it's decent and it's dirty politicians. But at least they will be ours, elected by us, and we can turf them out.
Pretty good sense.
DeleteWell said and could not agree more.
DeleteAlly
Well said, Scottish Skier, it is so obvious what the IFS poster is all about - a one track agenda of attack the FM and hope it stops the drive to independence. All in vain, however, the Indy movement is 'on the way' and won't care about individual political personalities.
DeleteIt's all about wanting to be our own masters, not ruled by a 'foreign' country's posh boys!
Barpe49 - the only people stopping independence are fools like you.
DeleteIt does become a bit waring after a while.
DeleteWhen people start using words like "fools" you know they have lost the argument.
DeleteMalikie - there was never a debate with barpe49 he just popped up and called me a Unionist. If people insult me then they can expect fair measures in return. So what argument do you think I have lost Malkie.
DeleteI feel like I am in shock that Labour would do this: expel a former leader for simply telling the truth. Solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn, a man of integrity and honour. It’s Tony Blair who should be in jail for war crimes. This is an absolute travesty.
ReplyDeleteSS- what kind of idiot says we need to wait for 5 years before indyref2 - Scottish Skier says that. This sites resident idiot? - nope a Tory - a phoney independence supporter.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of people ask for funds for a referendum and spend it on legal fees and high salaries with no referendum in sight years later. Con men - more phoneys.
"SS- what kind of idiot says we need to wait for 5 years before indyref2 - Scottish Skier says that"
DeleteI have of course never said such a thing, which is why you are unable to provide a link to where I did.
Just like you never provide any evidence for your other unionist conspiracy theories.
I favour an iref shortly following May 2021 based on the will of the Scottish people at that election. The pandemic should be very much on the wane by then, allowing people to vote freely en masse without risking lives.
You did say it Skier and I just recently referenced Linda Fabianis letter to Liz Lloyd. So once again you are following the Trumpian method - just lie after lie after lie.
DeleteUnlike you I will now not say your previous statement of 5 years as you have changed your stance - I guess it was a bit of a give away that you like Tory rule.
So care to define what "shortly following May 2021" actually means - bit of a vague statement - is it in 2021 or 2022 or 2023 or 2024 or 2025 oops that's 5 years again.
You see SS plenty of Sturgeon fanboys like you kept saying a refendum would happen in 2018 then it was 2019 and then it was 2020.
Perhaps you haven't noticed elections and referendums have been happening all around the world. Try catching the news instead of watching reruns of Sturgeon from 2015 before people started to realise the emperor had no clothes.
Is it not possible just to ban the username?
ReplyDeleteNo. Believe it or not, I would have thought of that.
DeleteWhy should I care about Labour?
ReplyDeleteI want to focus on Scottish Independence. Red Tories or Blue Tories in charge next door is of little concern to me.
Could this be the poll that the Tories in Westminster commissioned? Independence at 56%.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.politico.eu/article/loathing-of-boris-johnson-fueling-surge-in-support-for-scottish-independence-poll/
IFS, You would make more sense if you declared "I wouldn't want to be a member of a party (SNP) that would have me as a member).
ReplyDeleteKeep taking the meds - double the dose.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
ReplyDelete