Starmer’s dilemma in Islington North - who the hell would want the job? I would like to put myself forward to be Labour’s candidate in Islington North at the next general election. I would love to take on Corbyn as the Labour candidate. I would stick it to him on his record as leader, on his words around the Ukraine invasion and - coming onto the topic of this newsletter - his handling of Brexit, both before June 2016 and after. As for being piled upon by far left activists, that is just the average Tuesday on Twitter for me, so whatever.
I'll read that later. Our most Europhile PM ever, Ted Heath, envisaged a Charlemagne-type European empire. And that goes way back before WW1. Indeed back to the days of the Crusades, lol.
A major reason for wanting to be part of the EU was the possibility of a new empire. Verhofstadt actually voiced this sentiment to cheers at a Lib-Dem conference.
This all seems like sensible stuff. I think I'm more left-wing that you (assuming you were a Lib Dem previously, and possibly one of the "orange book" type). Just wondering, have I missed where you explain what "LOTO" stands for ? I'm assuming it means "Leader of ... something" since you are using it in the context of Labour appointing a candidate without consulting the local party.
Hi Paul - LOTO stands for "Leader of the opposition" and mostly stands in for the Labour leader's office. Sorry for using an overly Westminstery acronym, my bad.
Ah, thanks. I assumed it was something like "Leader of the Labour Party" (which doesn't work) or "Leader of the Organisation". Since you were talking about party management I wasn't thinking about Westminster office names in that context.
I'm probably at least as anti-Corbyn as you, so would absolutely agree about the desirability of a Labour candidate being able and willing to go after him... But I'm not sure it's really necessary. I'm sure a contest vs the former-leader would get a lot of media attention and it might be embarrassing for the party to lose the seat to him, but if Labour are on course to win a big majority, having a weak 'I like Jeremy but we need to be disciplined and Labour need to win' candidate probably isn't the end of the world politically. Inconsistent and a moral failing... but probably not very damaging to the party. Some people will feel Labour have a duty to take a hard line against him, but most voters I imagine will be content to know that he's been 'thrown out of the party by Starmer.' That's probably enough to reassure those across the country who expect Labour to repudiate Corbynism.
Maybe it wasn't the cleverest tactic of Starmer to create this friction. He was happy to serve in a Corbyn cabinet had Labour won in 2019. There are lots of reasons to despise Corbyn, from his undisguised support of Russia in the conflict to his inability to see the anti semitism that had embedded in the party under his watch. But explusion is a step too far, imho. More a sign of bravado than strength, not what you want in a leader.
I don't know that Corbyn has been treated fairly by the Labour party... As in - I don't know (or have strong opinions on) whether the rules were followed, and I'm not convinced Corbyn was unusually left wing... I'm not a member and it looks like a pretty authoritarian organisation whoever is in charge.
Politically though I think Labour gains a great deal by expelling Corbyn. Yes, it's inconsistent that Starmer was happy to serve under Corbyn, but most voters don't care about the detail. Knowing that Starmer expelled him will do a lot to rehabilitate the party with a lot of voters.
And many of Corbyn's fans have nowhere else to go.
I have no idea why you've written this blog, Nick. Who really cares who's up against Corbyn, he's yesterday's news, especially with his effective surrender strategy re Ukraine.
But if you want to talk about proud policy positions, maybe you ought to discuss whether Labour are going to kowtow to the transactivist wing of their party or come to their senses on preserving women's rights, starting with agreeing on definitions of what women are. Arguing about Corbyn and his views on Brexit and anti semitism is "so 2019".
The media coverage of Brexit was so poor that folk such as yourself seem to have missed the real import of Brexit:
See https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/the-true-history-of-brexit
For the history of the UK in the EU and why it left.
I'll read that later. Our most Europhile PM ever, Ted Heath, envisaged a Charlemagne-type European empire. And that goes way back before WW1. Indeed back to the days of the Crusades, lol.
A major reason for wanting to be part of the EU was the possibility of a new empire. Verhofstadt actually voiced this sentiment to cheers at a Lib-Dem conference.
This all seems like sensible stuff. I think I'm more left-wing that you (assuming you were a Lib Dem previously, and possibly one of the "orange book" type). Just wondering, have I missed where you explain what "LOTO" stands for ? I'm assuming it means "Leader of ... something" since you are using it in the context of Labour appointing a candidate without consulting the local party.
Hi Paul - LOTO stands for "Leader of the opposition" and mostly stands in for the Labour leader's office. Sorry for using an overly Westminstery acronym, my bad.
Ah, thanks. I assumed it was something like "Leader of the Labour Party" (which doesn't work) or "Leader of the Organisation". Since you were talking about party management I wasn't thinking about Westminster office names in that context.
I'm probably at least as anti-Corbyn as you, so would absolutely agree about the desirability of a Labour candidate being able and willing to go after him... But I'm not sure it's really necessary. I'm sure a contest vs the former-leader would get a lot of media attention and it might be embarrassing for the party to lose the seat to him, but if Labour are on course to win a big majority, having a weak 'I like Jeremy but we need to be disciplined and Labour need to win' candidate probably isn't the end of the world politically. Inconsistent and a moral failing... but probably not very damaging to the party. Some people will feel Labour have a duty to take a hard line against him, but most voters I imagine will be content to know that he's been 'thrown out of the party by Starmer.' That's probably enough to reassure those across the country who expect Labour to repudiate Corbynism.
Maybe it wasn't the cleverest tactic of Starmer to create this friction. He was happy to serve in a Corbyn cabinet had Labour won in 2019. There are lots of reasons to despise Corbyn, from his undisguised support of Russia in the conflict to his inability to see the anti semitism that had embedded in the party under his watch. But explusion is a step too far, imho. More a sign of bravado than strength, not what you want in a leader.
I don't know that Corbyn has been treated fairly by the Labour party... As in - I don't know (or have strong opinions on) whether the rules were followed, and I'm not convinced Corbyn was unusually left wing... I'm not a member and it looks like a pretty authoritarian organisation whoever is in charge.
Politically though I think Labour gains a great deal by expelling Corbyn. Yes, it's inconsistent that Starmer was happy to serve under Corbyn, but most voters don't care about the detail. Knowing that Starmer expelled him will do a lot to rehabilitate the party with a lot of voters.
And many of Corbyn's fans have nowhere else to go.
I have no idea why you've written this blog, Nick. Who really cares who's up against Corbyn, he's yesterday's news, especially with his effective surrender strategy re Ukraine.
But if you want to talk about proud policy positions, maybe you ought to discuss whether Labour are going to kowtow to the transactivist wing of their party or come to their senses on preserving women's rights, starting with agreeing on definitions of what women are. Arguing about Corbyn and his views on Brexit and anti semitism is "so 2019".
Okay, if you're going to push a transphobic position around here, I'm going to have to stop talking to you Marc, which would be a shame.
That's ok Paul, if you think I'm transphobic, I guess we have no common ground for discussion anyway.