Coyle’s attack-piece claims members ‘overwhelmingly’ want 2nd ref. Not even his own CLP does

Right-wing Labour MP Neil Coyle’s attack-piece on Ian Lavery made big claims about what Labour members want – but omitted a fairly crucial piece of information

‘Embarrassing rants’ – Neil Coyle

Bermondsey and Old Southwark MP Neil Coyle responded to an excellent article by Labour Party chair Ian Lavery with an extremely personal attack-piece last week, which was obligingly published by PoliticsHome.

The heading of Coyle’s PoliticsHome article

Lavery had written perceptively about the damage and division a new EU referendum would cause and correctly pointed out that Labour’s highest duty is to the millions whose lives have been blighted by Tory government – to remove the Tories far from office, reverse Tory devastation and run the country for the good of the many.

Coyle’s response was to accuse Lavery of right-wing straw-man arguments, recite the usual “people’s vote” points that dismiss and belittle working-class leave voters – and to claim Labour members ‘overwhelmingly’ want a new referendum.

His claim, of course, ignores the fact that far more Labour members support the party leadership’s approach to the Brexit issue than disagree with it. But more culpably still, it ignores the fact – of which Coyle is well aware – that Labour members in his own Bermondsey and Old Southwark constituency do not want a new referendum.

His ill-considered rants in the media have become an embarrassment

A letter from Coyle’s local members to Jeremy Corbyn, sent just after the 2017 general election

At its most recent full meeting, members of the CLP voted against a motion calling for a so-called “people’s vote” – and for a motion supporting the leadership’s handling of Brexit.

The SKWAWKBOX wrote to Neil Coyle on Wednesday to ask why he was ignoring his own members’ views, whether he felt it was appropriate to do so and whether he had received any comments from them about his article.

At the time of publication of this article, four days later, he had not responded.

SKWAWKBOX comment:

This is far from the first time that Neil Coyle has ignored the views and wishes of Labour members in the constituency he’s supposed to serve.

In 2017, some of them wrote to Jeremy Corbyn to complain that Coyle was out of touch, out of step, ill-disciplined and self-indulgent – describing his ‘ill-considered rants in the media’ as an embarrassment to them – and that he had broken a direct promise to them to support the party’s leadership. Those words ring just as true about this latest self-indulgent article.

It seems Mr Coyle has learned nothing at all in the intervening almost two years.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

41 responses to “Coyle’s attack-piece claims members ‘overwhelmingly’ want 2nd ref. Not even his own CLP does

  1. The answer lies within his own CLP , it really is now down to them if they want rid of this Tory disguised as a Labour MP then they have to start the de-selection process.
    Its interesting to note the rise in clamour from Toryist Labour MPs regarding leaving the party and starting their own ToryLite party , we must be getting close to a snap GE perhaps or maybe with their poster boy Chukit now facing the reality of being accountable to the membership under AMM, they are getting a little twitchy.
    GOOD !

    • Before writing ‘GOOD!’ you might want to consider that this would almost certainly be sufficient to gift the Tories the next general election – whenever. That was the significance of the SDP – not their winning vote share.

      Forget foaming in outrage at MPs who don’t quite fit preconceptions, yours or mine, – they are not all Tory fifth-column, much as the composition of the PLP has been compromised during the Blair years.

      The real enemy requires only a handful to defect to achieve the desired result.. I remember well the wilderness years after that.

      • ‘Before writing ‘GOOD!’ you might want to consider that this would almost certainly be sufficient to gift the Tories the next general election – whenever.’

        Which leads me to ask: ‘Why would YOU be arsed?’

        You spell out to us what the plan is (We already knew anyway, thank you) and warn us of the consequences – But it’s YOU who’s been continually echoing the same pile of crap about 2nd referendums as coyle, ever since you started posting on here.

        The likes of coyle and umunna need purging for the labour party to progress and succeed; not be hamstrung by their incessant obfuscations and perma-whinging over something that’s already been decided by their own constituens and the higher echelons of the party.

      • What an unprincipled , hypocritical pro Labour Right troll you are , RH, You are in exactly the same camp as all the 5th column Labour Right. Any comments you cynically make to try and establish some bogus “Leftish” credentials are purely done to try and make your endless Pro PV, uncritical pro EU, posts more palatable to the gullible. The 50 or so hard core Labour Right, like Coyle, ARE Tory fifth columnists , and will betray a new Labour government immediately. They must be deselected.

      • jpenney 03/02/2019 at 11:06 am

        The accusation of hypocrisy coming from you is laughable. You deserted the Labour Party for 25+ years to desperately search for a home for your own particular brand of socialism, including what you probably thought was a last desperate throw of the dice when you became a prominent founder member of Left Unity. Unfortunately Left Unity proved to be yet another abortive attempt to find your political agenda a home. Then after seeing Corbyn’s 2015 victory you seized the opportunity to advance your own narrow political agenda on the back of Corbyn’s success. Despite self evidently having zero respect for your fellow Labour Party or Momentum members you have wheedled your way into the Labour Party’s machinery by manoeuvring yourself into being a delegate for the people you appear to despise. Whilst your comments ostensibly appear to support JC you don’t actually appear to support anything he stands for.

        BUT why listen to me when you do it so much more eloquently yourself.

        https://www.leftfutures.org/2017/01/what-is-corbynism/#comment-252436
        John Penney
        January 9, 2017 at 4:25 pm
        “What is Corbynism ? ” To me , sadly, as both a Momentum and Labour Party activist, “Corbynism” increasingly reminds me of one of those strange, gimmicky, automotive industry, current products , based on the marketing concept of “ Let’s try to grab a whole range of basically incompatible market segments with a bizarre “crossover model”. Hence the car industry has some strange products , part wannabee off roader (but never to leave the tarmac) , part style statement body styling swoopiness, part greenmobile statement (with a wee “hybrid” electric motor added on to pretend it’s saving fuel – and the planet). Unfortunately these bizarre mongrel vehicles actually do nothing well , and their overall purpose is unclear – other than to sell to the uncritical novelty seeker.

        And so with Jeremy himself , and in reflection of his contradictory personal “crossover styling” , the entire “Corbynist Left Surge “ and Momentum. Thus Jeremy (and his circle) has spent 40 years in a well-remunerated , undoubtedly very hard-working ,but utterly marginalised role as “ multi crossover, sometimes quasi revolutionary socialist , old soviet foreign policy international analysis adherent, quasi pacifist (on some issues) , supporter of “liberation struggles “, utter reformist, utter Labour party loyalist, moralistic liberal .”

        Yep, it’s an extraordinary mixture, and utterly incoherent. How can Corbyn seem to be a “pacifist “ yet have supported the IRA ‘s utterly non-socialist tactics, and liberation struggles ? How can Corbyn be in favour of Workers Rights and Gay Rights and Women’s Rights, yet for years have bought into all that pernicious “Axis of Resistance” nonsense, which led him , and the entire Stalinoid/Trot fusion “Stop the War ” grouping , which he chaired , to basically ignore the gross tyrannies of dictatorships like Iran, Libya, Syria and Iraq ? How can Jeremy be a “ radical socialist” , yet apparently have no intention of fighting to get Labour to adopt a radical Left Economic/political Programme ? The contradictions and questions raised are endless.

        The answer is that there is no internal coherence to “Corbynism”. He , and his tiny radical PLP Left colleagues simply navigated politically around the , often deeply contradictory, often “bee in the bonnet” political priorities and obsessions of a tiny, isolated, Far Left and radical liberal Left , largely middle class “bubble” for the 30 years of neoliberal hegemony. So far from any possible power, the contradictory nature of much of the policies proposed simply didn’t matter.

        But, fast forward to today, and Jeremy and “Corbynism “ has won an utterly unexpected (particularly by him) Leadership victory in 2015 – and repeated in 2016 , on a vague, radical Left reformist policy offer. A victory utterly unearned by anything Jeremy or the Labour Left have done in the last 30 years. A victory very much owed to the UK part of the European-wide post Austerity “Left Surge”, manifesting itself, due to the barrier to new Left Party formation of FPTP, and the extraordinary hubris of the Labour Right, in the by then profoundly corrupt , and politically bankrupt, Labour Party.

        This profound incoherence of “Corbynism” is both its short term strength, and its longer term terminal weakness. By being “all nice policy proposal ideas to all people” “Corbynism” , and Momentum, have mobilised extraordinary numbers of people around a wide set of vague “progressive “ policies. However, actually look at the policies that get approval on, for instance, the , now irrelevant, MXV site and it should be clear that few have any roots at all in the radically transformational socialist tradition. Most are saturated with a radical moralistic, middle class, liberalism, which criticises features of capitalism, but has no concept of a better society beyond the capitalist market. Many are saturated with self-absorbed “identity politics”, rather than any grounding in socialist class politics. And the entryist “Revolutionary Left” component of the “Corbyn Surge” and Momentum, have so degenerated over the last 30 years of isolation, into quasi religious cults, that, complacent in the constant repetition of their eternal Leninist verities and texts, they never actually participate at all in discussions and debate around the development of radical, Left (reformist) policies for Labour. Because as firm adherent/believers in the “Socialist Coming of Days” , when the working classes will, simultaneously overthrow capitalism globally , the only reason to be in Momentum and Labour, is to gain access its new recruits to divert to “The Revolutionary Party”.

        Two possible Left Futures for “Corbynism”.

        Unless Jeremy Corbyn and his “leadership circle” somehow break free of the impotent , incoherent, “posturing as politics” lifestyle leftiness of their entire previous political lives, and are prepared to fight the utterly intransigent Labour Right for the soul and machinery of the Party. Unless Jeremy and his circle are prepared to abandon the contradictory “moralistic liberalism” which leads them to, for instance support, unconditionally “Complete Freedom of Movement ,Globally” as a viable objective – in favour of support for Comprehensive state-led, Socialist Planning , of which UK Full Employment and forward labour supply planning would be a key component. Unless Jeremy is prepared to fight for Momentum to be won to solid socialist politics, rather than the middle class, radical liberalism, that currently dominates it. Unless Jeremy is prepared to firmly break with the disruptive “splitters and wreckers” of the quasi religious ultraleft sects: –

        Then , rather than the utterly unexpected, unpredicted, extraordinary 2015 “Corbyn Left Surge” being a manifestation of a genuine , long-term, radical Left political transformation of the previously utterly politically moribund neoliberal, Labour Party, it will be proven to have been nothing more significant than the temporary noises , and sometimes quite dramatic physical movements, often made by the decomposition gases within a dead body “

      • Oh dear, Oh dear. You two really don’t have anything to say, do you? Beyond the sort of stuff that would seem a bit pathetic in a school playground.

        Are you really that bereft of intelligence and civility?

        Or – heaven forbid another – but credible – conspiracy theory – is *this* the face of the real Tory trolls backing Tory policy from the pretend left?

      • Thanks for the assumption of idiocy RH , I’ll file it in the bin with the rest.
        I was going to respond further but that would be a waste of my time I think, in any case to some degree others below have echoed my thoughts.

  2. A letter from Coyle’s local members to Jeremy Corbyn, sent just after the 2017 general election

    An awful lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. In today’s context it would be difficult to describe this as conclusive evidence.

    Isn’t Coyle just representing the clearly expressed views of his constituents 73% of whom voted Remain. In addition to this polling now indicates that the support for Remain in his constituency has increased to 79.9% with over 77.5% supporting a second referendum.

    • Sadly, this reporting is using MSM techniques of conflation and confusion. Part of my past life has involved data and analysis, so I do get picky with evidence-free assumptions and conflation of separate factors.

      The best evidence that we have – from the Party Membership study, supplemented by actual referendum voting data shows some quite clear patterns about the views of members and labour voters, as you have noted:

      1. The large majority of members back Corbyn and current policy. This is the overriding impulse at the moment (even when that policy is not precisely in alignment with their own preconceptions)

      2. In terms of basic views and principles , a large majority supported a Remain position, and continue to do so.

      3. Beyond that, the *practical* issue of what to do is much more split. Given an open-ended question, there is a pretty strong preference for another vote. But this preference alters when it comes to the practicalities of whether or how and when any vote should take place. At this point the dominant feeling is not to compromise existing policy,.

      In the situation described here about two not very prominent members of the PLP, there is actually no conflict with the above best evidence findings. CLP resolutions would be inhibited by point (1) – a practical decision about tactics that might be seized on by the Tory press. CLPs (see previous items about all member meetings) are a selection of those particularly active in the Party, and particularly aware of policy issues.

      Thus, the number of actual resolutions will be limited. Even though the Party membership is in favour of remaining in the EU, there is are divisions between, at one extreme, those who think that even a flawed minority referendum decision should be ‘honoured’ even when time has moved on, to the other extreme where members feel that it is essential to clarify the desperate confusion by another vote.

      In summary – CLP resolutions are not direct expressions members’ fundamental views (which, of course, is the issue that the AMM debate highlights)

      • Bullshit! You are the most self opinionated person posting on this blog. How dare you talk about “evidence free assumptions” when you’ve been relying on YouGov for your facts. Even in the face of real facts, you still claim that Labour MPs, members and voters want a second referendum and you’ve been grasping onto any dire economic prediction no matter how unlikely. But it’s the way you look down your nose that galls me, “Part of my past life has involved data and analysis”, along with your snide remarks. You are a very sad man.

      • lundiel 03/02/2019 at 2:25 pm

        Even in the face of real facts,

        Can you quote these ‘real facts’?

      • Oh dear, ‘lundiel’ – you’re quite a card. I post a perfectly some ordinary comment that happens to contain one sentence that explains why distortion of data particularly concerns me, and we get another frothing rant :

        “You are the most self opinionated person posting on this blog.”

        … it starts. Which certainly betrays a massive irony bypass.

        I was beginning to think that you were a Tory or Putin troll taking the piss out of the Labour Party. But I dunno. I’m not a psychotherapist, but the anger management issues seem genuine, and some sort of problem with self-image seems to shine through.

        If it’s therapy – feel free to carry on. I’ll try not to take too much notice except when you post an argument.

  3. ‘An awful lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. In today’s context it would be difficult to describe this as conclusive evidence.’

    Oh of course, coyle’s completely changed tack from the ancient history of two years ago and is now a fully-fledged, dyed-in-the-wool Corbyn-supporting socialist, isn’t he?

    Jesus H Corbett – are you really gonna continue to insult people’s intelligence like that gawp’s tried to do?

    • A more appropriate question would be are you going to continue to insult people’s intelligence by mis-representing what myself and others write.

      I was simply pointing out that the so called ‘evidence’ of a partially quoted letter from some local members dating from the 2017 GE has little evidential value or relevance. I made absolutely no comment about his loyalty or otherwise apart from pointing out that 73% of his constituants voted to Reman.

      • ‘Misrepresentation’ he cries…In defence of some plum misrepresenting (and casually omitting) the facts.

        Oh, I guess it’s not that the likes of coyle (amongst others) hasn’t done that before – oh no siree. He’s changed his tune since 2017 because an awful lot’s happened since then , hasn’t it?

        He’s ALWAYS been a careerist, centrist twunt and always will be. Just like the rest of them. THAT is the ‘relevance’.

        This latest bollocks from him is ‘conclusive evidence’ that pricks like him don’t change. coyle’s the same knobhead now as he was then. That’s not up for debate.

      • The Toffee (597) 03/02/2019 at 11:21 am

        Well thanks for the meaningless rant. Perhaps you’d like to now address the 2 points I actually made.

        1. That a one sentence quote completely without context from a letter written by some local supporters evidentially means absolutely bugger all. It would also clearly be nonsense to claim that it is evidence of the current majority view within his CLP.

        2. Is Coyle right or wrong to represent the views of the 73% of his constituents who voted remain.

        Just in case it hasn’t sunk in yet I have not made any comment in support of Coyle other than acknowledging that he is representing the views of over 73% of his constituents.

        Please feel free to have another meaningless rant if that’s all you can manage, alternatively you could try answering the 2 points outlined above. It’s entirely up-to you.

    • Tip : Stuffing fingers in ears and shouting at people you disagree with isn’t a convincing form of argument.

      (In fact, it usually betrays a lack of real argument)

      We had the Jehovah’s witnesses at the door yesterday. But at least they didn’t shout in order to promote their unsustainable evidence-free beliefs. They found it quite possible to be civil.

  4. He also claims membership is down straight after Jenny Formby said different

  5. As RH notes, this article is misleading. For example it fails to mention that Coyle’s CLP only voted against the PV motion by 27/25 or that Coyle was talking about the party as a whole, not just his CLP.

    Coyle is an arse in many ways, however his central point in the article; that facilitating Brexit would seriously damage both Labour and the class we represent, is sound, and it’s significant that Skwawkbox doesn’t engage with it, preferring to quibble over detail.

    • Ted (probably a Tory trolling name) :You’re obviously a hypocritical, unprincipled, right-wing, centrist, Tory infiltrator from the LibDems, trolling here to confuse the upholders of true, unarguable belief and the heaven-sent tablets of stone and contradicting the unassailable prophets of True Socialism – which has but one unarguable manifestation in the world of man.

      I mean – you can’t put forward uncomfortably nuanced views like that. It’ll upset the congregation of the righteous in that small unpainted corner of the room. (They often explode into incoherent fragments if you write too much contrarian sense).

    • Precisely and others on here would prefer to leave them in place because they are to fearful of loosing a GE , rather than seeing something positively done about it . De-select replace with supportive socialists not Tory lite Blairites who would want the status quo to continue, more of the same shit just different flavour.

  6. “others on here would prefer to leave them in place because they are to fearful of loosing a GE , rather than seeing something positively done about it.”

    A misrepresentation of alternative takes on this. There are quite a few current members of the PLP that I would happily see the back of. But some objects of venom simply don’t believe in the Lexit position and its corollaries and consequences not least of which is the support of a fundamental Tory policy.

    Over a period of 40 years, I’ve known a number of MPs with a range of views. Some I could happily seen booted out – either because they were pretty useless even if they had their CLPs in the pocket, or because they supported policies that seemed to me anathema to any concept of the Labour Party – like privatising significant parts of the NHS or supporting the notion of academies.

    On the other hand, one old political friend, for instance, was a well-known figure in the Labour governments of the 1970s had views that weren’t always mine, and belonged the wider old -style right of the Party. But he was solid Labour and had real integrity, despite a reputation as a hard man.

    Point is – the Labour Party will encompass a range of views that narrow sectarians of any flavour won’t like. The extremes will be variously labelled ‘Trots’ and ‘Tories’. So what? The issue is that it will include a range of views (even when the plainly disloyal have been dispensed with) that will offend the dogmatic sectarian minorities. If it ceases to have that wide base, it will simply become an electoral irrelevance.

  7. I identify myself as European, but voted leave for reasons that Boris; Joe & Rachel could never have even dreamed of. I consider myself to be working class, despite being unfortunate enough to have passed an exam aged 10 that sent me to a living hell.grammar school. I was then the only working class kid in the entire school & now I am the only Brexiteer in bourgeois Formby Village I was born in the first half of the C20 & have watched the European Project change from a Trade Association to a Political Federation. I have worked in a wide variety of jobs, including Llanwern Steelworks & M5 Motorway & watched the destruction of manufacturing industries since early ’70s.
    I listened to my local MP Wedgie Benn as a young lad, with my dad, telling us that that the EU was to be avoided because it was a rich man’s club; later I heard similar words from Neil Kinnock. Within 2 years both him & his wife were MEPs on the gravy train.
    Spent the last 30 years working as a lecturer in Tertiary Education, watching job opportunities for working class kids decline every year as service industries dominate the economy. Social mobility was one of the dreams of the ’60s, along with equal opportunities for all, but now the ‘gig economy’ prevails throughout Europe. Blair announced the class war is over……….only the poor know it.

    • steve richards 03/02/2019 at 3:09 pm

      Unfortunately Nissan’s announcement doesn’t bode well for the future of Sunderland. Now that the EU and Japan have a trade deal up and running it seems likely that Toyota and Honda will in time make similar announcements.

      • Screw the workers – they’re not ^real* working class with wages that high.. They’ll have more time to contemplate socialist theory – and poverty will demonstrate the worth of a proper socialist analysis.

      • Most EU economies now in recession? Nissan planned to build new ‘diesel’ cars in Sunderland. Determining factors…..?

      • steve richards 03/02/2019 at 6:28

        As I understand it Nissan now plan to build the new X-Trail in Japan. Compare the uncertainty of the situation that will exist between the EU and the UK for several years to come with the rock solid certainty that is facilitated by the new Japan/EU trade deal. Tariff free access for cars manufactured in Japan

        Where would you invest the millions and millions required for a new production line

      • You’re right. Problem is the added economic drag that Brexit imposes.

    • “Spent the last 30 years working as a lecturer in Tertiary Education, watching job opportunities for working class kids decline every year as service industries dominate the economy. Social mobility was one of the dreams of the ’60s, along with equal opportunities”

      Your experience (other) Steve, is the same as for most of us.

      But – the EU hasn’t done this, even if it’s economic philosophy has been that of the flavour of the decade.

      The UK’s extremism has been all its own work, ironically mitigated at times by wider EU policy.

      The move to service industries (particularly finance) has certainly been home grown, as has been the massive sell-offs and neglect of both manufacturing and the management skills needed to run a successful economy. In my neck of the woods, it was actually a bit of EU money coming back that allowed some minor push-back.

      As to ‘social mobility’ – it’s not the fundamental issue, and is used as a distraction. The real thing is decent wage levels and greater equality. People moving up and down a narrow but high social ladder keeps things the same. It’s shortening and widening the ladder that counts.

      • P.S And Steve – you’re not ‘working class’. by definition. You, like me and many others in the Labour Party are ‘middle class’.

        Class roles aren’t badges of honour or virtue. They are just socio-economic definitions.

      • Depends on what criteria you use. Perhaps it is now allowed to self define the class with which you identify in the same way that you may self define your gender. When I studied A Level Sociology, many definitions were proposed to define class including where you were born & lived; your occupation & your standard of education. Lower, or working class aka blue collar workers, are defined by occupation (not income), but my roots & upbringing still dominate my lifestyle by determining my football team to eating Sunday Roast as a family; my culture & my interests determine who I am. One tutor proposed that the difference between lower & middle class families was that the bourgeoisie are prepared to plan & invest in the future,
        It would appear that being educated disqualifies a person from being working class & therefore by definition the lower classes are ignorant. That is an insult to the poor & the downtrodden who can only communicate on an emotional level. I was brought up by my grandmother, because both my parents worked in menial jobs. Every good habit of ‘make do & mend’ that is part of me came from the solid working class foundations of that generation. The only acceptable villains, as defined by bourgeois mainstream culture, are the poor, the working class. Sometimes rough around the edges, working class values & culture have more to offer me than the pretentious bourgeois claptrap that masquerades as culture on the BBC.
        However it was most pleasant exchanging pov’s with courtesy, good manners were something else my grandmother taught me.

      • I stick to the (more or less objective) economic definitions. Everything else is too vague.

        But I don’t go along with simple type-casting and pseudo-value statements. As far as I’m concerned, getting over-sentimental about being ‘working class’ is as flawed as valuing schooling at Eton as superior (rather than just markers on a scale of wealth).

        Being ‘working class’ imparts no virtue, any more than being ‘middle class’. It just is. I’ve known a fair few arseholes who happen to be working class and,similarly (and obviously), great human beings who are middle class. There is no correlation with virtue.

        “It would appear that being educated disqualifies a person from being working class & therefore by definition the lower classes are ignorant.”

        Wrong. The previous generations in my family would have laughed in the face of assumptions like that. But on the other hand, they would have scorned that lack of education was a virtue – they would have seen it, and poverty, as undesirable in the extreme. And that’s why, when middle class occupations opened up in the first part of the 20th century, the working class used the opportunities available.

        And, of course, if you get into classifications of ‘culture’, you are wading in a morass of subjective definition and a welter of intra-class differences, where all the comfortable type-casting goes to pot.

        The main issue is the falsity of attaching values and assumptions to class labels. I’m always suspicious when I see the term ‘working class’ being used as a sort of political virtue signalling. It’s like Eton boys using mockney for effect.

  8. @ “On the other hand, one old political friend, for instance, was a well-known figure in the Labour governments of the 1970s had views that weren’t always mine, and belonged the wider old -style right of the Party. But he was solid Labour and had real integrity, despite a reputation as a hard man”.
    That maybe your experience no doubt and the point is ….. but in the here and now those Blairites MPS don’t have those qualities and they should not be conflated with those of old Labour.
    Attempting to excuse them by making the comparison with the old rightwingers of Labour of that era would put those Old guys firmly to the true Centre if not Left of the party in comparison with B liars NU Labour . Talking of .. ” the dogmatic sectarian minorities. If it ceases to have that wide base, it will simply become an electoral irrelevance.” Then yes I’d say that NU Labour and the Blairites have become or are in the final stages of becoming a electoral irrelevance , as you put it , and whether they like it or not the party has changed dramatically towards its true founding principles of socialism .
    I for one will not accept the presence of these shits under the guise of allowing a wide range of views or else becoming a irrelevant sectarian minority.That IMO is a fallacy .
    I and perhaps many others in the Socialist Labour party see them for what they are , Tory lite corporatists stooges ,wanting to retain the status quo.

    PS , RH , no misrep here ,,, just using the words you said at the top comment
    “Before writing ‘GOOD!’ you might want to consider that this would almost certainly be sufficient to gift the Tories the next general election – whenever.”

    If that is not fear of loosing a GE in your own words then I don’t know what is .

    • Rob – I think you are misunderstanding what I was implying. Perhaps my fault for not being clearer.

      I have no time for the sort of behaviour that I saw from sections of he PLP after Corbyn’s election. And, yes, I got totally pissed off with the triangulation crap during the Blair years that tried to duck choices and ended up laying down the red carpet for Cameron. I’m quite happy to see the deselection of those who are outside certain boundaries of discipline and behaviour.

      But my caution is about not thinking that everyone who disagrees with aspects of Brexit strategy is in the same boat. They aren’t. The Brexit thing cuts across political allegiances – thus my scorn at the idea that ‘Lexit’ is a badge of radicalism. Or that favouring another referendum is a mark of conservatism.. Clearly both labels are bollocks.

      So – given that we have moved on from the *old* left/right tribal distinctions, I’m simply saying that if the Party ceases to be a broad movement and engages in pointless sectarian bickering, it’ll vote itself out of office for the foreseeable future.

      For the record – I have always supported a process of reselection before any election. It was always the case even when I was an elected local member, quite a time ago ago.

      As I’ve said – it’s ‘The Judaen People’s Front’ mentality that pisses me.

  9. It’s not the ‘Judean People’s Front’ mentality that pisses me off, it’s the mentality of ‘the People’s Front of Judea’……..damn those public schoolboys!

      • To paraphrase Voltaire, ‘I may fundamentally disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it’. There must always be room in the Labour Party for debates conducted in a courteous & civil manner. As a working class lad, I know this to be true….ask Jack T? Exchanges of insults & hatred will resolve nothing nor educate Comrade. No pistols @ dawn (gentlemen).
        Definitions of social class are empirical & subjective; one of the problems with labelling the study of humanity as a science.

Leave a Reply