Exclusive News

Lewis: Momentum taking lessons in democracy from N Korea’s Kim Jong Un

Clive Lewis

Labour leadership hopeful Clive Lewis has delivered a withering verdict on the decision of Momentum’s governing committee to offer Momentum members only a choice on whether or not to back the committee’s preferred candidates for the leadership and deputy leadership.

In an email to the group ahead of its meeting, Lewis had said that he would not ask for endorsement by a small group instead of a proper ballot of members:

Dear comrades,

Our movement has suffered a serious defeat, but we must embrace this leadership contest as an opportunity to renew the party, and to renew the left. Doing this means celebrating our successes and defending our gains, but also being honest about the mistakes we have made.

2015 was the beginning of a new chapter in the history of our party. The election of Jeremy Corbyn was a historic shift – it brought hope to millions and it opened up a space to transform Labour. I am proud to have supported Jeremy from the start, and in both leadership elections. I joined Momentum, and played a role in it from the beginning, because I knew that unless Labour was willing to be bold about its ideas and harness the power of a mass movement, we never stood a chance of delivering the transformative change that our society needs.

Creating a mass movement that is worthy of the name means more than mobilising doorknockers and winning internal elections, essential though those things are. It means creating a political project which is internally democracy, pluralistic and committed to listening to every part of its support base. We don’t need footsoldiers – we need activists who can think critically, and who have a democratic say in our policies and campaigns.

The biggest issue facing us today is a crisis of democracy. The 2019 election result, and the Brexit referendum, were the product of 40 years of neoliberalism, which wrecked livelihoods, ripped the soul out of communities and undermined social solidarity. People lost control over their own lives, and the democratic system failed. If we ever want to win again, we need to be serious about democratising every part of our country, from scrapping the rigged voting system, to empowering trade unions and bringing democracy to the workplace.

But we will never be able to bring real democracy to the country if our own house is not in order. In 2015, we talked about a new kind of politics, but we must be honest in saying that members have not been given enough of a say – either in Labour or here in Momentum. A culture of command and control has crippled our party and our collective creativity. In this leadership election, the left must convince the Labour membership that we are the true inheritors of the democratic promise of 2015. If we don’t, we will lose, and we will deserve to lose.

Tomorrow, I will be releasing an initial manifesto, and I look forward to developing my policies in dialogue with you and grassroots party members in the course of the campaign. As well as laying out an economic programme that delivers for everyone and a Green New Deal to tackle the climate emergency, it will include support for Open Selections and pave the way for a deep democratisation of our party. Now is not the time to triangulate to the right on immigration or abandon our radical programme. We must strive to lead a decentralised social movement, distributing resources and autonomy to our regions, and building alliances beyond the boundaries of the party on key issues.

It would be an undemocratic move for Momentum to endorse a candidate at a meeting of a small committee – so I cannot call on you to simply endorse me at this meeting, without even having seen my initial manifesto or anyone else’s.

If Momentum is to back a candidate, it must ballot its members, and the process must be fair and transparent. That is my request of you today.

In Solidarity,

Clive Lewis

However, Momentum’s ‘NCG’ has decided to ballot members only on whether they agree with its decision to back Rebecca Long-Bailey for leader and Angela Rayner for deputy.

An angry Lewis told the SKWAWKBOX:

It looks very much like someone in Momentum’s leadership has been reading the Kim Jong-Un handbook on democratic engagement.

Momentum has been contacted for comment.

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.

79 comments

  1. Should have been done a long time ago but it’s time to take on Lansman. I totally disagree with Clive’s position on Brexit/PR/the Greens/you name it but he is the only one left in the leadership race who has an iota of credibility as an honest socialist. I only hope he can secure enough nominations.

    1. It’s unlikely to have a candidate who can offer what everyone agrees with. But, I think Lewis is the most likely to face up to disagreements, talk about them openly, and be honest about the dire state of the Labour Party. It’s always been a feisty sort of party but, the last 20 years has seen it move dramatically away from its original aims. It’s not even moved with the times, it’s just moved away, and the divisions are now harming the country as well. So many voters are convinced that Socialism is a dirty word, it’s even used as an insult! I do believe Lewis is prepared to face that head-on, and has the tenacity to continue what Corbyn started.

    2. I disagree.

      Lewis openly stated at 2016 Labour conference that NATO is ‘progressive’ and that it is in conformity with Labour’s ‘collectivist’ and ‘internationslist’ values, if you please.

      See video of his speech here at 1m.20s in.

      https://youtu.be/5Jx-FxjPPSc

      They obviously did a bloody good indoctrination job on him at Sandhurst military academy and while he was in fighting on behalf of Anglo American imperialism in Afghanistan.

      He is an opportunist posing as a lefty to pick up the Corbyn vote. Don’t fall for it.

      1. I guess there is always the chance that he knows more about the subject than you do.

      2. You are the type of left, that by sticking to a point that few of the people that matters (the voters) agree with, make the Labour Party unelectable.
        The unpalatable truth is that the working class in this country fought 2 wars, the first was an imperialistic war and the second against fascism. In both of them the US sided with us and the plan Marshall (US money) helped in the rebuilding of Western Europe after WWII.
        I don’t like it anymore than you do but in the left behind areas of our country the Army offers an opportunity of secure employment and NATO is been seem as the guarantor of peace in Europe.
        You and I might disagree with it, but it is what it is. Hence, what you would rather have:
        A socialist Labour leader committed to reform the economic structure and to offer hope to our left behind post industrial labour heartland.
        Or stick to your point on militarisation, lose the next General Election and have a Tory government that is by far more militaristic than Clive Lewis?
        I know what I would rather have, but perhaps you prefer virtue to power.

      3. I disagree with myself, having just liked your comment and confess to straw-clutching. I do think Lewis is sincere but also a fucking half-wit brain-donor (which could apply to most of the runners and riders), which means we really are up shit creek without a paddle.

      4. NATO was designed, so we are told, to defend us against invasion from the Soviet Union.

        Problem is though that there is absolutely no evidence at all that the Soviet Union ever wanted to do that.

    3. So Clive Lewis claims to want to pursue a ‘radical programme’ , yet was a leading high profile activist proponent of the very Second Referendum and Remain’ policy shift which destroyed our chances in the 2019 General Election !

      Our 2019 Manifesto was very similar in policies to our hugely successful 2017 Manifesto – which delivered a hung parliament. The only real difference in 2019 was us reneging on our commitment to respect the outcome of the 2016 Referendum. So Clive and his Left Liberal (not really socialist) opportunist chums were a key mobilising force in fencing in Jeremy agreeing finally, under duress, to adopt our suicidal new position on Brexit.

      And of course staying in the entirely neoliberal EU and its rigid Single Market rules makes carrying out an even mildly Left economic programme totally impossible. So faux radical Leftie, Clive Lewis, is either totally ignorant about the real nature of the EU, or a lying fake Left winger – pandering to an equally ignorant Left Liberal pro EU membership, who only care about their virtue signalling desire for ever-wider Freedom of Movement, and continued easy access to the tourist destinations of the continent, and sinecure middle class jobs in the EU bureaucracy, and the continuation of those delightfully cheap , EU labour dependent, Uber taxis and Deliveroo services, NOT the real life experiences of our poorer working class , now ex Labour voters , crushed by the consequences of unlimited labour supply.

      Clive boasts about his early, 2015, support of Jeremy. Unfortunately he then spent much of the last three years stabbing him in the back, with his high profile advocacy of Second Referendum (‘Peoples Vote) and Remain. I can only assume that the many (previously unknown) pro Clive posters on here now are part of the ‘Clive for Deputy’ campaign.

      1. jpenney – You don’t appear to have a good word for anyone. Who will you be voting for?

      2. Well, Portugal seems to have managed it, and Spain is moving (albeit slowly) to the left. Someone has to do it, and I really think one of the few good things to come out of Brexit is that it’s making the EU managers consider the wisdom (or otherwise) of some of their more restrictive policies.

      3. Jpenny, advocating Remain is not stabbing JC in the back it was and is the opinion of the majority of Labour members and will be proven to have been the position we should have adopted without hesitation or equivocation from the very start. Despite those such as yourself being determined to sabotage it!

  2. Not sure where that leaves the orchestrated outcry about the national leadership of UNISON ?

  3. Confirmation of who is the only worthwhile candidate – but without the necessary backing. Who is, incidentally absolutely right on Brexit and PR.

    I had hoped that Momentum was getting out from under the baleful influence of Lansman.

  4. And on the same theme I have just this minute had this email from Open Labour

    Hi David,

    Open Labour is proud to announce the result of our vote whether to endorse candidates for leadership and deputy leadership contest.

    Yes conduct a ballot – 86%
    No do not conduct a ballot – 14%
    Turnout – 68%

    So we will now proceed to a ballot of members which will include all those who reach the nomination threshold of 10% of MPs. The ballot is currently scheduled to be between 25th January and 30th January to coincide with the hustings.

  5. There’s absolutely nothing democratic about Momentum, and never was. If the ‘membership’ don’t agree with the Momentum slate, will that make any difference? None whatsoever.

    In the early days, Momentum’s agenda was congruent with Labour’s, but those days are long gone, and few outside of Lansman’s personal circle have a clue what they stand for any more.

    Sure a hell ain’t a Labour victory.

  6. Vindictiveness and faux outrage

    Here are some names: James Cleverly, Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, Rishi Sunak, Iain Duncan Smith… they have all been almost wetting themselves with excitement at the prospect of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) reporting soon with a verdict that the Labour Party is “institutionally racist” (the EHRC having been egged on by the gaggle of very right wing Tories and Islamophobes that hypocritically call themselves the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” and the fanatically anti-Corbyn Jewish Labour Movement).

    If anyone is in any doubt about which party has called out and campaigned most strongly against institutional racism over many, many years, that is the Labour Party.

    https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/voting-down-the-dubs-amendment/

      1. For once I wholly agree with you. If I made bets, I’m afraid I’d back the ‘prisoner’ option the way things are going.

      2. The attacks and smears will only start up again in the event that the new leader is on the left, and obviously your point doesn’t apply in the event that it’s a Blairight.

      3. Zionism or fascism? I don’t have a problem with Zionism, I rather respect Ben Gurion and Rabin, both of them did their very best in trying to achieve peace. Rabin was assassinated by a fascist Jew for his troubles in trying to achieve peace with the Palestinians.
        I don’t see Likud as a Zionist party but rather as a fascist party, its members happened to be Jews but that is all. Their is nothing within Zionism that would justify the Nationality Act that legally institutionalises discrimination against non-Jews. The dismantlement of Palestinian settlements in the Negev Desert, or the building of illegal settlements in the occupy territories.
        Please, let’s us not insult Zionists that oppose the atrocities committed in their name by Likud. Let’s start by calling a spade a spade and start calling Likud what it is, a fascist party.

      4. For Gorria, lest we forget, The UN General Assembly, Resolution 3379 10th November 1975

        Passed by 72-35 with 32 abstentions.

        Recalling its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that “any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous” and its expression of alarm at “the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures”,

        Recalling also that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,

        Taking note of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace 1975, proclaimed by the World Conference of the International Women’s Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that “international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination”,

        Taking note also of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session, held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered “that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being”,

        Taking note also of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology,

        Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

      5. Gorria – ” I don’t have a problem with Zionism”

        Taken as a symbolic set of images only, it might be harmless. As a practical political program, based of racial/religious mythology, it is, by definition, a disastrous neo-colonial enterprise that reflects a (mainly) 19th century nationalist philosophy. And we all know what those nationalist philosophies implied.

        In origin, of course, it isn’t a Jewish concept, but a Christian one, and about as appealing as the idea of the Crusades.

        Most significantly – it is a lie to suggest that it is integral to Jewish belief. Factually – many Jews totally oppose the concept on both religious and humanitarian grounds. The concept that opposition to Zionism amounts to ‘antisemitism’ is as much a lie as equating the various extreme forms of Christian fundamentalism with damnation of Christians as a whole, or Stalinism with socialism.

        This conflation (of Zionism), and that of colonial Israel with the religion of Judaism is political and self-serving, and supporting the idea is either born of ignorance or cowardice. There is no half-way house.

        But above all, it means subscribing to a philosophy that embodies ideas of cultural exceptionalism at the expense of the subjugation the native people of an area – and one that is rooted in British and French imperialism. You cannot have one without the other. If that’s not a ‘racist’ ‘enterprise’, the term has lost all meaning.

        T E Lawrence was no general antagonist of the ideas of his time. But he was right about the betrayal of the indigenous people of what became Palestine after the fall of the Ottoman empire.

        The literature exposing the nature of the mythology of Zionism is extensive.

        Believers in Zionism can be offended as they like – I’m sure that some adherents of white supremacy also get offended at being told the truth. But ‘offending’ Christian and Jewish Zionists is not the same as expressing antagonism to the wide variety of people who are Jews simply because of their cultural group.

        To pretend so is simply dishonest and,given the real history of antisemitism, an insult to those who genuinely were victims of it. That is what is so repulsive about the fakery.

        The oppressed today are Palestinians, not Israelis.

  7. The sound of history repeating.

    I condemn utterly the guttersnipes of the Watson gang for choosing internecine warfare over fighting the real enemy, the Tories. Damn them all to hell.

    In so doing they jettisoned the poor, the unable and homeless, dumping us into the quagmire of another five years of the Tories’ ruthless Hostile Environment. Besides the 130,000 plus victims to date, how many more will die by 2025? Be it on all our heads.

    Momentum’s alleged diktat (say it ain’t so, Joe [Stalin]) that there will be no real choice in our future leadership, and what that attitude might mean the behaviour of the future Labour government, is very destructive for the unity of the wider left movement.

    I assume that the senior members of Momentum are conversant with the history of similar divergences in the early Soviet Union. The number of people who suffered runs into uncountable hundreds of millions.

    Even varnished, it’s an ugly story. For those members of Momentum, I beseech you, read up on what happened to nearly all the early socialists.

    Think again, Momentum. Your vote of no confidence in our comrades’ political intelligence and experience is insulting and elitist.

    Argument not commandment wins the future, even it does not win the day.

    Make the argument for your choices.

    I dare you.

    1. ‘I condemn utterly the guttersnipes of the Watson gang for choosing internecine warfare over fighting the real enemy, the Tories.’

      But Watson and Co are Tories themselves in all but name. Their participation in the black op smear campaign against Jeremy and the left was precisely because they ARE.

    2. As a member of Momentum since 2015, I promise you: I will not vote for Angela Rayners but Richard Burgon for Deputy leader.
      If Clive Lewis makes it to the ballot I will vote for him and not RLB. We need to concentrate our efforts in getting RB elected as deputy.
      I really don’t care if RBL is elected leader or somebody else. In a selfish way, I would rather have any other as leader (with the exception of Clive) and for them to lose the next General Election, that for RLB to lose it. It is clear that with RBL as leader we aren’t going to win it, but at least they aren’t going to be able to blame the left are they? It would be their fault.
      At the next GE I intent to help only with the campaigns of socialist comrades. If the neo-liberals lose their seats the more chances of having a choice of socialist in the ballot next time around.

  8. There are still quite a number of MPs who haven’t nominated anyone yet, mine is currently canvassing opinion from members. If your MP hasn’t nominated yet then why not email them and encourage them to support Clive Lewis.

  9. Pot call kettle black.

    Clive Lewis promises referendums left right and centre on everything from PR to the monarchy yet when the people actually decided something in 2016 he told them to get stuffed.

    He hasn’t got a democratic bone in his body.

    1. Danny – Or he could be just consistently fighting for his own strongly held views which coincide with the views of the majority of his constituents, Labour voters and labour members.

      I admire a politician who stands by his principles, a quality that is all too rare nowadays.

    2. This is what they get paid to do Danny – ie monitor the site 24/7 and post dozens of times every day AND counter anyone that says something that doesn’t fit with the agenda of those paying them. I mean I can’t recall a single time when you’ve posted a comment and they haven’t been on you case in a matter of an hour or so at the very most!

      I worked it out the other day that between the two of them AND Joseph O’Keefe, they have posted over 8,000 comments during the past six months, regularly posting 40-50 comments or more a day between them, every single day, seven days a week, week after week after week after week after week!

      1. “monitor the site 24/7 and post dozens of times every day”

        Such unconscious irony.

        Being a prat isn’t really a career choice, Allan.

  10. I agree with Clive Lewis. Momentum needs to ballot the members and not be controlled by a small unelected group. Momentum is as bureaucratic as the labour party and the main reason I gave up my membership.
    Lansman has too much of a grip on the NEC and Momentum and really needs to reflect on his values. All I can see is a man whose aim is to impose his power and influence over both the party and Momentum.

    1. With respect Cindy they are not an unelected group. Elections are held on a regular basis and all members are entitled to stand.

      1. With respect Jim,Momentum is a private company owned by Lansman and a couple of acolytes.Lansman is of course
        first and foremost,a Zionist.

  11. Good point Danny. Now Snake Starmer who stabbed Corbybn in the back in the chicken coup tries to claim we are all in ot together but you STARMER POLITICAL MORON were the Remainer architect of Labour’s defeat, slapping millions of working class and DEMOCRACY in the face and have the gall to stand!
    I would like to have a debate with this elite middle class yuppie and whilst he and his Right Wing middle class like vilify the white working class perhaps, as we opposed Iraq War etc perhaps he could explain why his Right Wing middle class Labour Barbarians as the radical socialist feminist network argue “continually vote to bomb our black and brown bothers and sisters.”
    Taking on Starmer some may suggest is like having a debate with a political amoeba.
    If Snake Starner gets in, 300,000 socialists will probably leave the Labour stage as the Right destroy Labour as a PASOK.

    1. If we leave the Labour Party, we will be homeless. Rather to stay put, watch Starmer lose the next GE as he isn’t going to regain seats in the North or the Midlands. We should stay put and wait for his defeat.
      Then elect a socialist leader that isn’t behold to Lasman but to the members.

      1. Agree history points to the wilderness unless a union or 2 backed a left wing democratic socialist party. It’s just that a number of us are sick of the Right Barbarians in Labour holding up the progress of humanity, they are simply not good enough human beings to take part in a transformation.
        Some of us are absolutely sick of mixing with donkeys.
        But then again you have to be wary of top down bourgeois socialists like Lansman and the moronic Trot vangaurdists who want a socialism FOR when left wing democratic socialism is a socialism WITH.
        Will give RBL/Burgon a chance but if not won’t be a passive onlooker.

      2. Members who don’t leave Labour (temporarily!) tacitly accept the status quo – the right will claim that this proves what they’ve said all along – that the majority of members support their point of view and not Corbyn’s – that members were longing for a “sensible” leader to rise from the ashes and once again take Blair’s nice slow road to serfdom instead of Johnson’s nasty fast track.

  12. Mediocre Starmer, would have made May look more exciting.
    Would bore the public to death, is the best the Right Barbarians can offer!

  13. There’s only one thing for it: can we not find 22 MPs to nominate Jeremy Corbyn? Can we not get 200,000 party members to write his name on the ballot, even he doesn’t appear on it?

    1. Since we’re into negatives, it is worth remembering that Jeremy Corbyn has just led the Party in a massive defeat, registering a record level of unpopularity on the doorstep.

      Now – we can all specify why that is. And we all know it’s unfair.

      But it’s a basic fact, and it can’t be undone.

      Besides which, it’s asking too much of the man.

    1. Britain had been involved with Zionism for many years before Balfour. As had many others. It’s worth noting the words of Herzl, who died in 1904, a Founding Father of Zionist Israel, in relation to this video.
      .
      “We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back.”

      1. “Britain had been involved with Zionism for many years before Balfour.”

        But the Balfour Declaration was a key moment.

        Ironically, of course, the British position was actually rooted in *antisemitism* – a fear of the Jewish population of Europe aligning with the Ottoman Empire.

        Ilan Pappe is one of the key historians in unraveling the mythology of Zionism. I’d also recommend Shlomo Sand.

        Of course, both – like the Labour Party and Corbyn – are subject to vicious attack by the Israel lobby

      2. RH, “the British position was actually rooted in *antisemitism* ”

        yes and it was also rooted in occupation as we were experts at it ourselves!

      1. It is probably one of the most succinct outlines of the history and the modern consequences of the Palestinian tragedy that you can see. No punches pulled.

        It should be placed under the nose of any prevaricating Labour politician pretending to political and moral leadership.

    2. Can I recommend that everyone listen and watch the link labrebisgalloise has posted above.Pappe gives a clear short history from Balfour onwards of Israel ,Zionism,and what is going on today.

    1. If you do not adopt these proposals, we will accuse you of being anti-Semitic seems to be the message here.

      1. Being accused of such by the JLC is almost a guarantee that you’re not!

        Let’s just examine the Tory/Israel Front’s ‘demands’ :

        – “Prevent re-admittance of prominent offenders”

        ‘Prominent offenders’ = those who the Tory/Israel lobby don’t like. Not their business who is admitted re-admitted any more than the Labour Party should dictate the membership of synagogues.

        – Provide no platform for those who have been suspended or expelled for antisemitism

        Obvious. ‘Being guilty of antisemitism’ is very different from ‘being expelled for antisemitism.’ as we know. I would hope in a saner climate, several of the anti-racists who have been expelled will be re-admitted.

        – The full adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism “with all its examples and clauses and without any caveats”

        A definiote no-no, given (a) the confused inadequacy of the base definition, and the (b) obvious attempt to subvert it through the ‘examples’ to shield Israeli neo-colonialism ethnic cleansing of Palestinians

        – To deliver anti-racism education programmes that have been approved by the Jewish Labour Movement, which would lead training.

        Anti-racist training – yes. But hand it over to a force antagonistic to the Party and guilty of its own form of antisemitism (note the attacks of JVL and various Orthiodox individuals and groups) – no.

        – To engage with the Jewish community via its “main representative groups and not through fringe organisations” such as Jewish Voice for Labour

        I think ‘piss off – we’re not a sectarian organisation working for your political ends and against the interests of the rest of the Jewish community’ might be the appropriate response.

        -To replace “bland, generic statements” on anti-Jewish racism with “condemnation of specific harmful behaviours”

        – For the Labour leader to take personal responsibility for ending the “antisemitism crisis”

        What ‘crisis’? Apart from the one you helped to concoct based on fabrication and exaggeration. (See academic research into the phenomenon)

        But who will have the bottle to put it in perspective and stand up to the Israel bullies? Any candidate can be less blunt than this, but firm in standing up for human rights.

      2. I noticed I missed this one :

        “- To replace “bland, generic statements” on anti-Jewish racism with “condemnation of specific harmful behaviours”

        The only one which is -at least partially – acceptable.

        There needs to be a much clearer, simpler definition of antisemitism as antagonism or hatred towards Jews as a cultural group *because* of that identity. Forget all the spurious attempts at trying to remove Israel and Zionism from criticism.

        … and perhaps the most egrewgious ‘specific harmful behaviour’ is that of knowingly making false accusations of ‘antisemitism’.

  14. If Starmer or RLB get anywhere the Leadership positions, the LP will become even more of a pro-Zionist Party than it is now!

  15. Definition of insanity is ?
    Appeasement,
    Twas what got us into AS shitfest in first place,
    By definition any individual prepared to make a vexatious claim of AS to smear a political opponent is already a bottom feeder
    And our candidates strategy is to roll over,
    Do any of them even accept there is another side to the debate,
    In other words are they prepared to stand up for the party, members and supporters
    Or are they completely spineless and gutless

    1. What’s not to like ? The entire crappy ‘Manifesto’ is almost a satire of Left Liberal motifs and feelgood memes – from the Citizens Income nonsense to those fifth form virtue-signalling demands for ever-greater Freedom of Movement ( ie, ever greater unlimited labour supply for those who have to compete in the labour market place) .

      No interest from our thoroughly modern Left Liberal, Clive, with actually dealing with the core basis of capitalist power, the private ownership of the means of production, exchange and distribution – via public ownership !

      Anyone who thinks this superficial charlatan and his duff cliche-ridden Liberal Manifesto, is any sort of ‘socialist’ is utterly naïve – or a Left Liberal themselves. Clive , and any Labour Party he became Leader of, should amalgamate with the Lib Dems immediately – as both parties would agree on all the fundamentals – but might on occasion merely differ on mere policy priorities.

      I assume pressure of space precluded Clive from repeating his earlier praise of Western monopoly capitalism’s armed enforcement arm, NATO, as a ‘progressive, and in line with Labour’s internationalist values ‘ !

      The man is an opportunist faux radical posturer. But unfortunately , his laughable , capitalism-accepting, middle class, sloganizing, is very much in line with the views of possibly the bulk of our ‘woke’ middle class membership. So maybe he would get a solid vote if he could get past the gatekeeper nominations hurdle. A Party led by slippery Left Liberal opportunists like Clive, however, can never win back our Labour heartlands. From the candidate statements I have so far seen, Labour’s ‘PASOK moment’ of political irrelevance and ever-accelerating electoral oblivion, has already arrived ! A merger with the Lib Dems can surely only lie further down the road.

      1. jpenney – You still haven’t told us who you will be voting for in the leadership election. Perhaps it would be more constructive if you could give us all an analysis of the manifesto of the candidate that you favour.

        Or have you decided that your ‘comfort blanket’ position of bleating from the wilderness for another ¼ of a century is your best option.

      2. Wolfie’s latest missive from Tooting (if that’s not too flattering a description of entryist garbage).

        It’s sooo much more comfortable to wear a beret and dark glasses and never get anywhere near seriousness about defeating the Tories. Moaning and whining under the duvet about ‘socialist theory’ is a soooo much more radical way of righting the wrongs of neoliberalism! 🙂

  16. Anyone proposing a Citizens Income is an economic Cockwomble and will bankrupt the country in record time for little or no benefit to those who need it, utter nonsense

    1. Doug – page 60 of the Labour Party’s 2019 manifesto quite clearly states “And we will explore other innovative ways of responding to low pay, including a pilot of Universal Basic Income.”

    2. SteveH
      They also talk about scrapping Universal Credit
      JohnMcD made some pretty horrendous calls not least 10% stealth tax on companies with more than 250 employees
      Good news his heart was in right place so would not have taken much tweeking to put right
      An unbreakable safety net below which no one falls
      Level up from the bottom
      WASPI women being means tested
      10% stealth tax being turned into company sovereign wealth funds to allow share buy backs for employees
      All other share buy backs would be outlawed
      Move from Welfare hostile environment to virtuous circle of assistance
      Marginal rates of tax on welfare claimants can still be over 100%
      Let people keep 100% plus benefits upto £17k then gradually bring them into line with the rest of us
      Unless you have lived it the electorate have no clue

  17. Labour could come up with a 10 point plan on how Right Wing Jewish organisations could improve? For example British Board of Deputies and Chair elected OMOV? And an invite to join us on the front line when we put ourselves at risk when we confront the far right on the streets? Or is it only outside independent organisations that can demand what Labour an independent organisation must do? Meanwhile Black and Asian citizens may face regular racism. Labour always invites diverse working people to join Labour.

  18. Just belatedly watched Lewis on Question Time arguing that Labour’s left and right have to unite to form a strong opposition to the Tories.

    Puerile bollocks – any policies the left and the Blairites could unite around would be ones that the Tories could also support – utterly anodyne – neutral or mildly positive or negative in terms of progress for the many.
    The “This Parliament dedicates itself to strive for what is best for this great country” kind of anodyne meaningless bullshit.
    We and the Tories want radically different – essentially opposite – societies.
    Only Quislings, liars, Tories, ‘centrists’, morons and heartlanders believe or pretend to believe otherwise.

    Labour’s rightards worked incessantly to prevent the left winning this and the 2017 election.
    That’s more than enough evidence for me that there can be no alignment, no common ground, no peace and no surrender if we’re to save our descendants from the tyranny of theirs.

    1. Joseph – Whilst you are plotting to build your version of a ‘Utopian State’ what do you suggest we do in the meantime

      Just on the off-chance that your plans don’t work out for a while Is it OK if we just get on with the fall-back plan and build a successful well regulated mixed GND economy that works for the beniifit of all

    2. David McNiven – “there can be no alignment, no common ground, no peace and no surrender ”

      So, effectively, you rule out any chance of government by the Labour party in favour of a niche impotent fringe role? (And no, I’m not defending the far right PLP sappers who actively undermined the Party)

      There are limits, but it’s accomodation and the establishment of common ground with a wide range of social democrats as well as socialists – or continued irrelevance under a Tory hegemony.

      1. Whichever ism rocks your boat its policy that wins arguments and delivers results
        The challenge is to clear path to debate policy with the great unwashed
        Get rid of enemy within they are not called red tories for nothing,
        Call out MSM and toilet papers for what they are and who they work for, taste of own medicine
        Worst Labour result since 1935, strictly speaking that is a half truth
        No matter we should be asking ‘when did Tories have less seats’
        AS get rid of conservative JLM and LFI and sack on spot Pantomime Dame
        Celebrate our proud history fighting racism shoulder to shoulder on the streets
        Make sure Tories get the treatment they deserve
        Finally can any member with half a brain be they right/left remainer or leaver not agree on policy
        I defy you all to name a policy that splits us asunder like Brexit or Blair that xannot be debated and resolved
        Invoice in the post

      2. Nothing short of full on socialism will even slow the growth of wealth inequality, much less reverse it.
        The centre have no answers because they don’t see it as a problem.
        The 1% own half of Britain and probably half the world, the growth of inequality is accelerating and will only get faster with new technology.
        Good luck getting democracy back from the hijackers.

  19. Well – all the nominees for the leadership – except Clive Lewis – have ruled themselves out of consideration for any intelligent voter by collectively grovelling before the Board of Deputies.

    To paraphrase and adapt Aneurin Bevan (at the time of Suez) :

    “Any candidate who believes uncritically in the Board of Deputies ’10 Pledges’ is too stupid to be Labour leader. If they don’t believe in them and still accept them, then they are too dishonest to be Labour leader.”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: