Analysis comment

Reeves says ‘vote for us – we’ll offer ordinary people nothing’

Arrogance of Labour’s non-position is appalling

Keir Starmer’s Shadow Chancellor, the dire Rachel Reeves, has given an interview to the Mirror in which she demanded a general election while offering nothing for the vast mass of ordinary people in this country – in fact worse than nothing, because she wants to offer less than the Tories’ already-insulting pay rise for the public sector.

The appalling nature of it prompted Unite’s Howard Beckett, one of the left’s leading figures, to observe:

The Mirror’s Dan Bloom offered a summary:

No Universal Basic Income to help the most vulnerable and lift the standard of living of millions; a public sector pay cut; tax cuts that will do little or nothing to benefit low earners but will do lots for the wealthy – and some vague waffle of ‘jam tomorrow’ and a parroting of Tory nonsense:

unless you grow the economy, it is not possible to improve living standards and have the money to invest in public services.

The key to improving living standards and funding investment is reduced corporate profiteering and proper taxation as well as real economics instead of the household-budget guff used to con the public for more than a decade now – and people having more money in their pockets will grow the economy automatically.

But Starmer and Reeves think the path to government is offering warmed-up Tory vomit – and like Blair and Mandelson, they assume the working class will vote for them because we have nowhere else to go. Which sums up their blindness, arrogance and unelectability pretty succinctly – and they’re likely to get a wake-up call about that if they go through with their no-longer-secret trip to Liverpool next week.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

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


  1. They’re not even gonna pretend to be to the left of the rags by offering austerity lite.. It’s full-fat toerag.

    Reeves makes truss look positively Einsteinian AND altruistic. I fear truss becoming PM less than I do reeves becoming chancellor. And the former’s far likelier than the latter…

    1. Thatcher would be proud Toffee -writing for the S*N, having secret meetings in Liverpool because he dare not show his face there, supporting an apartheid regime, walking all over the poor with his economic policies, wholesale expulsion of anyone left of centre – Starmer has shown he really is one of Thatcher’s children

      1. Indeed. Thatcher would surround herself with such humans. Xmas dinners, baubles and sanctuary.

      2. Thatcher would probably claim Starmer as she did Blair “one of her finest achievements” ??

    1. Ben Lapointe, and that is why he won’t get elected. A good education makes him less biddable and compliant by the ERG who control the show. Better pick Truss because she doesn’t have a brain and can be told what to do.

  2. Like many that Starmer promoted to the shadow cabinet Reeves has no vision of her own. We can thank MSM for where she is today because they don’t fear her. They know she won’t tackle the inequality in today’s society. She’ll just drone on and on about how the party will punish all those who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in the dole queue waiting for a LP to do something about it. There’s no inspiration from the Tory B team. Who come a general election may well be in for a surprise. In that the majority of the electorate won’t vote for them and why should they.

    1. BackofBeyond why should the electorate vote for Labour either? With a poor Labour performance the incumbent MPs both Tories and Labour would have the advantage and they are more incumbent Tories than Labour.Thus, most likely the Tories will win.
      For the record with Starmer as leader, without endorsing the Tories, I would discourage everyone to vote Labour.

  3. After reading the Forde Report, I wonder it they would be sufficient back bench Labour MPs ready to support a challenge to Starmer’s leadership if he refuses to restore the Labour whip to Corbyn once Parliament re-opens in September.
    With the prospect of a lacklustre Tory leader regardless of whom is elected, their is a possibility of victory if for example Labour ditches Starmer and elects Barry Gardiner as leader instead
    Gardiner isn’t left, but I believe he will restore the Labour’s whip to Corbyn and Webbe, stop the witch hunt of socialists and support enough progressive policies to stop the Tories in their tracks.
    I would prefer Andy McDonnell as leader but I am realistic enough to know that Andy wouldn’t get the 20% threshold of nominations required but, Gardiner stand a better chance of getting the 20%, with the support of the SCG he will need the support of less than 10 other back benchers.

    1. Maria
      The findings of Forde Report have been well known to most MPs for a long time. I don’t mean that they knew exactly what the report would conclude but they knew all about the diverting of funds, weaponising antisemitism and the hostility from within the party that Jeremy Corbyn faced each and every day. They knew because they were the people benefitting from the funds, who were weaponising antisemitism and who insulted and undermined Jeremy each and every day. Therefore the chance of any of them supporting a challenge to Starmer because of the Forde report is zero.
      However once there is a new Tory leader in place and if they see that that person can regain the ground lost by Johnson and they realise that support for Starmer will result in a lot of them losing their seats THEN they will challenge him. They are just like the Tory MPs – the Tory MPS were happy to let a PM who they perceived as a vote winner shame himself and the country and only moved against him when they realised that the electorate was outraged by his behaviour and Tory members in their constituencies let them know they would be out of a job themselves unless they got rid of him.
      Self Interest is the issue which unites the right regardless of the colour of rosette they wear. Most of these MPs would support Jack the Ripper if they thought he could keep then on the Westminister gravy train

      1. Smartboy, I agree with you. The members of the SCG have a decision to make come September:
        1- to stay put on a corrupt Labour Party and wait to be hunt out of it one by one
        2- to use the evidence from the Forde Report to demand that the Labour’s whip is restored to Corbyn and when the whip isn’t restored to leave the Labour Party and form a separate Party.
        If members of the SCG keeps silent and don’t walk out of Labour when Starmer fails to restore the Labour’s whip to Corbyn they will lose all semblance of integrity.
        Yes McDonnell and Abbott want their trigger ballots, but both of them are past the age of retirement so a maximum of another 5 years before they are pushed out? What about Richard Burgon, Zara Sultana, Beth Winters, Nadia Wittomme, Apsana Begum, San Tarry and the rest of them. Are they so blind that they cannot see their number is up? that if the whip is not restored to Corbyn the best option is for them to walk out with Forde as a vindication for their actions?

      2. Maria – I suppose their decision will rest partly on whether they wish to lose their seats or not.

      3. Smartboy’s analysis is 100% and looks incisive to me. The bulk of the PLP is, as he says, self-interested and little more (no better than tohries).

        And Maria V is spot-on too. (I love how your mind works Maria). It’s the younger less well established members of SCG who have the conch, so to speak. Their action could make or break both a Corbyn rescue exercise – and/or – the party itself. Unless some Labour MPs leave the enfeebled and compromised Labour party to wear new colours. affiliated socialist bodies and trade unions will put up with Starmer’s total (and intentional) sell-out.

        If Starmer had any emotional and intellectual intelligence (the ‘forensic’ type), he’d have realised that his factional warfare with that part of the Labour party that isn’t abject neoliberal (SteveH calls it ‘the left’) would give his factional opponents (i.e. the SCG) tremendous power.

        I hope they know this and use the power they have well. A new party is possible.

  4. Remember, she needs your vote more than you need her.

    Curious about UBI though. Personally, I’m against it. Mostly because it’s a gateway to further control by the state. CBDC? Like the idea of your money just turned off?

    Race for a snap election is also interesting. Whoever gets in is going to be hated, what with so much more pain to come. Who on earth wants to be politically associated with that?

    It’s already getting rough in Europe, noticed the farmers? Heard of their plights? Food doesn’t just magically appear at the supermarket. They’re paying farmer to not grow here…

  5. UBI….is a gateway to institutioalised poverty “We should be looking to restore a National insurance contributions based system that enhances the lives of the poorest not punish them for being sick or unemployed
    .Very soon the poor will be swept away hidden from view without a true opposition party and thats why I wish the labour party to go and now because whilst they exist the poor working class and the vulnerable,disabled and children will continue in a downward spiral….I no longer give a monkeys over labels I want a party of the people with a sense of morality and decency and more important humanity which is lacking in this House of horrors.Patiance is a virtue but for now we need a sense of urgency amongst the few human beings left in parliament…

  6. It seems that Andrew Fisher wanted Rachel Reeves to re-join the shadow cabinet when he worked for Jeremy Corbyn!

    But this did not happen until Starmer took over.


    “In March 2020, the suggestion that Keir Starmer would recruit Reeves to be his Shadow Chancellor elicited the sort of response that the appointment of an actual Conservative MP might have.”

    “Left Out: The Inside Story of Labour Under Corbyn” by Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire (2020), p248.

    1. Well, therein lies the issue. Had she been the sort of person who could put the good of the country and respect for party democracy ahead of her own personal prejudices, and accept a role in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, she would have been given credit for that. As she is in fact a staunch neoliberal who contributed to Johnson’s victory instead, she is given the welcome that that track record deserves.

    1. Checked the link. It gives a few quotes that are clearly taken from a long interview. In general they back up what SW has reported. No surprise there then.
      The problem with Reeves, other than that she is intensely dislikable, is that she is former BoE and so is steeped in the neoliberal orthodoxy which got us into the pickle that we’re in. Their solution is, as always, to keep digging.
      What happens then to the pound in your pocket?
      It ends up in their pocket.

    2. SteveH the members of the SCG would be idiots to trust Starmer. It is a matter of time before Starmer gets them out of the Labour Party. I wouldn’t put pass Starmer to do a Johnson and as soon as the next General Election is announced to withdraw the Labour whip for any single MP member of the SCG and then what?
      Leaving the Party as a group and standing as MPs for a new Party gives them a better chance, as they have the time to prepare and formulate progressive policies in contrast with “austerity” Labour.
      I know that the split between Labour and the Social Democrats always is brought into attention. However, the crucial difference is that the Social Democrats was then to the right of the Labour Party. Plus in 2000 when Livingstone stood as a candidate for London Mayor he won.
      Are you forgetting too that for many years Labour ruled Scotland and the SNP has displaced us, even the Tories are ahead of us in Scotland.
      You and many forget that Labour displaced the Liberals about 100 years ago under FPTP, with a Conservative leader that is going to be damage goods by her/his connections with Johnson’s government and a Labour leader that is a poor performer they stand a better chance at been re-elected in their seats out of the Labour Party.

      1. Maria – Good luck with that one, I doubt you will have many (if any) takers from the SCG.

      2. SteveH a third option for the members of the SCG is to see if their is enough support on the back benches for someone like Barry Gardiner to challenge Starmer for the leadership.
        Their are over 30 members of the SCG it is a question of finding less than 10 back benchers to challenge Starmer for the leadership can September and Starmer refusing to reinstate the Labour whip to Corbyn.
        If the whip isn’t restored to Corbyn and their isn’t a leadership challenge then the SCG will have to form another Party, to survive.

      3. Maria – I recall that Barry Gardiner tried flying his kite in 2020 and it didn’t go well, I’ve not seen anything from him in the meantime that would give rise to a seismic shift in opinion. As for the SCG I think you’ll find that they are quite happy to remain where they are. Why would they take the risk of losing their job and any influence that they currently have.

      4. In present circumstances any attempt to create any political party within the Anglo-Saxon/EU West (approx 13% of the worlds people) which is not entirely under the control of the Establishment oligarchy is likely to face the problem of Germany’s Socialist equality Party (SGP).

        As detailed here:

        In summary (with thanks to one Jams O’Donnell):

        “evidently in Germany it will now be illegal to be a Marxist Party:

        The government and the courts have declared the following positions to be anti-constitutional:

        • According to the courts, there can be no party in Germany that refers positively to Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels.

        • In particular, “Marxist class thinking and the propagation of class struggle” are declared incompatible with the Constitution.

        • Also, any “agitation against supposed ‘imperialism’ and ‘militarism’” and any “rejection of nation states and the European Union” should be put on the index of banned organisations. The Administrative Court even declared it unconstitutional to “denigrate” the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) and the secret service “as undemocratic and directed against the population.”

        • Finally, any doubting of the democratic legitimacy of the state organs is to be criminalised.

        When the SGP declared that there can be no democracy without socialism and no socialism without democracy, this evidenced an “understanding of democracy that deviates from the free democratic basic order,” according to the Higher Administrative Court. In this way, the courts and the government stamp anyone who raises the issue of the power of the banks and corporations over politics or calls for the democratisation of the economy as an enemy of the Constitution.”

        At present the SGP are in the process of an appeal to the German Supreme Court. However:

        “If the Supreme Court follows the government and the ruling in the lower court, it will be a step towards dictatorship. Every strike by workers, every protest against rearmament and every demonstration against the far-right could be banned as anti-constitutional. The ruling against the SGP has already been applied almost verbatim in a court decision against the left-wing daily junge Welt.”

        Every base is being covered in the present crisis – which has been caused entirely by the Western elite Oligarchy. Attempting to by pass Starmer’s second Loyal eleven will most certainly encounter the same problems as the SGP in Germany.

        To put it bluntly, there is no formal reasonable avenue open within the West to pursue any course other than the current unworkable and suicidal Neo-fuedalism pursued by every decision making organisation permitted to legally operate.

        Which leaves little in the way of realistic options beyond the well known historical precedents.

      5. Dave – I may be wrong but aren’t the SGP anti trade union trots.

      6. Dave Hansell, I am not surprise although sad that it is happening again. After all it was the German SPD in 1919 that declared a purge on the German left that resulted on the assassination of Liebknecht and Luxemburg and then the Nazi came.
        It seems that the Germans haven’t learn from the mistakes of their past, isn’t fascism raising again in Germany?

      7. What the SGP are or are not is irrelevant. What the German Government and lower courts have done is to declare specific modes of thought, arguments, criticisms and any action based upon them criminal and unconstitutional PER SE.

        What they have not done is drawn a ring around one particular political party and determine these rulings apply ONLY to them and no one else. Thus the criminalisation applies to everyone. Which is why certain media publications were also covered by the rulings and fell foul of them.

        But anyone actually reading the link to the article, rather than (as usual) going off half-cocked, would have spotted that.

        Consequently, unless the German Supreme Court overrules this on the appeal, any other political party or organisation (and if this sites resident know it all had bothered to read the article it would have read the fact the the SDP in the past would have fallen foul of this) whose philosophy was based on these modes of criticism etc would also be legally and effectively outlawed.

        That is, for the terminally ignorant and stupid, how the principle of law works. It applies to everyone or no one.

        Those specific modes of thought, arguments, criticisms etc were detailed in the previous post I submitted on this subject.

        The fact that this sites resident parasite and troll, steveH, chose to ignore the blindingly obvious and once again deliberately attempt to shift the discussion to a total irrelevance was as predictable as bears shitting in the wood, the Pope being a Catholic and the sun rising in the East every morning.

        It must be excruciatingly embarrassing to be such a knob head every waking moment.

        Lest anyone think such outcomes could not occur in the UK they will be disappointed. ‘Read it (for those who can) and weep’ as they say:

        In such matters the UK Feudal State Establishment and its apparatus operate at a totally higher level than its counterparts in Europe in this sphere.

        Westminster and its City Square Mile Rememberancer will, when it suits convenience, have no qualms about ignoring the separation of powers between Executive, Legislature and Judiciary on any matter.

        The argument stands. At least for those capable of understanding it and sufficiently grown up to process its contents.

        Those who are not should stick to counting the railings.

      8. Dave – You may well be right that what the SGP ‘are or are not’ is irrelevant, out of a turnout of 46,854,508 they managed to attract all of 1,535 votes nationally in the 2021 Bundestag elections, (less than 0.0033% or 1 in 30,500 voters)
        Given that one of the first things that the Nazis did when they came to power was to ban trade unions then it shouldn’t be a surprise that the Germans are keeping a close eye on f’wit extremist fringe groups like the SGP who wish to destroy their democratic institutions.

      9. Another pathetic attempt at deflection and projection.

        No answer is presented to the reality that the outlawing of any class analysis is not limited to what the parasite on this site concedes is a Party which receives such a pathetic level of votes.

        Why use such a sledgehammer to crack what barely represents the constituent atoms of a nut?

        Of course, the Nazis themselves (as well as Bismark before them) used the same argument that the consistently fascist friendly steveH uses here about protecting the Oligarchy that is the Western State – clumsily attempting to redefine an outlawed class analysis and criticism itself as “an attack on democratic institutions.”

        At the same time implicitly accepting and agreeing with the argument of the present German State apparatus and the previous Nazi Regime that any class based analysis or critique necessary to protect ordinary people from the failed, disastrous and suicidal policies of an Oligarcichly captured State is a narrative which must and should be cancelled.

        Much like any Gender Critical or any other narrative which contradicts any Official Narrative. as the original article on this matter observes:

        ” This state-imposed class harmony was also at the heart of the Nazis’ Volksgemeinschaft, the racially pure “community of the people.” At the book burnings in May 1933, one of the slogans shouted as the fire took hold ran: “Against class struggle and materialism, for Volksgemeinschaft and an idealistic attitude to life! I hand over to the flame the writings of Marx and Kautsky.”

        Like their historical forebears, the government and the courts today oppose not only socialist ideas but the basic principles of a democratic society, which are incompatible with their pro-war policies and the robbery of the working class. Thus, they declare that even a majority of the population may not fundamentally change the state organs because these represent the “will of the whole people.”

        Regardless of who is making the argument – the SGP or anyone else – the point which steveH is cognitively, psychologically, emotionally and politically incapable of recognising or accepting – is that the position of the German Government and lower courts on this matter is that the Oligarchy it represents has to be free of any effective class based critique from any internal or external force.

        Thus, any narrative outside of the Official Narrative is outlawed as “Unconstitutional” in an Orwellian redefinition of ‘Democracy” which owes more to Alice in Wonderland’s Humpty Dumpty – words mean whatever I want them to mean – than to the Athenian tradition of the Demos.

        As professor Michael Hudson details here (as well as elsewhere):

        “That neoliberal pro-creditor ethic is the root of today’s New Cold War. When President Biden describes this great world conflict aimed at isolating China, Russia, India, Iran and their Eurasian trading partners, he characterizes this as an existential struggle between “democracy” and “autocracy.”

        By “democracy” he means oligarchy. And by “autocracy” he means any government strong enough to prevent a financial oligarchy from taking over government and society and imposing neoliberal rules – by force. The ideal is to make the rest of the world look like Boris Yeltsin’s Russia, where American neoliberals had a free hand in stripping away all public ownership of land, mineral rights and basic public utilities.”

        Hence the desperate attempts of steveH to re-frame and redefine the issue beyond rational and logical breaking points scream out from the screen/page the level of hubris by proxy on display in a tragi-comical pastiche of Stockholm Syndrome.

        Mimicking the very same Oligarchical class, acting as a self appointed gatekeeper, sycophanticaly defending The Official Narrative (TON) at the very idea of anyone from the plebeian classes (ie. the 99%) having the temerity to utter, never mind push, any alternative narrative or analysis.

        Its a sad pathetic sight to see. It really is.

      10. Dave – Well thanks for all your hard work copy and pasting, don’t worry I’m sure that someone out there will be impressed.

  7. Some points ..

    First – intelligence and education of Richi Sunak and
    Liz Truss – they both studied PPE at Oxford so on
    the surface the same Education. I suspect however
    that PPE can mean many things and maybe depends
    on which modules chosen … Sunak at least states what
    he thinks is correct despite the fact that he will lose

    Second political common sense:
    At least Sunk does not encourage crazy ideas
    such as UK citizens going to Ukraine to fight
    which is what Truss did – and was then slapped
    down. Truss does not think things through. If
    anyone has been following the item about citizens
    not being able to pay their fuel bills and just not
    doing so – then any leader with sense will HAVE to
    do something to alleviate this if only for the sake
    of self preservation (eg Poll tax – and this is far
    more serious). I think Ms Truss does not have
    the sense she was born with. In contrast
    at least Sunak’s furlough scheme was
    something – though it did not go far enough
    and of course there were scams.

    Third – the Forde report and reactions. The Labour
    Party was urged to “open its books” and they did
    so. What was found was not to the liking of some
    in the Labour Party so some wanted it swept under
    the carpet – and still do. The social media have tried
    to do this – with mixed success. No surprise there

    Fourth – about Andrew Fisher’s opinion about
    Rachel Reeves. Well there is a saying
    “Keep your friends close but your enemies
    closer.” Not sure if that always worked for
    Jeremy Corbyn,.

    1. Holby I agree with you Sunak is better than Truss. Sunak is a billionaire and has more to lost than Truss from workers revolting.
      Hence, Sunak had a direct interest in implementing furlough: it benefited his upper class friends as the government paid most of the wages of their workers and prevented angry workers for seriously injuring the bosses. Plus it prevented an ideological shift from workers than see themselves a middle class to suddenly find themselves in the same group as the lumpen proletariat. That would have realise that been unemployed isn’t peoples fault but rather capitalism.
      Sunak and his billionaires friends know that they cannot got back to austerity, that they cannot expect to make huge profits on the back of workers and getting away with it for very long.
      They fear and with good reason that they would have to hire security to keep their children and their families safe, they fear that perhaps the pay staff would not be loyal enough and endanger them by poisoning their food for example.
      Hence, better to keep a semblance of fairness that would keep the workers quiet, they still shudder when they thing of 1917 Russia or 1961 Cuba.

      1. I have little time for the conservative and unionist party but a leader whos roots are in the largest country in the world would be a good move.IT might also help with our other Eastern neighbours China which might just be a catylist for peace on earth.Who knows its got to be better than Maggie mk 2or the New world order “has been” Sir keir starmer.

      2. We should never forget the deep involvement of the likes of Frances O’Grady and the TUC in measures such as the furlough scheme, and the fact that it was the staff of the NHS who got the testing vaccination programmes up and running, not those clowns in the Cabinet.

    2. Re the Forde Report, it is very noticeable that the Guardian is censoring any posts mentioning it. I posted a number of innocuous and relevant comments that included reference to it, and they were all gone in minutes. Some other posters made oblique comments to similar experiences, and their comments got a significant number of upvotes.

      There is, in short, a very strong determination to prevent any discussion of it and what it says about the current state of the Labour party.

      I always tend to think that this is very unhealthy. If you keep building pressure and seal tight any outlet for dissent, don’t be surprised if the result is a massive explosion. If/when it happens, those who have foreseeably caused it will no doubt act all shocked as to where such a reaction came from.

      1. I guess you can live in hope, be sure to come back and let us all know when it happens.

      2. Ultraviolet, as you have found out to your own cost, the Guardian are firmly entrenched as the Establishment’s House Magazine. They only financially survived by doing a deal with the devil and most of the hacks that work for them get a wage from the UK Security Services for pushing the narrative in the way they are directed. Hence the behaviour with your posts on a very touchy subject. They were at the vanguard of dissing Corbyn at every opportunity they could find and like the rest of the MSM have stonewalled the Forde Report.

  8. Absolutely atrocious.

    People like Reeves, Starmer and their guiding Dark Lord, Peter Mandelson, believe there is but one neoliberal model and hope only to gain power by default, never by inspiring. They hold the very idea the public should have a real democratic choice in elections, in contempt.

    Corbyn failed the membership in not driving through either mandatory reselection or open selection. Had he done so, these Blairite cuckoos, like Reeves et al, could be shown the door – cleanly and democratically. Reeves would be primaried in the US, for sure. She’s typical of the New Labour London elite who ‘represent’ so many safe Northern England seats after being parachuted in. Politics is a family affair too; she’s apparently married to a top civil servant, her sister is a Labour MP and so is sis’s husband.

    The only hope now, is that Corbyn uses his name recognition to front a new party as an antidote to these impostors who’ve hijacked Labour. Allow all the disenfranchised Labour voters to do the rest. What is there to lose? The Tories seemingly have an electoral death wish, and Labour offer nothing worth voting for. Yet may win as the Tories self-destruct, as if ordered to do so.

    200,000 members would represent true political clout – Tory membership is est. 160,000 – and that 200k figure is wholly realistic and quickly attainable for any Corbyn-fronted party imho – union sponsorship would surely follow too. Corbyn’s role could be that akin to an honorary president. A by-election victory would send shockwaves through the Labour party. Any new party need only stand candidates against RW Labour MPs (not SCG MPs). At a minimum, it would force Labour to try to appeal to the left. Much as UKIP then the Brexit Party shaped the Tory party policy, when their voters had a real alternative.

    A new party would have a left-wing, progressive constitution that members will agree to uphold. And it would vow to create a UK that can answer all Tony Benn’s five essential democratic tests:

    “What power have you got?”

    “Where did you get it from?”

    “In whose interests do you use it?”

    “To whom are you accountable?”

    “How do we get rid of you?”

    1. Andy – Corbyn failed the membership by going behind their backs and actively sabotaging the introduction of mandatory reselection and open selection.

      1. SteveH

        Corbyn came under intense pressure from the PLP and media not to introduce either. Until you’ve experienced that yourself, it’s probably easier to criticise his weakness from afar. These PLP Blairites knew they were fighting for their careers and were prepared to get very nasty indeed. These ‘fake left’ centrist careerist people, are some of the most vicious people in politics.

        The mere suggestion of possible introduction was denounced as a potential ‘purge’ mechanism in the making. The despicable guardian, long a champion of US-style primaries to mitigate FPTP and seat for life, parachuted in MPs. Did a 180 on the issue – in the process showing they were fair-weather friends of democracy – by going along with the Blairite PLP’s Open Selection = ‘purge’ narrative.

        I agree, Corbyn should have stuck to the plan and introduced regardless. But don’t underestimate the levels of viciousness and vitriol he faced from within the PLP and press. The Blairites knew they’d be shown the door by the membership. Just as Starmer now knows he could never win another leadership contest today given the lies he’s told. The unions also feared losing influence over the selection of pro-union candidates, but that fear was misplaced, imho. As it’s almost certain they’d have seen more left-wing candidates selected.

        Labour has lost a third of its members, and that 383k figure probably involves some creative accounting. The media, including guardian, think that’s fine though, because they believe it involves the disfranchisement of the left, who they openly discriminate against and have othered,.

      2. Andy – Lets not forget that Corbyn oversaw the loss of 20% of the membership during 2018/19.
        We’ll soon be able to verify the actual number of fully paid up members when we see the voting returns for the upcoming NEC elections.

      3. 2018/19?

        That was during the manufactured antisemitism crisis; the treacherous Tom Watson attacking members, scandals and protests(including bizarrely- one allowed outside Westminster) – clearly orchestrated to demoralise the membership. The constant media gaslighting was outrageous. Margaret Hodge’s uncontested claims on Sky News, comparing Corbyn-led Labour to the Nazi SS. She said it felt like being in Germany in the 1930s – she claimed she feared Corbyn supporters were coming to get her, telling Sky News she had her suitcase packed. Imagine how many members Starmer-led labour would lose if subjected to a similar media onslaught and constant gaslighting.

        Starmer is losing members when Labour has near no criticism from the corrupt, lying London press and far too influential ‘Friends of Israel’ lobby, and his party barely registers in terms of PLP dissent against his rotten leadership.

        You seem to like comparing apples and oranges. i.e. the comparison is completely invalid. The fact is Labour are losing members and are struggling to generate any enthusiasm – because they have no policies for members to be enthusiastic about.

      4. Andy – I’ve just published the facts and left the excuses to you.
        As I’ve pointed out above we will soon know for certain the number of fully paid up members.

    2. Also Andy, the prospect of a Corbyn-fronted new party that easily achieved 200,000-plus members would highlight two issues that are critical to future success: FPTP and MSM bias.

      1. qwertboi – I think you are deluding yourself, if it was going to happen then we’d know about it by now.

    1. J. Cook is always excellent in providing analysis – probably why he’s exiled from the mainstream media – he’s too honest for the likes of the guardian, BBC and others.

      Had to laugh at this today : Rishi Sunak claiming in a Telegraph headline “The powers that be” don’t want him as leader. This after Johnson accused the ‘Deep State’ of orchestrating & plotting his downfall. There may be something in Johnson’s claim , as 50 members of the govt who backed him a few weeks ago, don’t suddenly do timed resignations without there being some coordination behind the scenes.

      If the left were to talk about ‘the powers that be’ TPTB or ‘Deep State’ plots we’d be labelled ‘conspiracy theorists’ or ‘cranks.’ But when the right does it in govt, it’s seen as perfectly normal.

  9. Jonathan Cook is always there, or thereabouts, in his analysis. His headline, though, I disagree with – “Labour’s biggest problem: Keir Starmer”
    Starmer is but the mask that covers the face of the real problem, and that is the capture of the LP by the corporate state lobbyists.

    1. goldbach

      Yes, I agree.

      It’d can be salvaged either. Blair had 1994-2007 – one month shy of 13 years, to shape a party in his own image. We need a new party and then to rigorously defend against RW infiltration by having a party constitution.

      If Corbyn had cobbled together a majority after 2017’s GE, how long would that govt have lasted with so many PLP bad actors in play?

      It would have been a torrid time, with every minor govt error pounced upon by the press and PLP critics. Imagine a PM Corbyn having to rely upon : Streeting, Hodge, L. Berger , Ruth Smeeth , Ian Austin, Woodcock, Liz Kendell , Kinnock , Benn , Mary Creagh et al to name but a few ‘hostiles’ to get his legislative programme through. No chance!

      Imagine trying to recognise Palestine with that lot on the back benches. We are deluding ourselves on the left if we think there was ever a viable govt in 2017. The Blairites (basically Tories) would have collapsed it in no time.

      It would have been equally torrid for Rebecca Long-Bailey too had she won the leadership, Rebecca knew this, hence her somewhat lacklustre campaign, the RW were already getting ready to destroy her too.

      Sometimes things happen for a reason.

    2. Captured the LP
      And everything else
      We forget Bernie Sanders was stopped twice
      The kleptocracy is a global phenomenon, what no one knows is when the Ponzi Scheme collapses, Obama was quoted as saying in 2008 that he was the only person keeping the folk with the pitchforks from the Bankers gates
      That was until Brown decided to save the world and bail them out
      Now it is exponentially worse

  10. Where are we now and where do we want to be in 27 years time
    Then what do we need to do to get from here to there
    Trump cards that will play in our favour are demographics, Votes for 16 year olds, PR and Political and Financial Education
    In power we will take no prisoners and create a Free Press and Regulators with unlimited power to punish those who abuse our trust
    Abolish all vestiges of the putrid class system in this country, make the Youth Parliament the upper house and change the head of state every year by electing a Pride of Britain winner to represent us
    Part 2 to follow

    1. Doug – Unfortunately your socialist Utopian vision appears to be more like an authoritarian dictatorship. What concerns me is that as part of this socialist vision you have granted yourselves ‘take no prisoners’, ‘unlimited powers’ to deal with those who disagree with you. Who gets to decide who is deemed to have betrayed your ‘trust’, you?😟

      1. SteveH I share your concern. But we have now seen chapter and verse on how a democratic attempt to introduce mild socialism into the political debate was ruthlessly destroyed by the establishment.

        I don’t see how our current structures can deliver a democratic socialist Government even if that is what the people overwhelmingly want, because the rich and powerful have got all the levers of democracy sewn up. Control of the only parties that are relevant under FPTP. The media. The important players in the economy. All exclusively under the control of the authoritarian right.

        So what’s the answer if not for the left to be more ruthless? Other than rolling over and tolerating the status quo? It’s equivalent to the old question of “how can you be tolerant of intolerance?”

        I wish I had an answer, because I hate both of the answers that appear to be our only choices at the moment.

      2. Ultraviolet – “So what’s the answer if not for the left to be more ruthless?”

        A good start would be for ‘the left’ to organise themselves, get off their arses and vote.

  11. Part 2
    Drip Drip Drip
    Aimed at PLP Members who will always look after No 1 first
    Central message
    Red Tories out, they will never be trusted again
    Given a Free Vote the right wing will be wiped out
    Drip Drip Drip
    Theres going to be a challenge,whose side are you on, members, unions and supporters or Blaites working for the Tory party
    Drip Drip Drip
    A change is gonna come
    Part 3 to follow

    1. Doug – “Given a Free Vote the right wing will be wiped out”

      Will they really, how many RW MPs have been successfully triggered?

  12. RR won’t offer low income people nothing, she’ll offer them a finger wagging lecture on political correctness.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: