"we'll change the things that need changing and that's all we'll change": the paSUKification of post-brexit politics 2021

That reminds me - there was a reference on a Novara post ("Is there any point staying in Labour?") to how "the shift to a single transferable vote for NEC elections has weakened our ability to resist <Starmer's McCarthyism>". Does anyone have a good article explaining this point of view, the ones I've found on the subject reflect my instinct that STV only makes things worse if "we" are good at organising holding our noses for power and "they" are fractious and principled, which is not the way the sides in this war map out in my head?

D'oh, that should be italics instead of strike-through!

Lol

Starmer's McCarthyism so out of control it's even censoring Andrew Farrell's posts.

I'm glad that Calzino is reading Oliver Eagleton too - I'd like to read that book

but I would not like to read this book:
https://productimages.worldofbooks.com/1783341920.jpg

(will probably vote Green as the likeliest to nibble at Labour from the left in Greenwich/Woolwich. then two days later I move to an absolute doozy of a constituency lol)

― imago, Thursday, 28 April 2022 bookmarkflaglink

Is that Kensington and Chelsea?

we are all easily wound up at present and i can forgive this online unkindness but really i draw a red line at voting labour when it would clearly make a tory seat more rather than less likely. it is impossible to falsify polls by that much surely. if you can show me a recent finchley poll where the labour vote hasn't (unfairly) tanked then fictional finchley lj will recant and apologise

― imago, Tuesday, 3 December 2019 12:48 (two years ago) bookmarkflaglink

*nervous laughter*

Lol real melt land!!

Gonna have an actual Tory to zap. Quite exciting

re: NEC & STV, the previous system used was FPTP, which meant the left was capable of winning the entire slate of nine CLP seats during the Corbyn era. STV is a proportional system, so it dilutes the left's influence at that level, which is where they're strongest, as the right obviously has institutional advantages elsewhere in the NEC. in 2020 the results for those CLP seats were 5 left/3 right/1 soft-left, which shows the left could have still won all or nearly all of those seats under FPTP.

"so it dilutes the left's influence at that level" / "which shows the left could have still won all or nearly all of those seats under FPTP" - Yeah, these are the bits that don't make any sense to me. I know what FPTP and STV are - that's why these bits don't make any sense to me.

under the previous system, everyone could vote for 9 candidates and then the 9 candidates with the highest votes won seats, so it was in practice a winner-take-all system. this meant that the left got all 9 seats during the corbyn years with around 55% of the vote. under STV, the left only gets 5 out of 9 seats with that sort of small majority of the vote (as they did in 2020) and would need ~90% of the vote to win all 9 seats.

Funny how the ones you always imagine to be utter cunts turn out to be utter cunts.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/28/mp-liam-byrne-should-be-suspended-from-commons-for-breaching-bullying-rules-panel

xp right, so it's gone from overwhelming majority to just majority

there are also a lot of appointed positions (some appointed by the leader's office, but others by various bits of the party bureaucracy) on the NEC which tend to be dominated by the right, so overwhelming majority in the positions that members vote for was the only way the left was likely to ever get a majority on the NEC as a whole, even when they had all 9 member appointed positions it was pretty slim, I think?

richard seymour (twitter's @leninology) on the eagleton book: https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/04/tell-us-who-you-really-are-keir-starmer

yes i know it's the new statesman; but it's an incisive review of a book that may be better than i'm entirely expecting (as some are aware i'm not a fan of the eagleton branding, tho perhaps it's not fair entirely to tar the son with the dad's flaws) (the two or three oliver eagleton pieces i've read in the last two or threee years i've broadly agreed with AND been irritated by lol, perhaps my abreaction against terry's affect has poisoned my brane)

if i have a reservation abt this account (= seymour's summary of eagleton's narrative) it's that it overstates how *early* starmer had fully hardened into what's he become; how soon his clarity of political purpose had emerged to him (starmer) without it being apparent yet to anyone else -- yes, he may always have had an inkling he could win, and may well be more ruthless and ambitious than he seems publicly, but i don't really believe in political strategies that are full set in place in advance of all the opportunities that subsequently emerge to be seized… he's a lawyer, which means he's attuned to the tactical, and subtly twists and turns as events allow… and political acts don't really exist as long as their locked in a single person's head

but maybe i just want SKSQC not to seem as successful (if only on his own terms) as this suggests

very little about his record as LoTO suggests he's that clinically machiavellian, this is true

I saw this guy by the Dixons ice cream shop the other day who was at least facially an absolute dead ringer for Kieth - even the same glasses and hairstyle, apart from he was about 6"2 and looked like a bit of a doorman/bruiser type, quite comical.

The muckraking Eagleton did even before his DPP tenure show he'd already "journeyed to the right" somewhat, as in advising the CPS to scrap any charges against the anti-GRT hate mob in Firle. Although you have to be evil to be offered the job, it gives the impression that the previous DPP and others in the dept were a little surprised and expecting him to be more progressive.

yes the review talks abt that -- but to me that's evidence of situational adjustment to underlying outlook (he's a cop) more than it's evidence of a cold-eyed long-distance step-by-step project, for himself or for the party (to be clear this is the only aspect i'm hmmming at; i think his victory to date is more a product of persistent stubborn lack of imagination as it jigsaws into the endemic lack of imagination of the political landscape, and of constrained vision of potential transformation as it jigsaws ditto ditto; more a product of this anyway than of any useable kind of political deftness, be it never so narrowly focused so far)

tl;dr: oliver e is a wee bit conspiratorial (or maybe seymour is in his retelling)

i guess i mean conspiracy-minded not conspiratorial (i just don't think these guys -- starmer's kitchen cabinet -- are all smart; and i also think the lay of the land was incredibly fkn hard in all directions for the other side, and corbyn made mistakes) (this is a reason i think the review is incisive, sets out some of the mistakes)

all smart = all that smart

(sorry for all the adjustments i'm quite sleepy)

The statement that KS does what he does because he lacks imagination or is conservative, now made by two posters, understates how far what he does is malicious and extreme, and is driven by contempt and an extraordinary desire to damage others.

putting that shitheel in his shadow cabinet has proved to be a mistake, but then again he didn't have a lot of options at the time. I don't believe it was a cunning plan, he took his opportunities and was helped by events and the guileless membership more than any clear strategy to finish off Corbynism while it was winded + and on the deck.

sorry for the clunky boxing metaphor. That's why I'm not a valued poster and if somebody accidentally fp's me on their smartphone I get instant ban!

i fped you bcz i thought it was a sailing metaphor

a lot of Eagleton's material has been covered before. like for example I can remember Jude posting about him removing specialist barristers from rape trials and it's detrimental effects during the leadership election iirc

there are also a lot of appointed positions (some appointed by the leader's office, but others by various bits of the party bureaucracy) on the NEC which tend to be dominated by the right, so overwhelming majority in the positions that members vote for was the only way the left was likely to ever get a majority on the NEC as a whole, even when they had all 9 member appointed positions it was pretty slim, I think?

yeah this is the other key thing. if those were the only 9 seats the move to STV wouldn't matter, but because they're just a smaller part of the whole NEC it's very effectively diluting the left's influence

My only belief favourable to Labour at this point is that they would hurt fewer people than the Tories, I have no faith they would help anyone.

I think the harm reduction argument for voting with a nose peg for a conservative authoritarian Labour is totally overstated at this point. I can't see any rhetorical ground between them and Tories, policy wise only a one off windfall tax that is like the equivalent of putting an elastoplast on a bullet wound.

Labour are more hostile to JC and socialists than the Con party are.

The Tories don't have to bother Starmer is doing all the spadework for them.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRbVg-_XIAIqz6-?format=jpg&name=360x360

attacking the LibDems for seemingly floating their best policy ideas since Charlie opposed the invasion of Iraq. Of course local elections are all about bin collections, thermonuclear weapons and drugs.

Only 24% of Labour voters (and 35% of the general public) want soft drugs to remain illegal but it’s obviously not about appealing to voters on anything other than Under New Management.

Intrigued to know how canvassing in Barnet with a bunch of Israeli MPs is going.

The statement that KS does what he does because he lacks imagination or is conservative, now made by two posters, understates how far what he does is malicious and extreme, and is driven by contempt and an extraordinary desire to damage others.

Malicious, extreme and driven by contempt and an extraordinary desire to damage others seems a pretty accurate summing up of UK conservatism to me.

OK: but that comes down to a difference between small and large C.

Leave aside the Con party. The claim is made that KS is unimaginative, cautious and conservative - these understood as regular adjectives.

I don't think he is. Or I think he is also the things I said, which you have just quoted.

To put it more simply:

Do KS's actions suggest that he's moderate and middle of the road?

No, they show that he's extreme and dangerous.

I think he could be potentially more dangerous than a real Tory PM, because of his need to prove he's not a wet.

well I don't think mark s is suggesting in any way that Starmer's project isn't evil to the core; whether he engineered it via machiavellian long term strategy or whether he caught a bunch of lucky breaks and managed to capitalize tactically on these doesn't make any difference to its ethical content I don't think

all i'm actually objecting to is a sense -- possibly not even entirely intended -- in seymour's review that the project as it is very clearly emerging now was as clear to starmer and his in-gang supporters (but only them) five yrs ago, let alone 15 yrs ago

and to be clear myself i think the review is incisive and useful and the eagleton book -- against my natural anti-eagleton prejudices -- also sounds good and useful

What I still feel quite bitter about is the membership who voted for him. Lots of switched on people were digging the dirt on him at the time, and based on his history there was no chance he was ever going to deliver some soft-left compromise Corbynism without Corbyn. And still now you get feigned outrage from easy dupes who found out to their horror that right-wing politicians will lie to get votes. Like ffs this was an important vote that will have very significant consequences for the next decade and beyond and they got duped by a very unimaginative and uncharismatic person who admitted it was all an act the day he got elected.

I agree with both Mark S and Calzino. Points very well made.

I think perversely you've got more chance of the tories adopting watered down versions of Corbyn 2019 policies than you would with a Labour govt, and this is a deeply fucked up thing.

all I've heard from Labour on Universal Credit is a proposal to change the name "to remove the stigma that has become attached to it" and in all their messaging non-working/disabled people just don't exist. I think they could be very dangerous, the Labour Right like making "difficult decisions" because it makes them look tough.

It would be interesting to do a deep dive on the strands of Labour's right - I feel like the people ignored are for different reasons, your Blue Labour types with an actual prejudice against those that don't fit their white semi-skilled ur-prole fantasies whereas the managerial Blairites just want their bureaucracy tidy and cheap and the status of their victims is irrelevant as long as they become grateful patronised basket cases

It's probably just an accident of what I haven't noticed but my mental health has benefited from not seeing the "Labour needs to win at any cost to save the poor" Victorian philanthropy line trotted out online for a couple of months

you best avoid [that actor from Threads] account then, because he trots that shit out every day. It's like self care for delusional progressives, this idea that Labour still have some paternalistic duty they will honour towards the sick and the poor - despite policy wise offering nothing to them and actually looking more like a danger to them.

B-b-b-but the SureStarts!

Obviously the 320 quid a month plus most of your rent, maybe, if you're lucky, is more than ample for a single person to live on in 2022, just needs a more upbeat name