I was finally tilted over the top reading Jeremy Gilbert's piece on PR, linked to below (which is absolutely imperative, btw). Starmer posed as a unity candidate but he has been absolutely no such thing. In fact, I consider the way he garnered votes such as mine for leader (more fool me) has been fraudulent. If he and the party had made the sort of noises they've made since he was elected leader, I would never have voted for him. The right wing bureaucrats now have the party firmly in their grasp, going back to the sort of vacant pragmatism that was such an electoral success in 2015, because it's all they know. Starmer has proved to be pliable and wholly without principle. Christ alive, Mr Remainer's most recent comments on Europe was that we should "stop banging on about" it - the main priority now being to appease the Angry Old Right Winger In Stoke.
I'm convinced Labour will not win in 2024; That'll most likely be down to with offering nothing in the way of either charisma or substance to persuade voters either that they represent change or that that they might not just as well stick with the Tories. But the party will doubtless blame that on the lingering effect of the Corbyn era and seek to tack further to the right.
I believe the Tories will be in power for a further nine years, though not under Johnson who may well not last nine further months. On that basis, I think it is time the party's left and right stopped living in the same house, the same unhappy marriage and became divorced. So much of the hatred between the party's factions is generated by both laying claim to representing the soul of the party. Were they to split, the left would be free to articulate its vision for the country without being suppressed, from PPC level upwards by the right, so many of whom seem in the Labour party to prevent socialism. As for the right, they would be free to articulate whatever the fuck it is they are actually about without fear of impediment from the "toxic" left; neither would any of the others' business any more.
Of course, there would be a custody battle for the name Labour; perhaps that could be settled by determining whether it is the left or the right who are most sincerely determined to defend the interests of Labour in its ongoing negotiations with Capital. Of course, since the split I'm talking about would have to be taken by the left, it would not be as reasonable and fair as that; perhaps the new party could call themselves True Labour, a la New Labour, as opposed to the right wing rump left behind laughingly clinging to the moniker Labour even as they try to boast their "get tough" attitude to unions to floating voters.
Just consider the energy which could be redeployed if the two wings went their separate ways; the massive reduction in scheming, rage.
Of course, all of this could only work with the successful, concomitant introduction of PR, for which there would have to be a renewed and vigorous campaign. But all of this is on the assumption that there are nine years of Tory rule ahead (they were in charge for 18 years under Thatcher/Major; 19 isn't implausible). Thing is, although a surprising number of people believe in eternal verities such as the young becoming more conservative as they enter property owning middle age, those conditions aren't obtaining for increasingly large numbers of people. Also, bear in mind that whereas in 1979/1983, 42% of 18-24 years olds voted Tory, in 2019 that figure was 21 per cent. And, as Andy Beckett has pointed out, the demographic who haven't migrated from Labour to Tory because they haven't ascended the gradient to prosperity enjoyed by previous generations growing older and older. Labour's defeat, as with the EU referendum was brought about by a veto by the elderly.
Of course, all of this would require a collective and huge act of nerve and career sacrifice and the banishment of memories such as Arthur Scargill's pitiful two men and a dog attempt to launch an alternative socialist party in the mid-90s. But then was then and now is now. I realise that this might well seem like a long, wishful, impossible shot; but I think it's important at least to visualise ideas like this, rather than just be fatalistically clever. And, when the upcoming Forde report is published, I suspect that'll persuade quite a few more people that it is ridiculous that they are in the same party as Labour's obnoxious, sabotaging, careerist apparatchiks. And how bad can an idea be that is most vociferously opposed by the Tories and the Labour right?
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...f-factionalism
I'm convinced Labour will not win in 2024; That'll most likely be down to with offering nothing in the way of either charisma or substance to persuade voters either that they represent change or that that they might not just as well stick with the Tories. But the party will doubtless blame that on the lingering effect of the Corbyn era and seek to tack further to the right.
I believe the Tories will be in power for a further nine years, though not under Johnson who may well not last nine further months. On that basis, I think it is time the party's left and right stopped living in the same house, the same unhappy marriage and became divorced. So much of the hatred between the party's factions is generated by both laying claim to representing the soul of the party. Were they to split, the left would be free to articulate its vision for the country without being suppressed, from PPC level upwards by the right, so many of whom seem in the Labour party to prevent socialism. As for the right, they would be free to articulate whatever the fuck it is they are actually about without fear of impediment from the "toxic" left; neither would any of the others' business any more.
Of course, there would be a custody battle for the name Labour; perhaps that could be settled by determining whether it is the left or the right who are most sincerely determined to defend the interests of Labour in its ongoing negotiations with Capital. Of course, since the split I'm talking about would have to be taken by the left, it would not be as reasonable and fair as that; perhaps the new party could call themselves True Labour, a la New Labour, as opposed to the right wing rump left behind laughingly clinging to the moniker Labour even as they try to boast their "get tough" attitude to unions to floating voters.
Just consider the energy which could be redeployed if the two wings went their separate ways; the massive reduction in scheming, rage.
Of course, all of this could only work with the successful, concomitant introduction of PR, for which there would have to be a renewed and vigorous campaign. But all of this is on the assumption that there are nine years of Tory rule ahead (they were in charge for 18 years under Thatcher/Major; 19 isn't implausible). Thing is, although a surprising number of people believe in eternal verities such as the young becoming more conservative as they enter property owning middle age, those conditions aren't obtaining for increasingly large numbers of people. Also, bear in mind that whereas in 1979/1983, 42% of 18-24 years olds voted Tory, in 2019 that figure was 21 per cent. And, as Andy Beckett has pointed out, the demographic who haven't migrated from Labour to Tory because they haven't ascended the gradient to prosperity enjoyed by previous generations growing older and older. Labour's defeat, as with the EU referendum was brought about by a veto by the elderly.
Of course, all of this would require a collective and huge act of nerve and career sacrifice and the banishment of memories such as Arthur Scargill's pitiful two men and a dog attempt to launch an alternative socialist party in the mid-90s. But then was then and now is now. I realise that this might well seem like a long, wishful, impossible shot; but I think it's important at least to visualise ideas like this, rather than just be fatalistically clever. And, when the upcoming Forde report is published, I suspect that'll persuade quite a few more people that it is ridiculous that they are in the same party as Labour's obnoxious, sabotaging, careerist apparatchiks. And how bad can an idea be that is most vociferously opposed by the Tories and the Labour right?
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...f-factionalism
Comment