Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Letter to Laura. Does Momentum want to help Jeremy control the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Letter to Laura. Does Momentum want to help Jeremy control the party or run the country?
“When are we going to convert you?” I was frankly rather flattered to be asked that question by Laura Parker, then political secretary to Jeremy Corbyn and now national director of Momentum.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm coming to the conclusion that Brexit is part of a Grand Master Plan.
The Establishment (or Lizard Overlords, take your pick) wish for us to join a federal Europe, including full freedom of movement and membership of Schengen. Obviously the Great British Public would stand for no such thing, because Johnny Foreigner. Thus, the only solution to was to make Britain:
(a) utterly unappealing as a migrant destination, and
(b) so damaged that the EU would look like the Promised Land
Hence Brexit.
The slow takeover of the entire Labour Party continues:
13:52 Labour members have got to [elect] three new people to serve as constituency party representatives on the national executive committee (NEC) following reforms agreed at the party conference in Brighton. Constituency Labour party (CLP) nominations closed yesterday and Momentum, the Labour group for Jeremy Corbyn supporters, has released figures showing that the three candidates on its slate, Yasmine Dar, Rachel Garnham and Jon Lansman have got far more nominations than the three candidates being backed by the centrist groups Labour First and Progress, Eddie Izzard, Johanna Baxter, and Gurinder Singh Josan.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/20/brexit-bill-voters-will-go-bananas-if-uk-offers-40bn-to-eu-former-tory-minister-warns-may-ahead-of-key-meeting-politics-live
Barnier represents not France but the EU, and he has a negotiating position, the notorious European Council Guidelines, on which the veteran British diplomat Sir Peter Marshall has recently commented that ‘I have never seen, nor heard tell of, a text as antipathetic to the principle of give and take which is generally assumed to be at the heart of negotiation among like-minded democracies’. But, as a senior German politician recently commented off the record, its most important clause is the one that says it can be ‘adjusted’. This is the sort of language the British understand, the language of bargaining. But that is not how the French understand negotiation or texts...
...the French Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain published in 2014 an admirably concise handbook to oil the wheels of Franco-British trade, optimistically entitled ‘Light at the End of the Tunnel’. It notes that the British ‘prefer a faster pace’, while the French ‘dislike being hurried’. The British ‘emphasise solutions’, the French ‘emphasis problems’. For the British, ‘compromise is viewed positively and is linked to pragmatism’; for the French, ‘compromise can be viewed negatively, as it implies that a position was not well reasoned’. To crown it all, while the British are ‘proponents of “win-win”, and will compromise in an effort to build long-term relationships that benefit both parties’, the French are ‘proponents of “I win-you lose”, appearing not to care if it risks the breakdown of the relationship’.
The Brexiteers, Juncker’s fifth columnists.
How the Leavers may have ultimately signed the United Kingdom up for the single currency, the Schengen agreement, an EU Army, and a United States of Europe.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-brexiteers-junckers-fifth-columnists/
She took one for the Euro-team.
Kyf_100 has spoken of Corbynism as a middle class rebellion, so his/her analysis doesn’t surprise me. The reality is though is that wanting affordable rents and housing and secure employment is not specifically a middle class ambition. In fact, it’s what most working people want.
The IRA attacks didn’t just fail because they didn’t attack Corbyn economically. They failed because the Conservative Party and the right wing press generally has very little hearing among those who voted for Corbyn. This idea that dozens will become Conservatives upon hearing the ‘truth’ about Corbyn is delusional when you realise that among his voters, the Conservative party and its allies in the press are not a credible voice to begin with.
But it’s also more than that. Labour are seen to represent both the social values and economic interests of the under 50s. Until the Conservative Party change this by making a positive case to vote for them, they won’t see all these under 50s running to them.
Where it ends up will only be tested in government. They can put eye-catching and tempting policies up there, but the proof of this particular pudding can only truely be seen when they have to enact their policies, and what they actually try to do.
" I've always supported Labour, but can't vote for you because I don't like your leader"
"Thats ok, he isn't running for council"
"well yes but the national picture, I voted Tory in 2015"
"OK, so you've talked about the cuts on the council. Those are a direct result of the funding cuts voted through by the Tory MP we had in 2015"
"well yes, but I don't like your leader"
Anecdotage, but a good example of (a) a Labour voter (b) voting Tory (c) directly against her own described interests (d) because of some unspecified dread she has for Jezbollah. I couldn't get from her why she disliked him other than "he's awful" - the Daily Mail has done the job it set out to do. Problem for Labour is that before He ascended they did the same for Milliband.
What do Momentum want? The transformation of the party, then the country. Which would be fine were it not for the naked personality cult enshrined in its project. I go to Momentum meetings, partly because its good politics to do so, partly to keep an eye on (and dampen down) its batshit element.
Over 50s have lived through Old Labour governments in living memory, that was why so many of them voted Tory in June.
I remember when the polls showed a majority of the public thought we'd eventually join the Euro.
"I have not forgotten how difficult it is to get a job in the City. But how much you get paid thereafter is not solely determined by how hard you work. If you think that you are in for a surprise. And not a good one. I would impress that point very forcibly on anyone who gets a job in the City.
It was 13 years. At one institution. Not all the matters related to that institution. And not all of them were criminal. (Thank God!). And it was not 5000 people. All too often the same people came up. I am well aware of all the people who are not themselves under investigation. I have spent time doing advisory work, precisely because after a period as a litigator (earlier in my career) I wanted to spend time with employees who were trying to get thing right rather than when it all went wrong. It was a very valuable experience. And it is one reason why I got into training as well as investigation, precisely in order to show the people who do the right thing that they are not mugs for doing the right thing.
But the cultural/conduct problems in the City don't primarily relate to the wrongdoers but to too many of those around them who often failed to enforce the right or any standards, who helped create - almost without realising, possibly, because these things were not talked about or thought important - an environment in which good people became ethically blind.
That is a problem in a lot of sectors not just the City.
I am cynical. But cynics are often people who have high expectations about how things ought to be and are disappointed that they aren't. It's a form of self-protection, as much as anything. I think the financial services sector - a trusted, efficient one - matters and I would like to play my part, however small, in helping it and the people in it to live up to the best of themselves.
But I refuse to buy the bullshit which all too often emanates from those who are - and have been for far too long - too unwilling to confront the realities of their industry."
BTW to be clear I am not accusing you of peddling bullshit.
But Zoe Williams thinks an election is not far off. She's right. Five months. Ago.
But four and a half years into the future. There is absolutely no mechanism by which there is going to be an election before 2022 unless the Tories lose 7 by elections and a vote of confidence. To argue that this is not far off is la la land.
If there were an election tomorrow, I believe that Labour would lose it. Tories who abstained in June would come out in their legions to stop Corbyn.
The difference between an election tomorrow and in four years is that at least if it were tomorrow, Corbynista delusions would evaporate faster.
Agreed. The Tories are not being listened to not just because they don't have interesting policies but because too many of them seem to be batshit insane. And it's not just the under-50's who think this.
But that's what you said
- Oh I see.
"The big worry is about Momentum’s capacity to foment debilitating divisions in local parties."
That is the nub of it. The fact that Momentum ran slates for positions in my local party in itself set members against one another at a local level in a way that I haven't experienced in 30 years of prior membership. It comes with all the bullying that used to be confined to infighting within the far left, such that party meetings are now thoroughly unpleasant affairs. The default reaction of many (myself included) is to simply disengage and get on with life outside the Labour Party. If the Momentum faction want to exclusively dominate the running of the local party then they are welcome to exclusively do the donkey work of door knocking and leafleting as well.
As you say, I have already made the point that the young and middle class are turning towards Corbynism as a direct consequence of their own declining living standards in relation to their parents.
But as you also say, it's a unversal desire to want secure housing and employment - which is why so many working class people voted to leave the EU, as immigrants are mostly in direct competition with them for housing and jobs.
The Tories can't just, as they did in 2017, run a campaign that points the finger at Corbyn and goes "wah wah, he's a bad man", but what they can do is show people how they will be worse off under Corbynism.
Tonally, that needs to be a message of ambition. The Conservatives have historically succeeded when they have made it clear that if you work hard you will get on in life. Labour's fortunes reversed under Blair when they clothed themselves in the language of aspiration.
Corbynism is not a message of aspiration, it is a message of "we will take from those better off than you". The Conservative campagin, therefore, needs to show that _you_ will be the "better off" people that Corbyn is taking from.
What the Conservatives need to do is fully cost up all of Labour's manifesto and demand answers on exactly where the money will come from, then show ordinary working people how they are actually the people who will have the fruits of their hard work taken off them.
Such as it always has been with socialism.
Labour's trick at GE2017 was to convince enough people that they would be the recipients of the free jam, rather than the ones paying for it.
Thanks for the response.
I have found that on the whole most people aim to do well and to do well in the right way. A minority skate near the edge, while a small minority rely on their supposed intelligence to stay ahead of the game (there are of course no words adequately to describe the idiocy of people who do commit transgressions and document it to each other on IB chat the while.)
These days, as you are very well aware yourself, the amount of regulations and restrictions governing behaviour, together with the change in culpability to the individual rather than the institution has meant that much bad behaviour has disappeared. Plus the culture has changed also. Greed has not been good for quite some time and a genuine desire to help clients is more pervasive, but maybe that is just the younger generation.
I appreciate you not accusing me of peddling bullshit; I am certainly not saying there is no wrongdoing, nor that everyone is an angel, just that these days, broadly, the City is full of good people, working hard, with honour, and ethically...to make themselves a shedload of money.
Now, is that, together with the fact that they probably spared precious little time thinking of the good folk of Wisbech when voting in the referendum, a stain on their collective character? I don't think it is.
Maybe I got the tone wrong but thank god we do not live in a country where the leader of a supposedly serious party thinks it is ok to put a price on an actress' head. Salman Rushdie may be one of the most conceited men on the planet but we were right to protect him all those years. Putin just murders his opponents. This is a civilised country we should be proud of and hysteria to the contrary is simply wrong.
It’s also why we chose IDS over Ken Clarke for leader in 2001.
Is why Jeremy Hunt is a good bet for next Cons leader.
IMO two things are required.
1. A toning down of language by activists and politicians when it comes to individual opponents. See John McDonnell and Esther McVey as examples that should be referred to Parliamentary authorities as unacceptable conduct.
2. Serious enforcement of social media comments, cf the guy who was jailed for threatening airport security via Twitter, that sort of response should be extended to threats against elected politicians.
As I keep stressing to my happy clappy Momentum friends who have Seen The Light about His ascendance - most voters are NOT political, do not identify with Tory or Labour, do not care about ideology or what is "left" or "right". At a fundamental level "mainstream" politics have failed millions and millions of people, and even the supposedly affluent are worried about the cost of housing and education. Offering a solution to these problems is not "hard left" to most punters, its just different to whats already failing them.
As I said to HYUFD on the other thread, there is a fundamental misconception amongst many Tories that people are happy and can be scared into sticking with nanny with tales of the Commie monster. They aren't happy, and the status quo holds no grip on them.
As I mentioned before, a big issue for Tories is the lack of credibility attached to the Conservative Party and its allies in the press among many of those under 50. The Conservative Party can attempt to show people how terrible Corbyn will be for them all they like, but if people don’t see their voice as credible they won’t listen. People especially won’t listen if they don’t believe that the Conservative party are a party of aspiration. And their baby boomer client vote make it hard for them to do so, in that respect.
https://order-order.com/2017/11/20/labour-outsources-flashy-new-website-to-bernies-us-consultants/
For me the next leader should be between him and Gove and, of the 2, he is much the safer pair of hands.
The theories that so and so was too left wing or not left wing enough seem to have been disproved. Normal people who aren't political obsessives don't really think in that way.
How much for example would renationalising the railways cost? £350m per week?
*innocent face*
I can guarantee you that when the next scandal/crisis erupts, the start of it will be down to actions or non-actions happening now.
The acid test is whether someone senior or who brings in a lot of revenue and misbehaves gets disciplined, up to and including dismissal. Banks have flunked that test in the past. Based on recent experience, they still flunk it. Not always. Not as much as they did. Sometimes they do the right thing. But they are still too willing to make excuses and the wrong choice when there is a conflict between good behaviour and profits.
And, incidentally, regulators have not been great at living the good culture which they seek to impose on others.
There have always been rules. It's not the existence of rules which matter. It's whether people understand what the rules are about, why they matter, what they mean for their day-to-day conduct and whether they have the right moral compass and use their judgment when there is no clear answer given by the rules.
Things are better than they were. Let's face it: they could hardly be any worse. But improvement is patchy, the job is not complete and there is much to be done.
But when you have trashed your collective reputation as comprehensively as the financial sector did then don't be surprised that, when you need friends, as in the time post-June 23rd, you find that you don't have many.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvagsSOlAy4
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/nov/20/markets-rattled-euro-dax-bunds-german-coalition-talks-collapse-business-live
Hammond's rather crap, but when his opposite number is a socialist, it's no contest.
Until and unless Labour is led by someone who doesn't march gleefully with Al-Quds or Stalin banners, they're not even on my electoral radar.
If Cooper or Kendall were leading them, they'd be up for consideration, given how poor the Government is.
And state subsidies? Labour would abolish them? Who would pay then? The passenger? Or would it be Beeching Mark 2?
If your only acceptable form of opposition is Conservative-lite, fine. I think I want to see some change.
As for rail nationalisation its very simple - we the British state already own passenger rail operations. What I would like is to remove the dead hand of the idiots at the DfT from micromanaging everything and that means a return to letting the railwaymen run the railways. An arms length StateCo able to commercially borrow to invest in services as they do everywhere that isn't here has to be the way forward.
Take back control.
The eurosceptic thatcherite right have played with fire. They're gonna get burnt.
Change can make things worse. Unless a change is reasoned then it's more sensible to stick with the status quo.
Labour promised to "invest to build a million new homes". The Tories meanwhile committed themselves to building 1.5m new homes by 2022 (from a base line starting in 2015).
The very poorly written Conservative manifesto was vague (and IMHO, Miliband-Lite), but also pledged to imporve the quality of housing stock.
Labour were much more detailed in their manifesto about things such as secure tenancies, rent controls and building more council houses.
Worthy stuff by and large, although that should be balanced out by two very important things the Conservatives have already done, namely phasing out the tax exemption for BTL landlords, and banning letting agents fees.
Labour also committed themselves to extending help to buy - a Conservative policy.
But to suggest that either party had some kind of slam-dunk policy to fix Britain's housing crisis simply isn't true.
Ultimately it is a supply and demand issue and both parties committed themselves to building similar numbers of new houses, while fiddling round the edges with a few additional policies.
Where Corbynism really took root was amongst those aged 30-50 who were banking on an inheritance to help them on the property ladder, and feeling that the Dementia Tax was going to take that away from them.
As for change, I disagree. There comes a point when any change is worth more than the status quo - it was the feeling in 1945 and 1979 as well. Nobody really know what voting for Thatcher meant in 1979 but they knew it meant the end of Butskellism. The current model of capitalism as practiced here isn't working. If the alternative is ludicrous Dysonomics - no corporation tax and I can sack anyone who looks at me in a funny way - then I would support the status quo reluctantly.
Anyone who remembers BR knows that that privatised railways offer a far better service.
We must absolutely disagree on that. There are countless changes that could make things far worse.
We also disagree entirely on the hammer and sickle.
I hope I don't have the opportunity to be proved right on Corbyn.
That age group moved sharply against the Conservatives as a result of the dementia tax - because they were banking on getting a nice inheritance to help them on / up the housing ladder.
At the next GE, there will no longer be the option of having a 'free shot' against the Conservatives becuase it may very well lead to a Corbyn government. A successful Conservative campaign will hinge on the Tories being able to demonstrate to as many groups as possible, including that one, how they will be worse off under Labour.
For 'parliament' read the Labour executive as presumably this will only happen if Lab majority government.
I've not seen any analysis yet on whether this is all financial bollx.
And its right that the railways are better, considering that public subsidy has quintupled. If we removed the insanely complex contracts culture you could save a significant amount in efficiency savings alone.
Your analysis implies that it is merely one policy gaffe which messed things up for the Tories, and that voters only voted out of the ‘safety’ that Corbyn wouldn’t win. But the above link demonstrates that the Conservative party have deeper issues that go beyond one policy blunder; that many see them as not being on their side more generally. If your analysis was correct these voters would have returned to the Tories when the dementia tax policy was effectively dropped/put on the back burner, and they certainly wouldn’t have gone on to vote Labour when many of the shock polls were put on front pages showing the gap shortening dramatically. It was also the hypothesis on here too, that these polls would make people realise how close we were to a hung parliament where Corbyn could get into government, and ‘scare’ voters into voting Conservative. It didn’t happen.
As I said before, the Tory party are not seen as a credible voice among many in this group, and until they are it doesn’t matter what the Conservative campaign says or does to show them how terrible Corbyn is.
We can look at the sitcoms of the era on youtube and see that BR was the butt of huge number of jokes ...
Rightly so. It was a terrible service with gross over-manning and lack of any respect for the travelling passenger.
What would McDonnell offer, unless he plans to impose the change regardless of a shareholder vote !
The image of a burned out Grenfell Tower looming above the mansions of the billionaires in Kensington is as powerfully symbolic of what has gone wrong as the as the images of uncollected rubbish in the winter of discontent or the Jarrow marchers of the 1930s.
Bit of a lack of retail bond new issues at the moment, so there could be an appetite.
I don't own any of the railways actively so the above might be wrong, there is a lack of new issue retail bonds recently though :
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/prices-and-markets/retail-bonds/newrecent/newrecent.htm
So there could be a ready market..
Or do you mean that LibDem thingy in 2010, that blocked all discussion of our membership of the EU, allowing UKIP to fill the vacuum and so ultimately to the UK leaving the EU? That one?
1 Baldwin-Churchill-Butler-Macleod-Macmillan-Heath-Gilmour-Heseltine-Patten
vs.
2 Thatcher-Howe-Joseph-Tebbit-Powell-etc.
In 1970/74 it was party 1 on offer; in 1979 it was 2.
Party 2 enunciated 'the market will provide'. This prediction has proved to be, er, bollocks. It is about as valid as the Soviet Union's conviction that the future was one of collective farms and state-owned food shops.
They were expensive, unreliable and the butt of many sarcastic jokes about late arrival, poor food, strikes, poor staff attitude, shabby stations, dirty carriages and much more. You have to go back to the golden age up to (I guess) the early to mid 1950s to find that successful romantic image having fulfilment on the railways. Less demand, slower pace of life and a more polite society were in part responsible for the false memory that some have.
I knew a couple of BR drivers. Nothing wrong with them at all, nice blokes. En masse the rail industry was unhinged.
Reggie Perrin is a good example of how reliably unreliable BR were. You could set your watch by the 20 minute late arrival of your commuter train.
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/932638111468871680