Current Affairs The Labour Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed but as the author points out “Lowrey explores the potential of such a sweeping policy and the challenges the movement faces, among them contradictory aims, uncomfortable costs, and, most powerfully, the entrenched belief that no one should get something for nothing “

As I said, come AI and robots, many jobs will simply disappear, but there will need to be something that gives humankind a challenge other than just playing computer games......

yes - it is saying that the book considers and challenges your entrenched belief, not that it supports it.

maybe you should try the book itself, if you're interested in the topic, instead of just misreading the publisher's blurb ; )
 
what a shambles :rolleyes:

Momentum dump Peter Willsman from their NEC slate - in direct defiance of Jeremy Corbyn's office
The row over anti-Semitism is dividing Corbynites as much as Corbynsceptics.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...llsman-their-nec-slate-direct-defiance-jeremy

Momentum’s ruling national coordinating group has voted to withdraw its endorsement of Peter Willsman for Labour’s ongoing elections to its ruling national executive committee, putting the organisation – founded to defend and entrench Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party – on a direct collision course with the Labour leader’s office.

Although voting takes place in two big lumps – once when ballots first arrive on the doorsteps of members, and again right at the end of the voting deadline – it puts Willsman in real danger of losing his seat on Labour’s National Executive Committee. It is widely expected that Ann Black, who voted for Jeremy Corbyn on both occasions but is seen as independent-minded, will finish narrowly behind the eight candidates endorsed by Momentum. (Essentially everyone involved expects the candidates of Labour’s centre-left, backed by Progress and Labour First, and the comedian Eddie Izzard, a big supporter of Ed Miliband’s leadership and now running as an independent, to finish miles behind Momentum’s slate.) Even a handful of lost votes could see Black take ninth place at Willsman’s expense.

If Willsman’s re-election bid succeeds, however, then nobody – not Momentum, not Jeremy Corbyn, and not the national NEC – has the power to compel him to resign his seat, ensuring that the division on the Labour left over how to tackle the party’s antisemitism crisis will run and run. In any case, that division has already widened the splits that opened up between the leader’s office and Momentum during the race to fill Iain McNicol’s shoes as Labour party general secretary.

Several Momentum members on Labour’s ruling NEC have tried to bring about a change of approach on the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, but have been overruled by senior staffers to Corbyn. (Corbyn’s office is, in of itself, split over how to handle the row.) Jon Lansman, Momentum’s founder and director, spoke out in the WhatsApp group in which Momentum members on the NEC liase with the leader’s office, describing it as a “massive tactical mistake” to take disciplinary action against Margaret Hodge, a senior Jewish Labour MP, for attacking Corbyn on the issue of anti-Semitism while failing to bring disciplinary measures against Willsman for his remarks on the issue at an NEC meeting. But Karie Murphy, Corbyn’s influential chief of staff, overruled Lansman, saying that Willsman’s apology on the issue meant the matter was closed.

One well-placed source described the row as a “shitshow”. The issue at stake is that Corbyn himself regards the row as a foreign policy issue, confined to the question of how Labour members can talk about Israel, while his critics primarily see it as a domestic issue, confined to the need to reassure British Jews of Labour’s intentions and to take the sting out of the row, which risks derailing a summer of detailed policy interventions from the opposition. Murphy sees the argument as about the right of the Labour leader and the general secretary, Jennie Formby, to make decisions on these matters, and has also criticised John McDonnell, one of Corbyn’s most steadfast allies, for setting out a different approach in public. Both Lansman and Rhea Wolfson, who is standing down from the NEC to run for the seat of Livingston, have been overruled by Murphy on the issue.

Others are worried that Hodge's lawyers, Mischon De Reya, who defended the historian Deborah Lipstadt against the Holocaust denier David Irving, will "take the party to the cleaners" in court. Another group of dissenters are furious that the row is being allowed to distract from a Conservative Party in crisis and a series of meaty policy announcements from the Labour party.

The refusal of the leader’s office to act to take the sting out of the crisis has led to many of the pro-Corbyn commentators, who also liaise with Team Corbyn via WhatsApp, to break ranks and publicly call for Willsman to be stripped of his position on the Momentum slate. Meanwhile, the website Skwakwbox, widely known to be close to allies of Murphy’s, published a defence of Willsman’s conduct.

Although Momentum’s national coordinating group is an elected body with its own mandate separate from Lansman, the reality is that of the 16-strong executive, 14 are closely tied to Lansman and the remainder hold him in high esteem thanks to his long work keeping the Labour left alive and organisationally viable during the long years of New Labour hegemony. Had he wished to save Willsman, his intervention would undoubtedly have done so.

It now puts the Labour leadership on course for two separate confrontations. The first is one with the Parliamentary Labour Party over the IHRA definition, in an argument that could prove the spur for a party split. The second is with Momentum, the leadership’s own Praetorian Guard.
 
what a shambles :rolleyes:

Momentum dump Peter Willsman from their NEC slate - in direct defiance of Jeremy Corbyn's office
The row over anti-Semitism is dividing Corbynites as much as Corbynsceptics.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...llsman-their-nec-slate-direct-defiance-jeremy

Momentum’s ruling national coordinating group has voted to withdraw its endorsement of Peter Willsman for Labour’s ongoing elections to its ruling national executive committee, putting the organisation – founded to defend and entrench Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party – on a direct collision course with the Labour leader’s office.

Although voting takes place in two big lumps – once when ballots first arrive on the doorsteps of members, and again right at the end of the voting deadline – it puts Willsman in real danger of losing his seat on Labour’s National Executive Committee. It is widely expected that Ann Black, who voted for Jeremy Corbyn on both occasions but is seen as independent-minded, will finish narrowly behind the eight candidates endorsed by Momentum. (Essentially everyone involved expects the candidates of Labour’s centre-left, backed by Progress and Labour First, and the comedian Eddie Izzard, a big supporter of Ed Miliband’s leadership and now running as an independent, to finish miles behind Momentum’s slate.) Even a handful of lost votes could see Black take ninth place at Willsman’s expense.

If Willsman’s re-election bid succeeds, however, then nobody – not Momentum, not Jeremy Corbyn, and not the national NEC – has the power to compel him to resign his seat, ensuring that the division on the Labour left over how to tackle the party’s antisemitism crisis will run and run. In any case, that division has already widened the splits that opened up between the leader’s office and Momentum during the race to fill Iain McNicol’s shoes as Labour party general secretary.

Several Momentum members on Labour’s ruling NEC have tried to bring about a change of approach on the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, but have been overruled by senior staffers to Corbyn. (Corbyn’s office is, in of itself, split over how to handle the row.) Jon Lansman, Momentum’s founder and director, spoke out in the WhatsApp group in which Momentum members on the NEC liase with the leader’s office, describing it as a “massive tactical mistake” to take disciplinary action against Margaret Hodge, a senior Jewish Labour MP, for attacking Corbyn on the issue of anti-Semitism while failing to bring disciplinary measures against Willsman for his remarks on the issue at an NEC meeting. But Karie Murphy, Corbyn’s influential chief of staff, overruled Lansman, saying that Willsman’s apology on the issue meant the matter was closed.

One well-placed source described the row as a “shitshow”. The issue at stake is that Corbyn himself regards the row as a foreign policy issue, confined to the question of how Labour members can talk about Israel, while his critics primarily see it as a domestic issue, confined to the need to reassure British Jews of Labour’s intentions and to take the sting out of the row, which risks derailing a summer of detailed policy interventions from the opposition. Murphy sees the argument as about the right of the Labour leader and the general secretary, Jennie Formby, to make decisions on these matters, and has also criticised John McDonnell, one of Corbyn’s most steadfast allies, for setting out a different approach in public. Both Lansman and Rhea Wolfson, who is standing down from the NEC to run for the seat of Livingston, have been overruled by Murphy on the issue.

Others are worried that Hodge's lawyers, Mischon De Reya, who defended the historian Deborah Lipstadt against the Holocaust denier David Irving, will "take the party to the cleaners" in court. Another group of dissenters are furious that the row is being allowed to distract from a Conservative Party in crisis and a series of meaty policy announcements from the Labour party.

The refusal of the leader’s office to act to take the sting out of the crisis has led to many of the pro-Corbyn commentators, who also liaise with Team Corbyn via WhatsApp, to break ranks and publicly call for Willsman to be stripped of his position on the Momentum slate. Meanwhile, the website Skwakwbox, widely known to be close to allies of Murphy’s, published a defence of Willsman’s conduct.

Although Momentum’s national coordinating group is an elected body with its own mandate separate from Lansman, the reality is that of the 16-strong executive, 14 are closely tied to Lansman and the remainder hold him in high esteem thanks to his long work keeping the Labour left alive and organisationally viable during the long years of New Labour hegemony. Had he wished to save Willsman, his intervention would undoubtedly have done so.

It now puts the Labour leadership on course for two separate confrontations. The first is one with the Parliamentary Labour Party over the IHRA definition, in an argument that could prove the spur for a party split. The second is with Momentum, the leadership’s own Praetorian Guard.

Wrong response. Should stand firm. This will give his opponents a filip and spur them on.
 
what a shambles :rolleyes:

Momentum dump Peter Willsman from their NEC slate - in direct defiance of Jeremy Corbyn's office
The row over anti-Semitism is dividing Corbynites as much as Corbynsceptics.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...llsman-their-nec-slate-direct-defiance-jeremy

Momentum’s ruling national coordinating group has voted to withdraw its endorsement of Peter Willsman for Labour’s ongoing elections to its ruling national executive committee, putting the organisation – founded to defend and entrench Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party – on a direct collision course with the Labour leader’s office.

Although voting takes place in two big lumps – once when ballots first arrive on the doorsteps of members, and again right at the end of the voting deadline – it puts Willsman in real danger of losing his seat on Labour’s National Executive Committee. It is widely expected that Ann Black, who voted for Jeremy Corbyn on both occasions but is seen as independent-minded, will finish narrowly behind the eight candidates endorsed by Momentum. (Essentially everyone involved expects the candidates of Labour’s centre-left, backed by Progress and Labour First, and the comedian Eddie Izzard, a big supporter of Ed Miliband’s leadership and now running as an independent, to finish miles behind Momentum’s slate.) Even a handful of lost votes could see Black take ninth place at Willsman’s expense.

If Willsman’s re-election bid succeeds, however, then nobody – not Momentum, not Jeremy Corbyn, and not the national NEC – has the power to compel him to resign his seat, ensuring that the division on the Labour left over how to tackle the party’s antisemitism crisis will run and run. In any case, that division has already widened the splits that opened up between the leader’s office and Momentum during the race to fill Iain McNicol’s shoes as Labour party general secretary.

Several Momentum members on Labour’s ruling NEC have tried to bring about a change of approach on the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, but have been overruled by senior staffers to Corbyn. (Corbyn’s office is, in of itself, split over how to handle the row.) Jon Lansman, Momentum’s founder and director, spoke out in the WhatsApp group in which Momentum members on the NEC liase with the leader’s office, describing it as a “massive tactical mistake” to take disciplinary action against Margaret Hodge, a senior Jewish Labour MP, for attacking Corbyn on the issue of anti-Semitism while failing to bring disciplinary measures against Willsman for his remarks on the issue at an NEC meeting. But Karie Murphy, Corbyn’s influential chief of staff, overruled Lansman, saying that Willsman’s apology on the issue meant the matter was closed.

One well-placed source described the row as a “shitshow”. The issue at stake is that Corbyn himself regards the row as a foreign policy issue, confined to the question of how Labour members can talk about Israel, while his critics primarily see it as a domestic issue, confined to the need to reassure British Jews of Labour’s intentions and to take the sting out of the row, which risks derailing a summer of detailed policy interventions from the opposition. Murphy sees the argument as about the right of the Labour leader and the general secretary, Jennie Formby, to make decisions on these matters, and has also criticised John McDonnell, one of Corbyn’s most steadfast allies, for setting out a different approach in public. Both Lansman and Rhea Wolfson, who is standing down from the NEC to run for the seat of Livingston, have been overruled by Murphy on the issue.

Others are worried that Hodge's lawyers, Mischon De Reya, who defended the historian Deborah Lipstadt against the Holocaust denier David Irving, will "take the party to the cleaners" in court. Another group of dissenters are furious that the row is being allowed to distract from a Conservative Party in crisis and a series of meaty policy announcements from the Labour party.

The refusal of the leader’s office to act to take the sting out of the crisis has led to many of the pro-Corbyn commentators, who also liaise with Team Corbyn via WhatsApp, to break ranks and publicly call for Willsman to be stripped of his position on the Momentum slate. Meanwhile, the website Skwakwbox, widely known to be close to allies of Murphy’s, published a defence of Willsman’s conduct.

Although Momentum’s national coordinating group is an elected body with its own mandate separate from Lansman, the reality is that of the 16-strong executive, 14 are closely tied to Lansman and the remainder hold him in high esteem thanks to his long work keeping the Labour left alive and organisationally viable during the long years of New Labour hegemony. Had he wished to save Willsman, his intervention would undoubtedly have done so.

It now puts the Labour leadership on course for two separate confrontations. The first is one with the Parliamentary Labour Party over the IHRA definition, in an argument that could prove the spur for a party split. The second is with Momentum, the leadership’s own Praetorian Guard.

You would have thought that, through history, the Labour Party would be wary of having a party within a party....
 
Not necessarily a supporter... but the idea is that you would fund it by taxing business (or better still, wealth) properly, and that if employers wanted anyone to turn up to work at all, they would need to increase their terms in a hurry

Silicon Valley wants UBI as a means to scrap every other service that the government provides, whereas the fully automated luxury communism crowd wants it to supplement what we already have. the two concepts can't really be conflated...
"Fully automated luxury communism". +10
 
Wrong response. Should stand firm. This will give his opponents a filip and spur them on.

TBH I'd hope it would make Momentum (and Labour) look more at the quality of people that they seek to elect to the NEC; reading the reaction to this on twitter it seems people are more outraged that this will mean they won't control the NEC rather than any kind of acknowledgement of what Willsman did - ie: open his mouth and blunder into the blatantly obvious elephant trap that was in front of him.

If Ann Black is elected instead of Willsman they (Labour) will probably be better off.
 
"Fully automated luxury communism". +10

not my turn of phrase, alas
https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...-automated-luxury-communism-robots-employment

if anything, I think adding "space" to the mix makes it more realistic.

just look around the globe this summer... in a few decades, those who aren't being swept into the sea will be fleeing towards it ahead of the wildfires. water wars are going to erupt all over the globe, and the only luxury will be confined to walled enclaves of tech'n'finance douchebags in the distant bits of New Zealand.

TBH I'd hope it would make Momentum (and Labour) look more at the quality of people that they seek to elect to the NEC; reading the reaction to this on twitter it seems people are more outraged that this will mean they won't control the NEC rather than any kind of acknowledgement of what Willsman did - ie: open his mouth and blunder into the blatantly obvious elephant trap that was in front of him.

If Ann Black is elected instead of Willsman they (Labour) will probably be better off.

absolutely. Willsman is a notorious blowhard who's never managed to keep from running his mouth off. he is the embodiment of the cringey greying academic who shows up late sporting tattered elbow-patches, immediately interrupting the speaker by ranting about Gramsci or whatever before making off with most of the wine and cheese. he is infintely replaceable with someone who more competently holds left-wing values. why shouldn't we hold Labour to the same standards we expect even from Everton on here? it's a question of basic political and administrative competence, not some quixotic line in the sand against "the system" - which appears in this telling to amount to no more than some incoherent ghost in the Oliver Stone machine.

it's really depressing how much Corbyn ultras can resemble kopites. there is so much concern for purity and navel-gazing and in-house virtue signalling, and so little awareness of how actual politics work. virtue without power is useless. politics is not some game, like getting the best of an internet forum debate - taking power by winning elections is imperative, and everything about this entire episode is making that less likely. it is the most avoidable and self-indulgent own-goal imaginable.

acts of anti-semitism are very real in the UK, and have been on the rise in Britain (along with just about every other form of racism) at least since Brexit. as anyone who is any sort of public figure is painfully aware, it can be absoutely rampant on the internet. and if Labour is not immediately seen, by those subject to it, as their champion, then the Party has failed to do its job. the inability to get ahead of this issue -, led alone to come up with any sort of response other than swawkbox fanboys whinging about how they're the real victims - is utterly inadequate, no matter how unfair or cynical the attempts by Corbyn opponents to turn this against him have been. I mean, A Very British Coup, anyone? what Labour is now facing should have been anticipated miles off, and countered with an emphatic pro-active and positive response.

and lest i'm misunderstood as some sort of Blairite, it's not a matter of failing to seek advantage by "selling out" to "the system", but a total failure to articulate and defend what is worth fighting for that is concerning here.

the one thing that would underscore how overblown and partisan so much of the narrative about this story has been - and to articulate to the broader public what Labour is ineptly trying to actually stand for and against here - would be a clear, robust defence of the rights of actual holocaust victims to speak their minds about the meaning of their experiences. yet this is the one instance where Corbyn has been in any way public on the matter, and it was to throw to victim under the bus by meekly apologising just for having been present, before retreating sphinx-like back into the shadows. all this manages is to further signal that there's blood in the water on this issue, to further allow the media to shape and drive the narrative, and to further alienate every from all sides who's involved.

it is really not a good sign for the party when @tsubaki is providing a better defence of Labour over this episode than anything I've seen or heard from the party itself.

this is the best chance literally since Atlee to move the country in a sensible direction, and they are already wallowing in victimhood while tearing each other apart at the first hurdle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@abelard

Just a reminder that when you refer to UBI in the "replacement" sense you miss an opportunity to leverage the absolute support of Charles Murray to this plan (I think he even claims some authorship in one of his post-curve books), so there's the racism card available when/if necessary.

No charge. Have at them.

I imagine the current lot of feckless Tories is sufficiently incompetent so as to hand things over to Labour at some point soon if Labour can only keep from shooting themselves in the foot, as you have outlined above. What you really need to prepare for is the aftermath of that, which will carry strong echoes of what we are seeing these days in the former colonies. If I'm lucky, I'll still be around to watch that in real time.
 
There have been campaigning groups within the Party since its inception.
think it works better when we have differing groups within labour as long as they can express there views within party guidelines, it stops it becoming prisoner of one particular strand of thought..
saying that If people are being forced out of the party for there views , it cant be a good thing in the long run.
The current problem as far as I can make out there is not a alignment between the members of the party , and some MP's and the wishes of the wider labour voting public, hard job getting all that right but until it does it makes the party weaker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top