Labour has to be more than “not the Tories” – surely?
JVL Introduction
This moving piece by Nesrine Malik poses the question: “what is Labour for?” Starmer and his supporters argue that mature politics is sticking with the status quo, making marginal improvements rather than fundamental change in the interests of the majority of people, rather than the interests of the wealthy and powerful.
Malik argues:
“… don’t tell me that I am naive, indulgent or sabotaging Labour’s chances if I believe that there could be more; for listening to myself when I think this does not feel good. Don’t tell me to ignore my eyes and ears when I see and hear in Starmer not a political master but a leader reneging on his promises, constantly calculating which of the people desperately awaiting his government he can afford to ignore because they have no powerful advocates.”
A day after this piece was published, survey results showed that Two in three Britons want new political party to take on Tories and Labour. This shows clearly that there are many who agree with Ms Malik, that Labour is not offering a real alternative.
The crushing of the Labour Left is all part of the same story of a Labour Party, created to represent the working class has become, at best, a Party of managerialism within parameters rigidly defined by the ruling class.
This article was originally published by Guardian on Mon 27 Feb 2023. Read the original here.
Labour dreams of a slightly better Britain. But a truly great country is within reach – I’ve lived there
In its terror of jeopardising slow, marginal change, the party has sacrificed its ambition. It has stigmatised hope
Loading article text…
Labour under Starmer are the Tories.
David,they are worse than the tories. With Starmer and Reeves HOPE will die, as they will only do minimal stuff (if at all) as they are fans of the status quo (not the band) so at best people can feel better, but will not be better off.
JVL still re-publishes articles from ‘The Guardian’ as though it were a beacon of Freedom and Liberty rather than the author of Lies and Smears in their character assassination of Jeremy Corbyn. The Guardian newspaper has always been Liberal and not liberal.
[JVL editor replies: we repost articles from the Guardian which we think of interest and relevance to our readers. Can’t recall us ever making the claim that the Guardian is “a beacon of Freedom and Liberty” or even implying it. Why not criticise the content of what is posted, where you believe it merits it, not the messenger?]
Labour has systematically renounced its founding principles, supporting and fighting for human rights and justice. Its attention is focused upon winning electoral support by trying to present an image mimicking the Conservatives, whatever the consequences. By appearing as Tweedledum to the Conservative’s Tweedledee it hopes to rely upon Conservative unpopularity to be seen as the obvious alternative, without substantial policies that might be contentious for some. The UK is destined to have conservative government for the foreseeable future unless we get proportional representation. Kier Starmer is a phony.
SR
The G switched to supporting Harold Wilson in the 1964 GE, so not always ’Liberal’, but was certainly at the forefront in the continuous attacks on JC. I would not trust anything written by G/Obs scribblers Behr, Cohen, Rawnsley, Freedland, Kettle,Toynbee, Sodha and others, so I’m not sure how Nesrine Malik, Aditya Chakrabortty, Felicity Lawrence and a few more manage to swim against the tide, appearing human and humane.
Out of the blue it seems that of late the G/Obs have published a few letters and articles out of line with the usual unthinking anti-Corbyn drivel.