Here’s what really happened when Labour suspended Corbyn
JVL Introduction
Oliver Eagleton’s blow by blow account of Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension makes extraordinary reading.
The story that emerges is a mixture of incompetence and bad faith on Starmer’s part as Corbyn and his advisers tried to maintain a principled response to the EHRC report whille steering a path away from confrontation.
After the initial suspension, a series of top level negotiations followed with Starmer’s approval resulting in a negotiated statement by Corbyn issued just before the NEC meeting at which he was reinstated into the Party.
Eagleton’s account suggests that, as the right piled pressure on Starmer with the JLM and the Board of Deputies up in arms and Margret Hodge threatening to resign, Starmer simply reneged.He emerges as a cork bobbing on the right-wing waves and eddies he has not the slightest clue how to ride…
The result nine months later is continued chaos in the Party – ongoing factional disputes, a rapidly declining membership, a leader unable to lead, a financial crisis spiralling out of control – and an ongoing purge seemingly without end…
This article was originally published by Novara Media on Tue 27 Jul 2021. Read the original here.
Here’s what really happened when Labour suspended Corbyn
It’s just as much of a shitshow as you thought.
Loading article text…
Nothing we didn’t know from the internal report and going all the way back to the ‘Gang of Four’
On the left a Corbynite Socialist Labour, Green party
On the right the Con/Brexit party
In the middle Red, Blue, Yellow and Tartan Tories
Now that would constitute a fair fight, the last one under FPTP
All we can do is regain control of our party and force Centrists out, then make the Greens an offer they can’t refuse PR
Having read this, I am more than ever convinced that the best thing would be for Corbyn and the left the party to leave and start a new socialist party. Corbyn has enough support in thd party to take half the membership with him, and either force Labour to change course, or outflank them. Starmer has no chance of winning an election the way he is going, so no reason to hold the party together at all cost anyway….
What a horrible person Keir Starmer is. Worse than useless, empty, uncaring, weak, duplicitous, cowardly, spiteful, backward, unconvincing, untruthful, bad. This has been my opinion, based on my own observations, for a long time.
I think I should be shocked but, sadly, I can’t say I am, not least because of Starmer’s complete lack of any ability or capacity for leadership, and his essential cowardice accompanied by his bullying nature (although the latter two qualities have been ably demonstrated in the past by Callaghan and Brown, both of whom had at least some redeeming qualities).
If this is the best Leader the party’s neo-liberals and bring-back-Blair-from-the dead freaks can offer, then Labour is truly fucked.
Think of it this way: in a relatively safe Tory constituency where the choice is Labour, Tory, Green and Liberal, which Party should an honest but realistic socialist support if the Greens are incapable of winning, Labour might win, but the Liberals are also in with a chance? If Labour wins, we will end up with a Starmer government. If the Liberal wins, the Liberals might be in a position to bargain with, and swing towards either major party, whether in coalition or on a supply basis, meaning there is the possibility of a Starmer government. You are aware from local polling data garnered from your mates still in the Labour Party that a Green vote is likely to be wasted. And let’s say, realistically if we assume that neither Johnson nor Starmer is dumped and replaced by their Parties before the next General Election, it looks (this time unrealistically) like a very close contest between the two major parties. Should you vote Labour the possibility of a Starmer government; vote Liberal with the possibility of a Starmer government; vote Green and feel good about yourself because you selflessly chose the anti-utilitarian option of a wasted vote but leaving you with the possibility of a Starmer government; not vote at all with the possibility of a Starmer government; or vote Tory, and keep Johnson in office (even if it means puking in public all over your shoes and the shoes of those unfortunate to be standing close to you as you leave the polling station and feeling bad about yourself for the next four or five years) and reduce the possibility of a Starmer government?
Do you have difficulty in answering this question?
It’s clear to me that Margaret Hodge and the BOD are the real LOTO. I also believe that Angela Rayner only thought about one person, herself. As long as these people are running the party, I will never rejoin.
Well, it’s all a bit depressing isn’t it, and particularly because it exposes the thread of the left’s habit of being forever conciliatory and compromising when faced with Labour’s right-wing.
I’m surprised it also seems to affect Novara Media whose first paragraph describes Starmer as a cork bobbing around on a sea of right wing forces.
This is not the case, this is being obsequious. Starmer agrees with these forces, he is a part if that sea (raging puddle) or right-wing forces.
Use of this kind of metaphor prolongs the illusion, the hope, that anything positive or radical will ever be expressed or achieved by Starmer.
And then these negotiations over the content of Jeremy’s statements. God ! Totally confusing for the public at large if Jeremy says that ‘the problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party has not been over exaggerated’.
It’s like pleading guilty ! Thanks very much, I must go and correct what I said to all my friends, acquaintances and fellow party members over the last x years !
Why is it so hard to keep to cold and clear statements of the facts ?
Yes the right-wing would wail and howl, but the facts would be on full public display and most people would draw a balanced opinion. That is the only way that this argument could ever be won.
The Socialists still in the Labour Party ,have no choice IMO but to leave the doomed LP and form a New Democratic Socialist Party, I believe this would result in a Party with more members than the current Parties and would provide a genuine opposition, that the hapless Starmer has so far failed to do, I doubt he knows the meaning of opposition.
Having read this I can’t decide whether Starmer is a duplicitous liar or whether he is weak and indecisive and allowed himself to be manipulated first by the BOD and the Zionists in the Labour Party and then by the Blairites. Whichever way it’s a disaster for the Labour Party. Angela Rayner should challenge him for the leadership. I think she’d win and might be somebody who could unite the Party.
As a footnote, I’ve just discovered the JVL website. Thanks for some good left wing journalism and political analysis.
Starmer was a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, which has a philosophy that they never prosecute anybody except the Police and Civil Authorities. Imagine the consternation of Chambers when he went off to become Director of Public Prosecutions.
He is a two-faced careerist who should never be trusted.
I would urge supporters not to leave the Party, because in politics what goes around comes around. Stand and fight back, not run away.
In reply to R. Hobson, Starmer is not manipulated by anyone he has , from the beginning been entirely committed to eradicating all real Labour values. It seems that his only remit is to destroy the Labour Party! He has depleted the Labour Party by membership and financially. I sometimes wonder if he even seeks political power for himself or is he content just to see the Labour Party ruined entirely? He appears to be doing a more effective job of this than Johnson could ever dream of!
The notion of Starmer being a cork bobbing against the tide is a perfect summary.
He and his apparatchiks, fellow travellers and unscrupulous allies are “hollowing out the party” – but their push to rid it of democracy and socialist ideals is riddled with contradictions. It is they who will have to flee the nest, just like the cuckoo, and leave it vacant for a sustainable renewal of progressive ideals and policies to take the working class forward. We shouldnt stop fighting – but they will leave a shell like a defeated army when it is in retreat.
This time – it has to be a different Labour Party – where Members decide policy and chose MP`s. No more “focus groups” and cliques amongst staffers. The staffers need to be named and their roles and decisions made transparent – we need to remind them that the Party is their employer, but the membership is the Party.
Watching the fractious right playing games and losing its momentum is the signal to rebuild and be prepared to retake control alongside ordinary people, to fight austerity – and offer hope for the future.
Richard (Hobson), I can assure you 100% that Starmer is NOT ‘weak and indecisive’, and NOR did he allow himself to be manipulated by the BoD etc and, as such, he has ALWAYS been fully on board with the BoD et al. And I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he knew – prior to Jeremy being reinstated – that there would be a massive outcry (of faux outrage) from all the usual suspects and groups as soon as Jeremy WAS reinstated, whereupon he – Starmer – would withdraw the whip from Jeremy. And in THAT respect, I don’t buy all the stuff in the above article about Starmer being forced to withdraw the whip etc (by the reaction of the BoD and Hodge et al). We are dealing with very, very devious and duplicitous forces WHO, needless to say, present the ‘facts’ of the episode in such a way as to conceal exactly how devious and duplicitous they are.
The following line in the above article is a complete joke, and anyone who swallowed it – as the author of the piece apparently did – is naive beyond words:
Starmer had been prepared to draw a line under the affair, but he had not anticipated the level of instant pushback from the right (having grown complacent after months of glowing media attention)
I assume that the bit in brackets was ‘fed’ to the author (as opposed to a conclusion that THEY came to), and done so so as to supposedly explain away why Starmer hadn’t anticipated ‘the level of instant pushback’ etc. It was a Blind! And the author of the piece has been used to present an ‘alternative reality’ in which it wasn’t all coordinated and planned in advance. Yeah, sure, Starmer (and Co!) didn’t anticipate the ‘pushback’, having grown complacent…….! As if!!!
In the above article it says the following:
Starmer rejected McCluskey’s appeal, but agreed to reinstate the former leader if the two teams could agree on a new statement for him to sign. Trickett told Starmer this would have to be a “clarification” rather than an apology, and Starmer assented….. Starmer and Corbyn then stepped back from the process – allowing McSweeney, McCluskey and Trickett to draft the revised statement…. which included the following diplomatic sentences:
“I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it. To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither ‘exaggerated’ nor ‘overstated’.
Now what possible reason could McSweeney, McCluskey and Trickett have had for thinking to have Jeremy say the following in the statement – ie ‘To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither ‘exaggerated’ nor ‘overstated’.’? Well, bearing in mind that ‘Trickett told Starmer this would have to be a “clarification” rather than an apology’, I have no doubt whatsoever that what Starmer said to Trickett initially is that he wants Jeremy to apologise for leading people to believe (in his statement the day the EHRC published its report) that the *concern* about A/S in the party has been exaggerated, and Trickett’s response (presumably after checking it with Jeremy) was that Jeremy is willing to make a clarification to that effect, but not to apologise. And the reason Starmer agreed is because he (and his co-conspirators) were setting a trap. A trap in which not only the shills on left-wing blogs and social media platforms would deliberately conflate CONCERN with SCALE so as to make it look like Jeremy had u-turned, but the MSM also.
And the ruse – ie dirty trick – was contrived so as to have left-wingers (in particular) believe that Jeremy wasn’t the man of integrity and high principles that they had always believed him to be!
I think the article reporting what really happened when Corbyn was suspended is all too believable in terms of sheer incompetence. I do not believe that Starmer has the political naus to have planned it all out – in my opinion he is politically clueless and inept.
If he had a clue as to how people behave and react to bullying he would not be behaving as the political equivalent of Mr Murdstone with Evans his “instrument” for it never works out in the long term. Maybe I am being too optimistic but I believe that Labour Party members will organise and fight back one way or another. Let us hope it does not take too long for the sake of our country.