Objecting to the main content of a bill that has a moral angle to it (allowing government actors to commit crimes like torture legally) would be pretty good for the purposes of differentiating themselves from the Tories - especially when your leader is a human rights lawyer!

 

I wouldn't call strong governance abstaining on votes like that. I'm not sure how it shows strong governance in the slightest, I'd consider taking a principled stand on bills like this and voting for bills that don't cause harm to be the much better route.

 

The bill isn't finalised though is it? You don't know when Labour want to actually take on the bill. We don't know what angle the current Labour party are taking with the bill. You look like fools if you decline the bill staraight away, but then if some amendments are made it's suddenly workable. But this is the problem when Corbyn gave the Tories a mammoth lead with the seats.

I'd tend to agree with Rooney here- a lot of the issues with the Corbyn leadership were taking perfectly honourable principled stands which polarised the debate and made cross party negotiation/working and compromise impossible. I'd argue that Theresa May was just as bad at this, but I digress. With a majority of 80 the Conservatives are able to push most things through quite easily, so arguments about voting against for the sake of voting against and 'this would have failed to get through if Labour had all voted agaist' is a moot point really.

If they can use the opportunity to add amendments to alter the bill to rule out torture and murder, which is ruled out in equivalent legislation in even the US, then I will concede that.

 

Meanwhile Unite has cut ~10% of its funding to the Labour Party so there is still leverage to be lost.

If they can use the opportunity to add amendments to alter the bill to rule out torture and murder, which is ruled out in equivalent legislation in even the US, then I will concede that.

 

Meanwhile Unite has cut ~10% of its funding to the Labour Party so there is still leverage to be lost.

 

I don't see how Labour don't add amendments. But they need to work cross party and just voting against every bill as a blanket that they don't support is not great.

 

Unite has cut the bill, but it's a bit of a non-story. They fluctuate their costs every year. Isn't part of the reason they have cut funding is because they didn't contest the libel claim? I'd suggest this is part of Unite's problem. This isn't something Unite should be deciding. Which is ridiculous in itself as McCluskey was the last person to use money to defend a libel case against Corbyn.

I don't see how Labour don't add amendments. But they need to work cross party and just voting against every bill as a blanket that they don't support is not great.

 

Unite has cut the bill, but it's a bit of a non-story. They fluctuate their costs every year. Isn't part of the reason they have cut funding is because they didn't contest the libel claim? I'd suggest this is part of Unite's problem. This isn't something Unite should be deciding. Which is ridiculous in itself as McCluskey was the last person to use money to defend a libel case against Corbyn.

 

The Unite thing is interesting to me because of the indications it gives to the wider British left. McCluskey's on his way out next year and it looks like he'll be replaced by, I would guess Steve Turner. Probably fair to say that the average Unite member is more centrist on the whole than McCluskey, not that that's hard, and Turner despite a long history of left credentials, has made it clear he's not going to rock the boat too much with Starmer. And so long-term, that's good for Labour, the funds will come back when they're needed - unless Beckett, the McCluskey continuity candidate, manages to win in his insurgent candidacy.

 

I think the libel case was part of it, though his top stated reason was a dissatisfaction with the direction of travel and that's fair enough, they're Labour's largest donor and if Labour is indicating more solidarity with the capital class and individual donors than with the workers, then stands to reason enough of the left-wing union members would be unhappy enough to justify lowering support.

 

With that in mind, the fact that McCluskey is specifically redirecting the funds to grassroots leftist movements is interesting, on the face of it, it's not that hostile to Labour, at the moment, that's good for creating more Labour voters so from a utilitarian perspective they've not lost anything, but it also indicates that McCluskey wants that the left can build without necessarily needing Labour if only for leverage purposes - and if the Greens have any electoral sense they'll do what they can to capitalise (not that I expect them to). Ultimately yes probably minor but if the unions can be a moderating force on Labour to ensure Starmer keeps his pledges and stays soft left then that'll be welcome.

The bill isn't finalised though is it? You don't know when Labour want to actually take on the bill. We don't know what angle the current Labour party are taking with the bill. You look like fools if you decline the bill staraight away, but then if some amendments are made it's suddenly workable. But this is the problem when Corbyn gave the Tories a mammoth lead with the seats.

 

I think there’s a bit of a rewriting of history here already, Brexit gave the tories a huge election win, many of Corbyns policies have been found to be very popular as can be seen from the 2017 election. But I understand that does suit your centrist right narrative.

The Unite thing is interesting to me because of the indications it gives to the wider British left. McCluskey's on his way out next year and it looks like he'll be replaced by, I would guess Steve Turner. Probably fair to say that the average Unite member is more centrist on the whole than McCluskey, not that that's hard, and Turner despite a long history of left credentials, has made it clear he's not going to rock the boat too much with Starmer. And so long-term, that's good for Labour, the funds will come back when they're needed - unless Beckett, the McCluskey continuity candidate, manages to win in his insurgent candidacy.

 

I think the libel case was part of it, though his top stated reason was a dissatisfaction with the direction of travel and that's fair enough, they're Labour's largest donor and if Labour is indicating more solidarity with the capital class and individual donors than with the workers, then stands to reason enough of the left-wing union members would be unhappy enough to justify lowering support.

 

With that in mind, the fact that McCluskey is specifically redirecting the funds to grassroots leftist movements is interesting, on the face of it, it's not that hostile to Labour, at the moment, that's good for creating more Labour voters so from a utilitarian perspective they've not lost anything, but it also indicates that McCluskey wants that the left can build without necessarily needing Labour if only for leverage purposes - and if the Greens have any electoral sense they'll do what they can to capitalise (not that I expect them to). Ultimately yes probably minor but if the unions can be a moderating force on Labour to ensure Starmer keeps his pledges and stays soft left then that'll be welcome.

 

The problem with Unite is firmly down to McCluskey. Quite frankly, the guy is an idiot. I mean he won the election with a whopping 13% of the vote or spmething daft like that. Unite should be serving its members and not the best interest of its leader. I think it is clear that post-Corbyn the radical Socialist element of the Labour party refuse to work with Labour. Which is fine, as this is not where Labour are going to win or lose the next election. Obviously it really helps, but there is clearly way too much animosity between various factions of the Labour party backbenchers now and Corbyn's allies. The problem is by not working together the party just concedes to the Tories.

 

I think there’s a bit of a rewriting of history here already, Brexit gave the tories a huge election win, many of Corbyns policies have been found to be very popular as can be seen from the 2017 election. But I understand that does suit your centrist right narrative.

 

Ahh how can we forget the famous Labour election victory of 2017. That translated so well in 2019. Let's not forget that Brexit gave the huge majority to the Tories of course, but the LEADER of the Labour Party sat on the fence entirely through 2016 when he should have campaigning to stay in the EU.

Why would he have campaigned to stay in the Eu when he wanted to leave it?

 

No one said he won the election but he won 40% of the vote so it proves a lot of his policies were popular no doubt.

 

Your right about not working together in the Labour Party but that was proven when JC was leader when the right and soft left combined to oppose him and not work together.

Edited October 7, 20204 yr by Steve201

In truth I just don't think Corbyn cared that much about the EU (one way or the other). There was certainly a left wing strand (Tony Benn etc. - 'nobody can name their MEP') in the 1970s that was very much against it, but this changed in the 1980s with Thatcher and the realisation that the EU had the power to limit or temper some of her reforms, whilst simultaneously ignoring the neoliberal consensus that underpins the project.

 

He was also poor at leadership, averse to conflict, and so couldn't really rally the party around a soft Brexit EFTA type deal which I would have supported. Instead he let the vacuum be filled by the FBPE obsessives and the debate polarised with The People's Vote advocating nothing less than a second referendum. The longer this went on the less accepting of the result were those who had voted remain (I include myself in this, regrettably) and so they were dragged kicking and screaming to support a second referendum knowing full well that such a position would likely play to Cummings/Trumps narative and lose the election.

 

There's no point dwelling on it, but yes 2017 was the closest this country has come since 1951 to having a proper left leaning Labour party in power.

Why would he have campaigned to stay in the Eu when he wanted to leave it?

 

No one said he won the election but he won 40% of the vote so it proves a lot of his policies were popular no doubt.

 

Your right about not working together in the Labour Party but that was proven when JC was leader when the right and soft left combined to oppose him and not work together.

 

But herein lies the problem Steve, the Labour Party is not Jeremy Corbyn Party or the Socialist Workers Party. Corbyn may have personally wanted to leave the Labour Party, but as Leader as the party, he represents Labour which is what the EU project represented, working together to create a better world. So regardless of his own personal opinion, he is the face of the Labour Party and quite frankly, that was an unforgiveable negligence as Leader of the Labour Party and one of the many reasons why the guy is an idiot.

 

I mean, the Lib Dems were pretty popular in 2010 and now they're pretty much non-existent? Ultimately his policies did not matter as he did not get elected.

Again I would respectfully disagree with you Rooney. He clearly has pushed the debate to the left following the global crash in 2008 he has pushed the Tory party to the left on many economic issues especially to keep the so called red wall. I mean nationalisation of rail and water is now the central opinion and option for many governments for the first time since the 70s.

 

I don’t think it was neglegience for JC in terms of the referendum I mean JC has always wanted to leave the Eu but the party wanted to remain so he played down his role. At the end of the day JC wasn’t the reason we left the Eu it was arguably more the centrist establishment who caused the pent up anger that led to the demoralised communities of England to use it as a protest against all they viewed the centre right governments to have created since the 1980s including the Blair government where they felt undervalued as jobs left their communities and their communities changed beyond recognition so they stuck two fingers up to all that on the 24/6/16.

 

I also don’t think it helps your arguement to be personal by calling Corbyn an idiot.

 

Again I would respectfully disagree with you Rooney. He clearly has pushed the debate to the left following the global crash in 2008 he has pushed the Tory party to the left on many economic issues especially to keep the so called red wall. I mean nationalisation of rail and water is now the central opinion and option for many governments for the first time since the 70s.

 

I don’t think it was neglegience for JC in terms of the referendum I mean JC has always wanted to leave the Eu but the party wanted to remain so he played down his role. At the end of the day JC wasn’t the reason we left the Eu it was arguably more the centrist establishment who caused the pent up anger that led to the demoralised communities of England to use it as a protest against all they viewed the centre right governments to have created since the 1980s including the Blair government where they felt undervalued as jobs left their communities and their communities changed beyond recognition so they stuck two fingers up to all that on the 24/6/16.

 

I also don’t think it helps your arguement to be personal by calling Corbyn an idiot.

 

Between Corbyn and 2008 though there was 13 years, I'd argue after Ed Miliband failed Labour just lost itself and not forgetting we'd just had a full period of austerity. I mean, wasn't Corbyn seen as the curveball candidate at the time? A backbencher with no Cabinet experience and anyone could pay £10 to vote. I'd say this was probably the turn to the left, or the opportunity to turn to the radical left as Milliband had some left policies.

 

But here's the point Steve, if you're the leader of the Labour Party you have a duty to promote the Parties stance over your own personal one. Sitting on the fence as the leade rof the Labour Party is not a good luck. Of course there were many other factors at play which I am not denying, but the vote was so close that perhaps if Corbyn could unify the Labour Party it could have enabled us to Remain. Part of the reason Corbyn would never have been a strong Prime Minister is because he lacks authority and leadership in the eyes of the general public. Literally, all the polls tell us that voters favour a strong governance no matter how goor or bad you are.

I’m personally glad he did what he did because I favour leaving the Eu as it will more likely push Ireland together again. But again he opposes the Eu and is from the old Bennite left so no surprise he played it down but that doesn’t mean he had no set piece speeches or campaigns during the referendum campaign because he did. Meanwhile the Tory party were the same totally divided as the referendum went behind party lines. Maybe if the Labour Party had stood behind their leader when he became leader he would have seen the benefit of pushing more for the pro Eu position?

 

JC stood for leadership to create a variety of opinions and even declared he didn’t want to be leader but democracy is a strange thing and labour voted to go back to its roots.

I’m personally glad he did what he did because I favour leaving the Eu as it will more likely push Ireland together again. But again he opposes the Eu and is from the old Bennite left so no surprise he played it down but that doesn’t mean he had no set piece speeches or campaigns during the referendum campaign because he did. Meanwhile the Tory party were the same totally divided as the referendum went behind party lines. Maybe if the Labour Party had stood behind their leader when he became leader he would have seen the benefit of pushing more for the pro Eu position?

 

JC stood for leadership to create a variety of opinions and even declared he didn’t want to be leader but democracy is a strange thing and labour voted to go back to its roots.

 

But where was Corbyn when it really mattered? He was nowhere to be seen and nor was his Shadow Cabinet. It's all right going to a cultist speech rally with 10,000 of your followers, but these are not the people who need to be persuaded.

 

Labour did shift massively towards the left, which is fine. However the real problem was the Corbyn Administration was predominately full of people with little to no experience (a bit like the current Tory Government) who were promoted purely on their ideology and loyalty to Corbyn. Of course there is nothing wrong with supporting yourself with alleis, but it allowed the Labour Party to become infested with the hardcore left and likes of Momentum, whom I do not believe represent the best interests of the Labour Party.

 

Anyway, the point is the likes of what McClutskey etc. is doing is ridiculous. It shouldn't be a difficult choice between a Centre-Left electable Labour government or various extremes of the Right with the Tories.

 

I would tend to disagree wholely with that analysis of his cabinet if you look at his various shades of opinion in his shadow cabinets he tried to put people from all sides of the party into it to unite the party but the extreme right wingers like Ummuna refused to take a seat from day one and the others took their seats at the time then resigned at an opportune moment to undermine him. I mean Tom Watson was deputy leader throughout the leadership and Stamer was on his other side then he had people like Jon Ashworth at health(he’s still there). Your right when it comes to the shadow home office and Chancellor but that would be expected given they have supported each other in the SCG for 40 years.

 

With regards to your wording of being ‘infested’ with the hardcore left groups like Momentum that’s just your wording to undermine them because you disagree ideologically with their views it’s no different to what Blair or Thatcher did when they came to the leadership with Progress and the likes but they are described differently by a supportive mainstream media.

 

As for a ‘cultist’ rally of followers there must have been a fair few of them when 40% of the electorate voted for him in 2017 - were they all part of the so called cult? The right always do this to undermine left wing leaders by saying its all a big cult.

 

 

I would tend to disagree wholely with that analysis of his cabinet if you look at his various shades of opinion in his shadow cabinets he tried to put people from all sides of the party into it to unite the party but the extreme right wingers like Ummuna refused to take a seat from day one and the others took their seats at the time then resigned at an opportune moment to undermine him. I mean Tom Watson was deputy leader throughout the leadership and Stamer was on his other side then he had people like Jon Ashworth at health(he’s still there). Your right when it comes to the shadow home office and Chancellor but that would be expected given they have supported each other in the SCG for 40 years.

 

With regards to your wording of being ‘infested’ with the hardcore left groups like Momentum that’s just your wording to undermine them because you disagree ideologically with their views it’s no different to what Blair or Thatcher did when they came to the leadership with Progress and the likes but they are described differently by a supportive mainstream media.

 

As for a ‘cultist’ rally of followers there must have been a fair few of them when 40% of the electorate voted for him in 2017 - were they all part of the so called cult? The right always do this to undermine left wing leaders by saying its all a big cult.

 

I mean Tom Watson was voted in by the members and the Corbyn administration (not sure how much of it was actually Corbyn) literally tried every trick in the book to get him out. People like Chukka Ummuna, I agreed made some bad decisions but there were still lots of great MPs such as Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham who could not find common ground with Corbyn. My problem (much like the Far Right) and again with the Far Left, is that anyone who remotely disagrees with their policies is immediately labelled a 'leftie' or 'extreme right winger'. the reality is they are neither.

 

Momentum really was a bad egg though. I disagree with a lot of their principles, but they got way too much internal power under the Corbyn administration. As for the Corbyn cult, he was a cult leader. I don't disagree that he did fantastically well in 2017 against all odds - because he did. But ultimately he did not build on it and far too many people used the success to build him in this fabled myth that Labour actually won the 2017 election. If Corbyn and his team had half a brain and were willing to condede on a few issues to play the long game and work cross-collaboratively with the SNP and the Lib Dems as a great Leader should do, then things could be very different now. But the fact was even people who were not too far away idelogically absolutely hated the Corbyn administration as well publically and privately.

It’s true about Watson he was voted in, actually forgot about that.

 

Pretty sure Cooper wouldn’t accept a place in his cabinet and Burnham was always going to be the Mayor pretty much in his mind when he couldn’t become leader. I like Burnham but he’s one of those Brownites who gets into politics to become PM and will bend his views to accommodate this. That’s why I like JC they stick to their principles whether people believe they are extremist depends on your own views imo. And it’s difficult to stereotype all the left and all the right anyway I guess I mean someone like Corbyn is clearly of the left but I’ve said it many times he wouldn’t dream of being antisemetic personally he’s literally just a nice man. But it’s true your more likely to get idiots on the left who are antisemetic because they equate Jews to Israel and the other side are the same.

@1316764123624075265

 

None of the amendments to the CHIS Bill passed, including the above (highlights detailed in that Twitter thread). It's now gone to the Lords.

 

Labour is still losing shadow ministers and PPS's from their front bench over it, Dan Carden resigned last night as did a handful of PPS's who voted with their conscience.

 

So yes, this is mostly on the Tories for deciding that keeping law and order means that crimes can be committed in the name of the state. And Labour couldn't have stopped it alone. But with none of the amendments that were tabled passed, seemingly very little drive from the Labour front bench to get even the most reasonable sounding amendments (like the above) supported by amenable Tories, and then to still abstain (and still whip your party - that's very telling) on the third reading when the bill has none of the amendments you proposed before sending it to the Lords really doesn't look good.

 

It's the sort of law that I can easily imagine a negative headline storm centering around a few years down the line (like a modern British Patriot Act) and with most of the PLP having stood by...

I live in NI and this leaves a bad taste in the mouth so any soldier that commits a crime in service cannot be held to account after 5 years. I actually think the court proceedings over the past 20 years against British soldiers atrocities during the Trouble’s was a huge reason why the tories were pushing this.

 

In terms of labour politics I think Starmer is trying to argue that the need to show the old red wall seats that they stick up for Britain and are strong on law and order is important to getting elected during the next election and he convinced a number of the Labour left that doing this would reap rewards as they could change this only by achieving power in 2024.

 

Albeit it wasnt just the SCG who broke with the leadership but also some of the soft left linked to Unite but at the same time it’s telling that 34 out of 49 potential rebels were from the 2019 intake that stood as a result of momentum’s campaign to get leftist candidates. But Starmer convinces some to stick with the whip as 34 rebelled down from 45-50 at the start of the week.

Edited October 16, 20204 yr by Steve201

@1316764123624075265

 

None of the amendments to the CHIS Bill passed, including the above (highlights detailed in that Twitter thread). It's now gone to the Lords.

 

Labour is still losing shadow ministers and PPS's from their front bench over it, Dan Carden resigned last night as did a handful of PPS's who voted with their conscience.

 

So yes, this is mostly on the Tories for deciding that keeping law and order means that crimes can be committed in the name of the state. And Labour couldn't have stopped it alone. But with none of the amendments that were tabled passed, seemingly very little drive from the Labour front bench to get even the most reasonable sounding amendments (like the above) supported by amenable Tories, and then to still abstain (and still whip your party - that's very telling) on the third reading when the bill has none of the amendments you proposed before sending it to the Lords really doesn't look good.

 

It's the sort of law that I can easily imagine a negative headline storm centering around a few years down the line (like a modern British Patriot Act) and with most of the PLP having stood by...

 

2020: Starmer whips Labour party to abstain against a landslide Tory majority. Boooo!

2017: Corbyn whips Labour party to support Tory government (which was without a majority) in the most significant vote of our lifetime. which will affect me for the rest of my life. Yeaaahh!