Subvert Central

Quote:ASLEF’s executive committee, meeting today, has unanimously endorsed Jeremy Corbyn in his bid to be re-elected leader of the Labour Party.

Mick Whelan, ASLEF’s general secretary, said: ‘We backed Jeremy for leader last year because he offered the party – and the country – a vision of a better Britain. Despite what his critics in the PLP say, Jeremy has led the Labour Party with distinction. Off the back of an unexpected, and debilitating, defeat at the general election last year, he has brought in, or brought back, tens of thousands of new members, activists and supporters who had left the party because of the sell-outs, and triangulation, of the New Labour years, or had never been interested in politics because they felt that Labour only offered the same sort of discredited policies, in the wake of the global financial collapse, as the Tories.

‘We are backing Jeremy again because he believes in the core values and the key aspirations of the Labour Party and proposes to run on a platform, at the next general election, which will excite voters put off by the failed focus group-obsessed machinations of the New Labour years.

‘Jeremy Corbyn has been a breath of fresh air. He has been honest, and he has been decent, and you can’t always say that about our politicians. Harold Wilson famously said, “The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing” and the Labour Party lost its way when it forgot that. Jeremy is the democratically-elected leader of our party,we believe he will win again, and I wish people would spend less time undermining him and more time turning our collective fire on the Tories.’

http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/1000...my__again/

(29th June 2016, 20:50)Statto Wrote: [ -> ]a decent historical summary of the current Labour Party strife:

https://shinbonestar.org/2016/06/29/the-long-war/

>> "...There’s something else holding Corbyn in position too. For over two decades Labour’s genuinely socialist element have been derided and marginalised. They’re the red wrapper, the half-hearted singing of the Red Flag at conference. Nostalgia, dismissed with an airy wave and a cynical sneer. You only have to look the PLP’s assumption that the membership would return one of their ‘progressive’ candidates after two election defeats to recognise how impossible the idea of an actual socialist gaining hard power was to them...."


Someone has tried writing this in a broader, more historical context.
It's not brilliantly written, and a difficult read, but does have a lot of background on this 'left'/'right' split, going back to the very origins of the Labour party

The ORIGINS of LABOUR’s CIVIL WAR
http://wstegcommonsense.blogspot.co.uk/2...ar-as.html



Yet from another perspective... 
on the further left, the ICFI / world socialist movement made no bones about denouncing Corbyn's time as Labour leader (!)

Corbyn’s six months as UK Labour leader: A record of capitulation and betrayal
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/...s-m24.html

However, they have since rowed back from that position a bit, supporting "every effort made to defeat the right-wing coup plotters and their state-orchestrated conspiracy to shift the political system even further to the right"
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/06/...s-j28.html

...oh well

More on the councillors/CLPs

A recent poll has 60% of councillors backing Owen Smith in the contest, against 28% for Corbyn.
http://leftfootforward.org/2016/07/labou...ct-corbyn/

But CLPs are still in favour of Corbyn.
No new update on confidence figures as CLPs have been suspended, but here's an image that illustrates the 84/16 referenced earlier
http://twitter.com/CallumWarwick96/status/753031859781632000



Of CLPs which have made nominations (which is currently still allowed), currently 16 have nominated Corbyn against 4 for Owen Smith.

UPDATE: Figures are now 46 - 12, with 3 neutral http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/sta...ip-contest

More on the Portland coup -

Here's a link I missed out on earlier
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/0...-isnt.html

This one also pours cold water on the whole thing, in particular taking an incredulous line over Len McCluskey's mentioning of it on the Andrew Marr show on 3rd July. Yet there's no mention of the 'Angela4Leader' affair - of her website being registered two days before her 'tearful' resignation on Radio 4.

The thing is - when this broke, the entire story was blocked out by the media, save for this report in the 'I' http://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/an...-resigned/, and just the briefest of mentions on the Guardian live politics blog. For a supposedly spontaneous, spur of the moment walkout by the shadow cabinet, it's really some coincidence for a website to already be in the works.

But if that could somehow be explained, what then of the 'Saving Labour' website, that was also registered on the same day (25th June)? This didn't get repeated in the media at all.


This is not the only shenanegans going on -
After numerous people attempting to bring it to the Guardian's attention below the line, finally in a project piece on the 1st July asking for reader feedback, renowned commenter TheGreatRonRafferty makes the first reply to a staff member's opening comment, explicitly directing them to it.
LauraOliver responds, showing some interest but making comment that it's "not within the scope of this project", but she'll pass on the details to the news team.
Momentum and Liverpool: is Labour heading for a split?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016...t-77906864
But looking now, TheGreatRonRafferty's comment is removed - replaced with the standard "This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards" disclaimer (!), but more concerningly, LauraOliver's response to it has disappeared - without even a trace.
(note, there is some reference to it in the subsequent replies)


Later, a commenter sheds some light on this perhaps, on a subsequent attempt on bringing the whole story to the Guardian's attention:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016...t-78484136
TwistedByKnaves — "A journalist I know didn't see this as news. Of course the plotters would use a PR company. And of course they'd use a friendly one. That's the way the whole establishment works these days." [8 Jul 2016 7:16]


Then this happened:
Len McCluskey plays peacemaker between Corbyn and Watson
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016...and-watson
"Disquiet is growing among Labour MPs who are keen to see Corbyn resign but are frustrated at the lack of a coherent alternative. “We have been left high and dry. We’ve been whipped up to do this, and now we are getting threats all the time, demonstrations against us,” one MP said."

That quote went mysteriously missing from the Guardian article.
But - can still be found in this archived version here
http://www.xanianews.com/news/len-mcclus...uid=114523


There is a strong element of collusion here I think that can't be ignored. Of course, another narrative has since emerged on the whole debacle, of a coup attempt utterly shambolic and without a plan.

That doesn't take away from what I think was a clear attempt at media manipulation, and yes - a conspiracy.

The question still remains, why. Let me end by posting this video clip, which I watched live as it was broadcast on the 28th June. This was something that struck me distinctly at the time, of the fear so clearly in his voice as he spoke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlwiwXJv66k
Alastair Campbell @3:53 — "Something... *voice cracking* over the next few weeks, has to emerge, that stops Jeremy Corbyn destroying the Labour Party"

They must be the only people in political history to see huge crowds coming into the streets to support their party and think “We’ll ban that lot for a start”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labo...84971.html

indeed

It's crazy what's going on in the PLP. Anyway, I'm looking forward to voting Corbyn back in.

(15th August 2016, 16:39)noisemonkey Wrote: [ -> ]It's crazy what's going on in the PLP.  Anyway, I'm looking forward to voting Corbyn back in.

Oh yeah! did you sign up too

I finally got my confirmation email just over a week ago. I guess they didn't find anything untowards in my social media search

(27th June 2016, 15:12)Statto Wrote: [ -> ]seems this staggered resignation business was planned a while back:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/...litz-afte/

but much as I want Corbyn to stay, I think this coup has turned Labour into a now completely unelectable shambles whatever happens.

Yeah its intriguing isn't it, infact there's a series of reports that can be traced on this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/...bour-mp-m/ 
This one only mentions Margaret Hodge could be a stalking horse, although its interesting considering her later role

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pol...23186.html  (5th Nov 15)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics...rship.html  (27th July 15)


The Canary has done a good report on this, showing the coup in its development from September
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/01/senio...exclusive/

Mass deselection is really the best way out of this mess

good piece by Paul Mason on the Labour right's plans...

https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/the-so...d2ef726c8a

So, the old fashioned chap that I am, I am listening to public radio today (bc they have the best news in Austria, or let's say, they actually broadcast stuff which could well be called news compare with all the commercial stations...) and one topic is the scrap for Labour-leadership. They said now the newly elected London mayor is urging Corbyn to give in bc Corbyn wasn't anti-brexit enough??

Yes.

Jeremy Corbyn was to blame for Brexit.
Jeremy Corbyn is also unelectable.

These statements may not actually be true, but if we repeat things enough times they become true.

The Blame Corbyn for Brexit narrative is pitiful drivel
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/...ative.html

absolutely

(21st August 2016, 15:24)firefinga Wrote: [ -> ]So, the old fashioned chap that I am, I am listening to public radio today ... and one topic is the scrap for Labour-leadership. They said now the newly elected London mayor is urging Corbyn to give in bc Corbyn wasn't anti-brexit enough??

No, Corbyn wasn't to blame for 'Brexit'. This was something I was trying to explore in my post on 14th July 2016, but ran out of steam. The issue of whether he did enough or not - its not entirely clear if he did or he didn't, but my take was the case didn't stack up.

Prof. John Curtice - about the only pollster over here who still holds any respect (!) said this:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/sta...kept-us-eu
"the highest level of support for Leave was in predominantly working class local authority areas in the North and Midlands of England ... the principal explanation for the fact that Leave did so well in [those areas] in particular lies in the demography of Leave support"
and from his analysis of those areas, places that were more strongly Labour voted 62% to leave, against others that voted 67%, which suggests the labour message DID have an impact.

This was also something I was attempting to get at, that underneath Labour discovered an anti-immigration sentiment that was beyond anything expected, and this was a shock to them - of the type that ensued panic. Something very interesting I came across that touched upon was this:
http://www.organizedrage.com/2016/07/man...rexit.html
It's a blog post about Peter Mandelson, who gave a talk in Singapore last month. In it, he basically conceeded the blame as being of the party centrists, and a failing of New Labour for their drive for globalisation and not having adequate foresight on the impacts. It's definitely a thorny subject immigration, and this was quite a candid response I thought. Worth a read?

More on media bias -

So, in addition to the two academic studies on the subject I highlighted earlier - the Loughborough University EU referendum research
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/news/...erage.html
- the LSE "Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn" report
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/...orbyn.aspx
(also this comment piece from the same team I missed out on)
and before that, even having Nick Robinson pass comment & ex-bbc chair Sir Michael Lyons refer to "extraordinary attacks",

there's now been another one - this time by the Media Reform Coalition in conjunction with Birkbeck University of London:

Should he stay or should he go? Television and online news coverage of the Labour Party in crisis
http://www.mediareform.org.uk/featured/s...rty-crisis

once again lending credence to supporter's perceptions of a mainstream media eager to frame a narrative against Corbyn - this time followed by an open letter to James Harding, director of BBC News signed by 14 academics from 9 different universities, after being accused of being a “vested interest group”!


And now we have #traingate...

 

(from here)

I'm reaching unprecedented levels of "ffs".

Mass deselections this time please.

The main point regarding Corbyn isn't if he could win a majority in the next parliamentary election - at least in my opinion it's the fact he challanges the Thatcherite consensus (call it "neoliberalism" for what it's worth) that society/econmy/politics has to support the upper 5-10% wealthy/better-off and the 90% can go fuck themselves.

Similar to Sanders in the USA. He forced Hillary Clinton to move left politically speaking.

(1st September 2016, 08:38)firefinga Wrote: [ -> ]Similar to Sanders in the USA. He forced Hillary Clinton to move left politically speaking.

and relatively speaking

BUT WHYYYY CAN'T BRITISH POLITICS BE MORE LIKE AMERICAN POLITICS

[attachment=1317]

I blame the wood losses :partridge:

Someone, with a lot more patience than me in putting together the unrepresented sources, has produced this superlative effort

   The Abuse of Corbyn and his Supporters and How They Survive it: The Other Side of the Story
    — Julie Noted, 13th August 2016
    http://medium.com/@jnoted/the-abuse-of-c...383235b22d

and asks, with all the accusations of 'abuse' levelled, who is abusing who?
This really is an outstanding piece, complete with references and context - I highly recommend a read from everyone.


"The Corbyn supporters have flocked together and engaged in their own discourse to combat the prevailing propaganda. They have recognised what is happening and that it is wrong, although not always terming it and understanding it as abuse. They have informed themselves. They have expressed themselves. They have compared notes. They have disseminated alternative media and information. They have communicated with enough others to know that the smears aren’t true, that most supporters are ordinary people like them and that many others feel as they do. They have seen or heard enough from Corbyn to know that he is a peaceful and sensible person supporting views and policies that they want to be represented and carried out."


That's exactly how I experienced it  

Amazing paragraph, that.