Does Labour want to win?

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn speaks at a rally in Bristol in October 2020

JVL Introduction

Rachel Garnham does not pull her punches as she analyses where Labour stands the week before the local elections.

There are clearly those in the Party leadership more concerned to denigrate Jeremy Corbyn and score points against him than wanting to build unity among the party members.

It is now clear, she writes, that “Starmer was elected as Labour Leader on a false promise of integrity and unity, with a progressive policy platform.”

If Labour is serious about forming the next government, it really needs to stop fuelling a destructive factionalism which is doing so much to undermine members’ ability to fight for the policies the people of Britain so urgently need.

This article was originally published by Labour Outlook on Thu 28 Apr 2022. Read the original here.

Ending the war on Corbyn & the Left would help Labour win

“Anyone who believes in Labour values can be in no doubt we would be in a much better position as a country if Labour had won in 2019 and we had Corbyn as Prime Minister.”

While all Labour members’ attentions should be focussed on mobilising the widest possible support in the local elections, instead the Labour leadership has maintained its commitment to sowing division and disunity amongst the membership.

There are many establishment figures, including unfortunately the majority of the shadow front bench, who are determined to not only forget all the positives of the Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party but also to rewrite history and remove all traces of the left from the Labour Party. This means maintaining Jeremy’s exclusion from the Parliamentary Labour Party by any means necessary.

So, it seems, not only is Jeremy supposed to withdraw his true and valid points made at the publication of the EHRC report, it now appears that the goal posts have shifted again and according to Starmer’s recent remarks, his latest excuse for refusing Jeremy’s readmission to the PLP, relates to some nuanced comments about NATO. This appears yet another nail in the coffin of enabling reasonable left discussion in the Labour Party and demonstrates yet again the Labour right’s obsession with removing any possibility of a comeback for Corbyn and Corbynism, despite the continuation of widespread support for Labour’s policy programme in 2017 and 2019 amongst both members and voters.

More salt was rubbed into already raw wounds of all those who desperately wanted, needed and worked so hard for a Labour government in the 2019 general election with Rachel Reeves’ comments this week that she was pleased Jeremy Corbyn was not Prime Minister. Seriously?!

This lying, law-breaking Tory government has presided over one of the worst covid death rates in the world and continues to do nothing to address ongoing deaths and chronic illness; it has ensured a continued transfer of wealth from poor to rich and contributed to a cost of living crisis that leaves children hungry and many unable to heat their homes; and it is running down the NHS, despite the best efforts of its workforce, leaving patients without appointments, ambulances queuing up outside full Emergency Departments and workers underpaid and burnt out having to deal with crisis after crisis.

Under Corbyn, Labour had a clear programme to put people before profit, to invest in the economy and public services in the interests of the many not the few, and serious policies to address inequality and the climate emergency. Anyone who believes in Labour values can be in no doubt we would be in a much better position as a country if Labour had won in 2019 and we had Corbyn as Prime Minister.

Starmer was elected as Labour Leader on a false promise of integrity and unity, with a progressive policy platform. We can be in no doubt that we would be better placed going into local elections if these promises had been maintained not rejected, if Labour had put up a strong and consistent fight against this horrific government, and we had many more activists willing to go out and campaign for desperately needed Labour councils. Instead many members and activists have left or feel ignored or threatened by unfair, factional disciplinary actions.

Many voters, although the Tories have lost their shine, remain unimpressed by the weak policy platform put forward by Labour which does not sufficiently address the serious health, economic and climate crises we face. The recent Twitter trend of posting admiration for Jeremy Corbyn is just one small example of the huge support that remains for the politics Jeremy stands for, which Starmer would be better to learn from than try to crush.

While we continue to do all we can to ensure Labour local election victories, because we know that Labour councils so often do a great job in incredibly difficult circumstances, this would be more effective if the Leadership ended its war on Corbyn and the left.


Comments (20)

  • Heather Skibsted says:

    This is so true and such a sad state of affairs. And voters even now believed many lies the media told about Corbyn without understanding how much better off we could be now with his manifesto. But nothing stays the same and in time this situation will undoubtedly change again.

    0
    0
  • CVA says:

    After hearing Starmer’s speech at Labour Conference, I gave up my membership of the Labour Party.
    I came to Britain from Chile in my early 20s escaping Pinochet and I recognise a fascist when I heard them speak and Starmer is a fascist. I understand Rachel and commend her undeserved loyalty to the Labour Party.
    You need to open your eyes and understand that by carrying on voting Labour while Starmer or similar is the leader, you aren’t voting for a democratic political Party but for fascism.
    I am very sorry but I will not be voting for Labour in any elections while Starmer or similar is the leader.
    Moreover, I will be prepared to vote LibDem or even Tory (Johnson would not be leader at the next GE) their is not way on earth that anybody is going to persuade me to vote for Starmer or similar fascist as a Prime Minister, I rather have the Tories wining the next election too and hasten the disposal of the Labour Party to the history books.
    Time for the Trade Unions to abandon Labour and start supporting a new Socialist Party.

    0
    0
  • Dave Fogg Postles says:

    It’s not ‘Corbynism’; it’s democratic socialism as on the membership card.

    0
    0
  • Alasdair MacVarish says:

    Starmer and co. this week welcome Israeli Labour Party ignoring the history of Labour governments in Israel expropiating others’ land and pursuing appartheid policy which Starmer denies : may get buried in Mount of Olives of Mount Herzl along with racketeers such as Labour’s Robert Maxwell

    0
    0
  • Dr Agnes Kory says:

    Not sure why Rachel Garnham is so enthusiastic about campaigning for Labour during the current local elections. Has she not heard about left-wingers who were deselected and rejected from standing by the Labour Party in many boroughs?
    What Starmer wants in the immediate future is a Labour victory at the forthcoming local elections. While Rachel Garnham is critical of Starmer, she is, in practice, promoting his forthcoming victory.

    0
    0
  • Jack T says:

    Starmer’s commitment to Zionism and the racist, apartheid enclave of Israel is the reason he will never head an inclusive Socialist Party or government. Apart from that, he has proven to be utterly useless against Bozo the dangerous clown who treats him like an irritation rather than a serious threat. An epidemic of apathy is starting to set in because voters realise we have a mendacious charlatan for a PM and a wimp as leader of the opposition.

    0
    0
  • Allan Howard says:

    Jack asserted that ‘an epidemic of apathy is starting to set in’ etc because voters realise that……. Starmer is ‘a wimp’.

    So did you commission a poll/survey posing such a question – ie Do you think Keir Starmer is a wimp? – or are you just spouting rubbish, a falsehood? The reason I ask is because his leadership approval ratings have been the best they have been in recent months since this time last year, so could you elaborate

    And No, Jack, as you know, I detest Starmer, as I do ALL fascists and smearers and those who subvert democracy.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_approval_opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2022_2

    0
    0
  • Margaret West says:

    We are still waiting for the Forde report – and pin our hopes on that and on lies about Corbyn being exposed. I think there are many many good Labour Party members and MPs too and it is only a matter of time before Starmers ineptness becomes too obvious to ignore.

    I note that the Labour right have seemingly dropped their demand for Corbyn to withdraw his comment about the number of anti-semites being exaggerated as it has been demonstrated as true. Apart from anything else how can the sort of question posed in R4s “More or Less” make a person unworthy to be a Labour MP?

    As for NATO – an organisation which has existedfor over 70 years deserves some re-consideration. Ukraine has every right defend itself – as Corbyn has said- but NATOs existence has not helped. Putin has in effect declared war on it – but fought that war in one country – viz Ukraine where the rules of
    engagement are being dictated by – Putin. This is accepted by some in the UK as “Ukraine defending
    the West from Russia” as if that desperate country is spending the lives of its population to protect in some way the rest of Europe.

    Putin has alienated previously Russian friendly parts of Northern Ukraine as is evident from comments from the inhabitants of those regions speaking from the ruins of their neighbourhoods. How long before he starts to alienate more of the population of the break-away areas in the Donbas? Talk of “getting rid of” Putin only serves to feed the Putins propaganda machine for it is something the Russian people must decide.

    It is up to Ukraine to decide how and when this conflict must end with the help of the UN and not the Colonel Blimps of the UK. After that the role of NATO will need to be reconsidered.

    0
    0
  • Nick Jenkins says:

    No doubt, those on the right of the party, such as Mandelson, will point to France, and Macron’s election, and say: ”Look, centrism is what people vote for.”
    Of course, he would completely overlook the fact that Macron could not have been elected without the votes of Mélenchon’s supporters. Mélenchon only just failed to get on the ballot paper for the final run-off, so his votes were a vital factor.
    Yet here in the UK Labour Party, it seems there’s a belief that victory can be achieved without the support of the left. The clear aim is to remove the left from the party and alienate socialists for ever.
    Either the “experts” like Mandelson are deluded – or they don’t actually want Labour ever to win again.

    0
    0
  • Martyn Meacham says:

    Starmer must resign, and the whole front bench either demoted or sacked.Otherwise all we have is a cheaper version of a totally corrupt, tin pot tory party that is not worth bothering with, not worth canvassing for, and definitely not worth voting for….Maybe that is Starmer’s ‘plan’….keep the tories in office, keep the status quo, and the bribes flowing into MPs bank accounts.

    0
    0
  • Brian Burden says:

    Significant? Latest communication from Labour Central requesting donations for an election battle chest. Two pages: donation form and covering letter. Covering letter signed by Angela Rayner, Deputy Leader. NOT ONE MENTION ON EITHER PAGE of Kier Starmer! Is Labour acknowledging the depth to which Starmer’s stock has sunk with his membership?

    0
    0
  • Tony says:

    NATO is built on a lie.
    There never was any evidence at all that the Soviet Union wanted to invade Western Europe.
    The early intelligence reports made this very clear at the time.
    Starmer regards this deception as an achievement on a par with the NHS!

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/283210.Harry_S_Truman_and_the_War_Scare_of_1948

    0
    0
  • I intend to reply to the Labour Party letter asking for donations saying that I refuse to contribute unless Starmer actually publishes the results of the increasingly mythical Forde Inquiry.

    0
    0
  • Stephen Flaherty says:

    I think, as has been said on these pages before, that Rachel Garnham misunderstands the nature of Starmer and the current leadership of the Labour party. Sure, they’d like to win, to beat the Tories – all of them would like to be in government, after all – but they also want to crush the left wing of the party and ensure that it can never again take control of the Labour party. And I think it’s pretty clear that they prioritise this second aim over the first one. They would rather see Labour lose an election than allow the left wing back into even a semblance of power.

    This should come as no surprise. If we ever get to see the Forde report, it’ll show that they (the right wing of the Labour party) have made this choice before (which is why we haven’t seen it yet and are unlikely to any time soon). It can be seen in the remarks of Ian Austen before the ’19 election, advising people to vote against Labour, a sentiment that was echoed at different times and in varying degrees of strength by Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, Alistair Campbell and many others. In this light, the only surprising thing about Rachel Reeves’ comment that she’s glad Corbyn isn’t PM is its honesty. She told the truth, unusually for her.

    Seen in this light, then no, Starmer will never allow Corbyn back into Labour and he will never adopt those Corbynite policies that he agreed to preserve when he was campaigning to be leader. Either would be conceding that the left wing was maybe right about something and he’s never going to do that. He sees that this does damage Labour’s election prospects but a) he probably hopes he can ride out the storm and b) if he can’t, he, and the right wing of the Labour party, are prepared to see Labour lose rather than allow the left wing anywhere near power again.

    Like they did last time.

    0
    0
  • Colin Lomas says:

    Well said. The suicidal anti-Corbyn “cleansing” of the party Is taking place at every level. In Ealing, large numbers of activists have been suspended/expelled and are therefore not canvassing for the election, along with many sympathetic colleagues.
    Starmer is calculating that he will only lose a small number of the left “fringe”, but gain more votes from “moderates” who will return to supporting the party as they did in 1997. I am a “moderate” – never particularly favouring Corbyn, hoping David Miliband would beat Ed, I even supported Kinnock in the 1980s – but nothing will bring me to vote Labour on 5 May while Starmer is the leader

    0
    0
  • Allan Howard says:

    In her post, Margaret says that Putin has ‘in effect declared war on’ NATO, and goes on to say that ‘This is accepted by some in the UK as “Ukraine defending the West from Russia” as if that desperate country is spending the lives of its population to protect in some way the rest of Europe’, and then, at the end of her post, adds dismissively that ‘It is up to Ukraine to decide how and when this conflict must end…….. and not the Colonel Blimps of the UK’.

    So are we really to believe that Margaret is not aware of what experts like John Mearsheimer and others have been warning for many years – ie that the eastward expansion of NATO will end badly. I doubt it somehow. In an interview with The New Yorker on March 1st he said ‘If there had been no decision to move NATO eastward to include Ukraine, Crimea and the Donbass would be part of Ukraine today, and there would be no war in Ukraine’. In other words, the US et al provoked Putin into taking military action, which could easily have been prevented if they had addressed his concerns. And what is happening in effect, is a proxy war between NATO and Russia.

    And the following is the introduction to an interview in The GrayZone on March 24th:

    In Ukraine, the Biden administration is fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian,” retired senior US diplomat Chas Freeman says.

    Chas Freeman, a retired senior US diplomat, analyzes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US role, and the geopolitical fallout. “Everything we are doing, rather than accelerate an end to the fighting and some compromise, seems to be aimed at prolonging the fighting,” Freeman says.

    So anyway, could you post a couple of links to those you claim are saying that ‘“Ukraine [is] defending the West from Russia”, Margaret. Thanks

    0
    0
  • Joseph Hannigan says:

    Sir Keir is a disappointment indeed. Evans…no comment!

    0
    0
  • Doug says:

    Twas Red Tories that kept Thatcher in power, the SDP
    The internal report proves one thing beyond doubt, there is no way back for those who prefer the worst Tory government since 1979 to the best Labour government since 1945
    The party is bankrupt, financially and morally, unions, members and supporters are flogging a dead horse
    Has anyone not cancelled their D/D and not told them, do it tomorrow

    0
    0
  • Margaret West says:

    Allan – you say

    “So anyway, could you post a couple of links to those you claim are saying that ‘“Ukraine [is] defending the West from Russia”, Margaret. Thanks”

    I do not follow what you mean – I think I was not clear – sorry!
    I do not agree with the attitude of the Colonel Blimps who appear to want the War in Ukraine to go on till Russia is “defeated” whatever that means – and this is the sort of article I mean which appears to display a Blimpish attitude but it is by no means the worst

    https://www.newyorker.com

    I certainly think the West was wrong to keep installing NATO bases in the East – I listened to the radio 4 program at 1.45pm today which explained some of the details and whatever was thought to have been the agreement between George Bush Sr and Gorbachev. However irrespective of what it was was or was
    not – it was a bad decision. Arch “hawk” Henry Kissinger warned against NATO expansion in 2014 as did others.

    However NATOs expansion cannot justify Putins action in his
    war against Ukraine if that was his reason for it has if anything strengthened NATO – and it has been completely counter productive so why did he do it? There has been terrible loss of life – of Ukrainian civilians and of Russian soldiers. Did he really expect Ukrainians to welcome the Russian invaders with open arms – why would anyone do that?

    0
    0
  • steve mitchell says:

    Starmer has a strange obsession with Israel. He seems to put defending Zionism above everything. He has invited Israeli politicians to come here and help canvassing. Anyone who shows the slightest opposition is called out as anti-Semitic Threatened with disciplinary action or worse. Could it be that because he is married to a Jewish girl and is bringing up his children in the Jewish faith he cannot think logically about the issue of antisemitism.

    0
    0

Comments are now closed.