Ken Loach may be kicked out of Labour

If we end up with a binary choice- Johnson à la ERG- and Starmer- will the left of the Labour Party not vote? Because then the choice will be ERG Johnson or ... ERG Johnson. Not a great choice, surely.

Galaxy I don't mean concentrate exclusively on cronyism and possible corruption. There are also lots of other important issues that need airing.

Can they just call an election? I thought there had to be a vote of no confidence etc. How come, since the fixed term parliament act came into force we’ve had more frequent elections than at any time in history!

I think the opposite, I think the last thing Starmer should be doing is going on and on about Johnsons corruption and lies. Everyone knows Johnson lies, and nobody cares, why that is I cant explain, but its not a tactic to win an election.

Thanks. Do you also think Johnson is intending to pull a fast one here, and go for early, even very early election- before enquiries take place, and to take advantage of the divisions in LP- which will be a real bonus for him, Cons and ERG.

Well Said Eloethan

Good journalism by Financial Times and The Times

So much corruption and cronyism by the elites and Royals.

Global elite - monetised address books-access capitalism ......all dressed up as philanthropy to make it acceptable. But paying your fair share of taxes is something to avoid at all costs!

Kali I do see your point re getting rid of Johnson and this Conservative government, and I suspect I will be voting Labour even though I am very unhappy with the direction it is taking at the moment.

I really think Starmer ought to be concentrating much more on the myriad examples of the underhand behaviour of the Conservative Party and the businesses, institutions and individuals which benefit from its support. A report in the I today headed "Board of elite donors 'given access to PM and Prince Charles' " refers to articles in the Financial Times and The Sunday Times which report on the existence of a secretive "advisory board" of elite donors who have priority access to Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak and Prince Charles:

..........."Ben Elliot, the party's co-chairman and the Duchess of Cornwall's nephew, is accused by the Financial Times of inviting donors to join the secretive "advisory board", described by the paper as "the most desirable club in the Tory party". Some members of the board had given at least £250,000 to the party....................

"Claims also emerged in The Sunday Times that Mr Elliot had given an ultra-wealthy client of his [Elliot's] concierge company, Quintessentially, access to Prince Charles."

There are several reports on the internet which provide further information on this, which add to previous examples of the sort of cronyism and undemocratic practices that the Conservative Party engages in to further its own ends and those of its donors.

Elotethan 'It is, of course, a dilemma. Should the party ditch most of its founding principles for the sake of winning votes and exile those on the left who champion them? I can understand why many people say there's no point in having principles without the power to implement policies based on those principles. But I feel there is no point having power if you have no core principles - or principles so akin to those of your supposed political opponents that it hardly seems worth voting.'

yes, great post and my respect. But then what? I you truly saying that you'd rather Johnson and his disastrous, destructive cabale got back in? Are you really saying that Starmer = Johnson?

Johnson knows that he won't be able to stop enquiries into Covid and also how contract were avoided, etc- for much longer. He also knows the LP is hugely divided - and there is every chance he will call a very early election in order to take full advantage.

If Labour comes together with clever alliances, it will obliterate them. If Labour does not- it will allow the Cons to win again and say they have the concensus of the people to continue privatisation of the NHS and the destruction of social care.

So, are you truly saying that this would be better than Starmer?
I find that impossible to believe.

Thank you for this respectful discussion.

As for me- I do not 'belong' to any party, as Lucky says does not make sense- everyone should think about the current policies and what is right for now, and the world of large groups of miners, steel workers, ship yards, etc, has long gone- we live in a different world now, and people have different aspirations. I have voted and belonged to 3 parties in the past, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens- and I have no qualms in saying I voted for Labour last time. My vote, btw, has never ever counted - because of where I lived- apart from local elections. And I really want the First Past the Post system to go as it disenfranchises huge proportion of voters. I've done it every time, but it is hard to go and vote, when you know it will end up straight in the bin.

It also means that both Labour and Cons are made up of huge and very disparate groups of people- and have become totally unrepresentative of their extrememly varied base. In any other country with some form of proportional representation- the 'Left' of the Party, and the 'right' and possibly the centre, would de divided in separate, more representative groups.

trisher

Doodledog you do realise the irony in that post don't you. Starmer isn't asking the membership if he can kick people out the party he's just doing it. If there was some sort of due process and the membership were being consulted no one would be arguing. It's not just people who are members f the leftwing groups he has decided are unacceptable, the chair of CLPs who passed resolutions or who even discussed Corbyn's suspension have been suspended.

Yes, as a member I am well aware that I haven't been asked about expulsions.

I don't see what's ironic about questioning the point of the petition, though. Nobody has to take any notice of it, and whilst I may approve of the basis of the petition I don't think that non-members should be able to dictate policy.

It's a mess, though, I grant you that.

Eleothan, brilliantly said. All of it. But your last point particularly I totally agree with and it's how I feel now.

Anniebach It's not really that confusing. There were a lot of people who were appalled and disgusted about us being the co-instigators of an illegal invasion of Iraq. However, there were probably many more who weren't that bothered - or not bothered enough to join a protest march or lodge any sort of complaint with their MPs. At that time, Blair was improving schools and public amenities in general (albeit often through the device of "private finance initiatives" that, in the long term, have proved to be extortionately expensive). People felt fairly upbeat and what was happening hundred of miles away was not a major concern.

The majority of people in this country are getting by - some with a certain amount of difficulty but many managing quite nicely. Many - but not all - aren't really that bothered about zero hours contracts or the degradation of any parts of the public and social infrastructure that don't really affect them. The picture changes, of course, when they are affected - when they have an elderly partner with significant health needs who is unable to access proper support or when they are the victim of a life-changing, violent crime but have the prospect of waiting perhaps two years before their assailant is tried in court. Then it hits home that our public institutions are not, as is often implied, a wasteful drain on the economy but vital to the health and welfare of everybody.

The Conservative Party appeals to those who are getting by OK and who have no major economic or social issues to contend with , or who believe that dire inequality is inevitable and not a product of political decisions. They would perhaps vote for a "watered down" Labour if they were at some stage dissatisfied with their own personal lot, but never for people like Corbyn who are portrayed as either naive crackpots or dangerous revolutionaries who threaten the "stability" of the political and economic system.

In my view, the Labour Party must be a counterpoint to the Conservative Party, which, in the main, is financed and supported by rich and powerful individuals and organisations, including most of the media. It is, of course, a dilemma. Should the party ditch most of its founding principles for the sake of winning votes and exile those on the left who champion them? I can understand why many people say there's no point in having principles without the power to implement policies based on those principles. But I feel there is no point having power if you have no core principles - or principles so akin to those of your supposed political opponents that it hardly seems worth voting.

Political parties do need money though, and while I understand that Keir Starmer would prefer larger corporate donations, and has attracted a couple of these, the large increase in membership under the previous leader left the funds in a very healthy position, not only from membership fees but also from a large number of small donations, which all added up.

Expelling or making members feel so unwelcome that they have left, has meant the loss of all their contributions, and Labour is now having to make staff members redundant.

To make up the shortfall, if Keir Starmer does manage to attract some more corporate donors, they will want their money to influence policy.

I very much doubt voters at the next general election will
have Ken Loach in mind

Truly and honestly, I do not know what the answer is.

But a far left LP, and a divided onw- has no change with the FPTP electoral system. That is the fact.

Membership of the party isn’t the indicator of election success though, the Tory Party has far less members than Labour, times have moved on.

Very confusing, thousands left the Labour Party because of Tony Blair who won three consecutive general elections, yet
thousands joined when Corbyn was leader and he lost two
consecutive general elections

lemongrove

Starmer need to purge even more....his actions don’t go far enough.

Some wouldn't vote for Labour if he purged every single member. What value are the views of dyed in the wool Conservatives when it comes to getting Labour back into power?

so we just wait to lose the next election - that will really take us forwards and stop the catastrophic Tories. They must be rubbing their hands and wallets in glee.

Doodledog you do realise the irony in that post don't you. Starmer isn't asking the membership if he can kick people out the party he's just doing it. If there was some sort of due process and the membership were being consulted no one would be arguing. It's not just people who are members f the leftwing groups he has decided are unacceptable, the chair of CLPs who passed resolutions or who even discussed Corbyn's suspension have been suspended.

I’ve seen the petition, but don’t know how it’s going to work. Even if there are a million signatures, it can’t force a party to do anything- that is for the members, and rightly so. Anyone can sign a petition, whether or not they have the best interests of the party at heart.

Theres a petition taking off chng.it/nzQRKD5nHn

Starmer need to purge even more....his actions don’t go far enough.

Wrong link this one

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1469704/queen-news-royal-family-latest-monarchy-billboard-republic/amp?__twitter_impression=true

I think after the video in this Express piece
There one about Keir Starmer getting rid of the left proscribing groups Saying this is unpresidented in Labour Party it's like a looser hitting back at membership when what they've decided on didn't work out.

www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2021/07/30/john-mcdonnells-labour-group-is-taking-aim-at-keir-starmer/?fbclid=IwAR0SuOm2WEQFXajVkM0CsKdBFAG8Jpdv0CKWIwcb3wmNaETdEaUEOWJv8K4#user-comments

John McDonnell’s Labour group is taking aim at Keir Starmer

Enter McDonnell and Co.

The Labour group led by John McDonnell has issued a furious statement over the party’s banning of four left-wing groups. It also takes aim at Keir Starmer directly – saying he has brought the party “almost to its knees”.

The Labour Representation Committee (LRC) began in 1900, but its current incarnation dates back to 2004. It says its aim is:

to fight for power within the Labour Party and trade unions and to appeal to the tens of thousands who, during the Tony Blair years, turned away from our party in disillusion and despair.

McDonnell is its president, and the Fire Brigades Union’s Matt Wrack is the chair. On 27 July, it weighed in on the banning of the four groups. The LRC’s statement condemns the move “in the strongest terms”, adding:

Starmer promised in his leadership bid to bring unity to the party. He spoke of fighting for the underdog and of his track record in defending human rights. There can no longer be any doubt that this was simply a means to gain control of our party.

You can read the full LRC statement here. It criticises Starmer ‘upsetting’ “loyal voters”; it takes aim at the state of the party’s finances, and asserts:

The establishment wing of the party has declared war on the membership – and, in particular, the left of the party.

“Defend the Left”

The LRC is clear on what needs to happen:

We need to unite and resist. The future of our party is at stake. That’s why the LRC is part of Defend the Left and is working to get trade union branches and local Labour lefts to sign up to it.

Defend the Left is a campaign to stop Labour’s purge of the left. It has a petition which you can sign here. The group says that it urges:

everyone who wants to build a united, fighting opposition to the Tories to join together against the attempt by the right to reintroduce a list of proscribed organisations. No doubt, other socialist groups will be added to the list, should this first round of proscriptions go through without a hitch.

‘No one is safe’ from the purge

As the LRC sums up:

This is already the thick end of the wedge – no one who defends socialist ideas is safe unless we act together.

So, is Starmer’s ongoing purge the end of the left of the Labour Party? Clearly not if McDonnell and countless others have anything to do with it.