every smith
  • MS: Max Smith's blog
  • History to the Defeated
  • every smith: independent creative consultants
  • Words: Max - a brief bio
  • Sites to see

Not Dark Yet #316: The medium or the message

13/8/2020

11 Comments

 
Picture
“Why is everyone criticising Starmer? He hasn’t done anything …”. That’s a Bob Hope joke from more than half a century ago. Hope was talking about Eisenhower but the gag came to mind recently whilst perusing the latest YouGov opinion poll. Labour is nine points behind the Conservatives, and Starmer is behind both Johnson and Don’t-Know in the Best Prime Minister stakes.
 
Given that the same polls rate this administration as the worst in living memory, given that Starmer won the Labour leadership primarily because of his so-called electability, and given that even the Tory press is giving him an easy ride, one might have thought that a significant lead would be … well, a given.
 
After all, as Tony Blair said dismissively when Jeremy Corbyn was a few points ahead in the polls, “yes, but he should be 20 points up.”
 
Yes, he should have been. And so should Starmer be now.
 
Each day brings more news of government corruption and cronyism. Each morning we hear of more statistical manipulation and lies. Day after day, we learn of yet another fiasco, yet more failures.
 
But we don’t hear the ‘forensic’ voice of Keir Starmer. He’s gone to ground.
 
It’s not the message. There isn’t really one at all. So it must be the medium.
 
True, the occasional tweet sneaks out. Now and again, an article under his byline will appear, usually behind a paywall. Once in a while, we will see him claiming that some government perfidy requires ‘looking at’. But that’s about it.
 
And his deputy and the rest of his shadow cabinet are also keeping schtum.
 
The bastards who screwed us in 2017 are kicking up a fuss. Pay them off.
 
Eliminate factionalism by expelling every faction. Except ours.
 
Don’t mention Dawn Butler. Until Boris Johnson does.
 
We’re only nine points down. Don’t rock the boat.
 
Trouble is, the boat is already rocking. Membership is declining. Some are resigning. More are allowing their membership to lapse. Amongst those who will remain, there is a sense of despondency and depression.
 
So is Labour a lost cause?

Not necessarily.  In the latest Survation poll, which was published at the same time as YouGov, Labour was four points ahead amongst those under 65. But amongst over-65s, the Tories had a 46 point lead. (Hence the nine point lead overall.)
 
As a man in his seventies, I have often thought there was case to be made for 65 being the cut-off age for voting. Those who vote should have a vested interest in the future rather than the status quo.
 
Nearly 50% of Tory voters are over 65, compared to just 14% of Labour voters.
 
So I have a modest proposal for you.

We don’t need to dissolve the people and elect a new one.
 
We don’t need proportional representation or single transferable votes.
 
We simply need to make voting the sole prerogative of those between 16 and 65.
 
 
Today from the everysmith vaults: We have just passed through the ‘Days Between’ and so Jerry has been on my mind and my turntable. Today, from the night he died, it’s Bob Weir and Ratdog at Hampton Beach. You know our love will never fade away.
 

11 Comments
Phillip
13/8/2020 11:30:58

I think the real problem with Starmer is not that he is doing nothing but that he is doing a great deal clandestinely. And most of it wrong. I voted for him and regret it profoundly now. My apologies to RLB.

Reply
Thom
13/8/2020 11:37:42

No, no, no. Universal franchise is fundamental. As I suspect you believe too. And for the restore, I am over 65 and have never voted Tory. But I’m afraid that does not mean I will vote for Starmer any time soon.

Reply
Kate
13/8/2020 12:24:03

I’m a lot younger than 65. Like 40 years younger. As soon as I get the chance I shall vote for a Starmer-led Labour.

Reply
Max
13/8/2020 16:54:25

This just in - a New post on SKWAWKBOX


Labour bans local party groups from even discussing Starmer’s craven surrender to former staff – or EHRC report
by SKWAWKBOX (SW)
Email to CLP secretaries from new general secretary David Evans bans discussions and votes on issues and on IHRA 'definition'

No you don't: Labour's message to members
Labour has banned constituency parties (CLPs) from discussing or voting on motions about either Keir Starmer's craven decision to pay around £600,000 to former staff who accused the party of antisemitism, or the party's adoption of the 'IHRA' 'definition' of antisemitism.

An email sent by new general secretary David Evans, who has previously said that democracy 'should as far as possible be abolished in the party', has sent the following threatening message to CLP secretaries:

Panorama settlement

The Labour Party recently agreed a settlement with seven former members of staff who appeared on an edition of the BBC’s Panorama programme, as well as with the journalist who hosted that programme. Those settlements included an unreserved apology and a withdrawal of the allegations previously made by the Party about those individuals. The withdrawal and apology are binding on the Party and any motions which seek to undermine or contradict them will create a risk of further legal proceedings for both the national party and local parties. As such, motions relating to these settlements and the circumstances behind them are not competent business for discussion by local parties.

CLP officers have an important responsibility to ensure that they and other members conduct themselves in a respectful and comradely manner. We therefore take this opportunity to reiterate to local Labour Parties and officers that they should be aware of the potential liabilities to them should the allegations that have now been withdrawn by the national Party be repeated.

Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report

On Monday 13 July 2020 the Party announced that it had received the EHRC’s draft report into allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party. This draft report has been provided to the Party by the EHRC on a confidential basis as part of its investigation.

When we are able to provide more information about the EHRC’s report we will do so. Until that time speculation as to the contents of the report is not helpful. It is therefore not competent business for CLPs to discuss.

IHRA definition of antisemitism

We are aware that some CLPs and branches have had motions tabled to “repudiate” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition of antisemitism and its examples was properly adopted by the Labour Party in September 2018. CLPs and branches have no powers to overturn this decision. Furthermore, such motions undermine the Labour Party’s ability to tackle racism. Any such motions are therefore not competent business for CLPs or branches.

It's not quite clear how 'comradely and respectful' conduct in a local party meeting intrinsically conflicts with discussion of a decision at the top of the party, let alone open the party to legal action, since members are members and not drones, employees or agents.

The 'IHRA definition', additionally, has been widely criticised for its lack of precision and does not even describe itself as a 'definition' but as a 'non-legally binding' 'working definition'.

But Labour members are unlikely to look kindly on attempts to curb their free speech to accommodate the weakness and agenda of the national leadership. They may not have the power on their own to change what is happening, but nobody should be telling them not to express an opinion about it.

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.


Reply
Chris
13/8/2020 19:43:08

So we're not allowed even to talk about this. How about each CLP does so, passes resolutions, and gets sued. The legal advice was that Labour would win. Could be fun. And transformational.

Reply
Jon
14/8/2020 07:54:14

It used to be called democratic centralism.

Reply
ChrisF
14/8/2020 08:50:12

WTF!?

Reply
Hugh
13/8/2020 19:29:31

What we need is a socialist leader of a socialist party.

Reply
Jewish Voice for Labour
14/8/2020 21:24:18

A possible draft that could be adapted for CLP motions.

David Evans’ circular to CLP secretaries on August 12 appears to be a deplorable attempt to limit the policy issues that local parties may discuss.

Members of all political stripes will be shocked at the General Secretary apparently undermining Clause V of party’s programme which states that “At all levels the Party will ensure that members, elected representatives, affiliated organisations and, where practicable, the wider community are able to participate in the process of policy consideration and formulation”. The circular also contradicts the Code of Conduct on Antisemitism and other forms of racism which states - “The Labour Party welcomes all who share our aims and values, and encourages political debate and campaigns around the vital issues, policies and injustices of our time.”
Labour’s Clause IV includes a call for “An open democracy, in which government is held to account by the people, decisions are taken as far as practicable by the communities they affect and where fundamental human rights are guaranteed”.
To be true to these values, Labour should lead by example through internal open democracy where fundamental rights are guaranteed, including rights of freedom of speech and belief.

There is nothing illegitimate in members seeking to debate the differing views that are widespread at all levels of the party about the NEC’s decision to adopt the IHRA definition and its eleven examples; the forthcoming EHRC report; or whether the leadership’s decision to pay large sums of members’ money to settle the claims of the Panorama participants was wise or necessary.

In attempting to prevent debate about such issues, ruling them to be “not competent business for discussion by local parties”, the General Secretary gives the impression that the party leadership realises only too well that its decisions are flawed and will not withstand critical debate. It suggests that our new leaders do not want members to be able to influence or change Party policy.

We call on the General Secretary to withdraw this draconian attempt to silence the membership by forbidding legitimate and necessary debate on important matters of concern to us all.

We trust that CLPs will not soon receive another directive declaring that the general secretary's email is itself "not competent business for discussion by local parties”.

Reply
MikeD
17/8/2020 08:49:47

Seeing Starmer's piece in the Daily Mail, I think the medium is the message.

Reply
Nick
17/8/2020 09:56:20

Right. No ifs. No buts. No 'if it is safe'. No 'but not if it isn't safe'.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Max Smith

    European writer, radical, restaurateur and Red Sox fan. 70-something husband, father, step-father, grandfather and son. Resident in Warwick, England.

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    RSS Feed

    Categories

    All
    Art
    Baseball
    Books
    Film
    Food + Drink
    French Letters
    Leamington Letters
    Media
    Music
    People
    Personal
    Politics
    Sport