Here is today's evidence of the issue that the last TLL was trying to address: Aaron Bastani of Novara Media says Starmer is "unique", "has a psychological problem", " is a worse liar than Boris Johnson" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWYrHWSQsHQ
I do not have time to respond to all of the VERY INTERESTING comments in response to the last TLL. But will say: 1) the left will get nowhere without rigorous debate; these comments mark a significant "upgrade" in responses since TLL was first launched in January ...and so please KEEP IT UP. 2) THE LEFT LANE was never conceived of as Alan Story's personal publication; if you have an idea for a longer article that would be one issue of TLL, write: theleftlanepolitics@gmail.com
Thank you for the succinct history of where labour has stood on different issues; this article has cemented that Labour does not and has not had the same stance as me.
I think a further point made by Miliband is borne out by recent experience with Momentum. Labour is not an environment in which reformists may be turned into radicals, but one in which radicals are turned into reformists.
What conclusions do I draw? That there is no viable left in the UK and hasn't been for a long as I can remember. Build a mass socialist party? Based on what? The peak time for any kind of mass party of the left was 1945. Effectively, since then, it's been a defensive downhill slide to the current situation of a 'no politics, we're British' situation. Why? Because a significant proportion of the British public, say at least 1/3rd, are content, if not altogether happy, with the current setup. 1/3rd are royally screwed by neoliberalism and 1/3rd don't give a shit or feel powerless to do anything to change the status quo. The remains of the organised left, are locked in the politics of their grandparents, still arguing about whether the former Soviet Union is state capitalist or a sellout, or some other fantasy.
We are the citizens of an imperialist state with all that that entails, even the poor are relatively privileged when compared to the vast majority of the people of the world and continue to be so because of it. The so-called intellectuals of the left, those who analyse and formulate policies have let us down, they've become professional leftists, academics, authors etc, who make their living being leftists and very comfortable, thank you very much. As ever, it's the people on the front line, Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Nicaragua et al and yes, Russia and China, yet again, who are confronting imperialism but this is not something the Western left wants to hear, it doesn't fit into their theories of a 'pure' revolution.
PS: I'm not saying don't demonstrate, don't organise, all I'm saying is that right now, we don't have a left, we don't have a theoretical, let alone a practical response to the Empire, so while the left here, is always busy telling the rest of the world what to do, the rest of the world is busy getting on and doing it, with or without us. True, it isn't revolution but it's definitely anti-imperialism, a stepping stone on the way to revolution.
Hello to both of you. My first comment on this excellent site.
I am a university lecturer. My opinion is that basically since the 2008 crash, the kids of today have been manifesting “left” in a way which is profoundly more real than anything I have seen from older generations such as mine. They care more; they accept less bullshit; they are less willing to accept compromises or believe centrists. In the last few weeks, the phrase “lesser of two evils” and the associated concept (ie the lesser of two evils is still evil) have become mainstream. Despite or possibly because of being immersed in a soup of fake news and propaganda, the kids I meet (not a high-powered university either) understand politics and their world to a far deeper degree.
The kids who were 18 in 2008 are 34 now. An electorally insignificant youth sentiment then, is getting further onto the board with each election. By the time there is the possibility of a meaningful election, they will be 44. They are extremely likely to be as economically excluded then as they are now.
Corbyn would have won every constituency in 2019 if nobody over 50 had voted. The next meaningful election will be 15 years after that point.
The GameStop event shows that this generation are able and willing to blast money at their opponents when they see the contest as both personal and a playable game. To me, the task is simple. Keep the youth on the boil so that they don’t turn right as they age; keep the spotlight on Starmer; basically this moment now, don’t let it fade; there is the potential for something seismically new to happen. In about 10-15 years, as the 2008 generation ages through the population and nothing improves politically or economically since 2008, we will start to approach a tipping point.
That’s my reply to William. My reply to Alan is that I think Starmer is significantly more evil than most of his predecessors. I think he’s controlled by blackmail since before he was appointed DPP, and indeed the blackmail material is probably what got him promoted (and his obedient response to it is what got him a second hook in the form of his culpability for the non-prosecution of Jimmy Saville, who is what in turn got him promoted to Prime Minister). I think that if a group of largely non-Jews, aware of the “crying wolf” racist trope, nevertheless make false allegations of antisemitism for their own personal gain, this shows that such people have no boundaries. There is no limit to the evil of which they are capable. Kinnock… would probably have been an improvement over thatcher? Starmer will not be significantly different from Johnson and Sunak. This is the guy who’s going to break the Labour Party, possibly to our benefit.
Picking up on this : " ++ Of course, we should also raise hell about the plans of Starmer and likely future Health Secretary West Streeting to bring the NHS more and more under the control of private capital. The further commodification of health care is a REALLY bad idea." If I understand it correctly, what Streeting is proposing is to use the private sector facilities and staff to address the urgent need to reduce the waiting list. That has to be a good thing for all those long suffering patients waiting years to get the treatment they need. He is also aiming to bring about much needed internal reforms of a massively bureaucratic top down service. A free service for all at the point of delivery is what makes the NHS unique; but , as all nationalised industries it is massively bureacucratic and has become hugely inefficient. A proposal to shift £ 9 billion of NHS money into the social care sector will free up thousands of beds. That cannot be a bad thing. Reforming the pension scheme so as to make it attractive to retirees to come back to the job and opening operating theatres at week ends also seem to be eminently rational. Whether Labour's long term plan may be to " commodify" the NHS may well prove to be true, but on the evidence so far, that does not seem to be the case.
I think you are broadly right to see Starmer as largely in continuity with most Labour leaders.
But there are good reasons why many people are so angry at Starmer and his party now. Firstly the Corbyn era massively raised hopes as to what Labour could be. Those hopes are contemptuously dashed every time a Labour spokesperson opens their mouth now.
Secondly, this change is rammed home by Labour's support for the daily horrors inflicted on Palestine. No previous Labour leader would have been quite so servile towards Israel, but the Labour right signed a Faustian pact with the Zionist lobby: in exchange for their help destroying Corbyn, the Zionist lobby get to dictate Labour's stance on Israel for ever.
Thirdly, Starmer lied through his teeth to get elected as Labour leader. He sat down with the Pat McFaddens and worked out what Labour members wanted to be told, then cynically ditched it all once elected. Compare this to Tony Blair, who for all his wickedness didn't seriously hide what he stood for. The blatent dishonesty of Starmer's manoevre has left many straightforward folk gasping.
Here is today's evidence of the issue that the last TLL was trying to address: Aaron Bastani of Novara Media says Starmer is "unique", "has a psychological problem", " is a worse liar than Boris Johnson" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWYrHWSQsHQ
I do not have time to respond to all of the VERY INTERESTING comments in response to the last TLL. But will say: 1) the left will get nowhere without rigorous debate; these comments mark a significant "upgrade" in responses since TLL was first launched in January ...and so please KEEP IT UP. 2) THE LEFT LANE was never conceived of as Alan Story's personal publication; if you have an idea for a longer article that would be one issue of TLL, write: theleftlanepolitics@gmail.com
PLEASE SHARE WIDELY
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/21/the-guardian-view-on-a-lopsided-parliament-a-deficit-in-democracy-needs-electoral-reform?
Thank you for the succinct history of where labour has stood on different issues; this article has cemented that Labour does not and has not had the same stance as me.
Me neither Hazel.
I think a further point made by Miliband is borne out by recent experience with Momentum. Labour is not an environment in which reformists may be turned into radicals, but one in which radicals are turned into reformists.
I think a whole blog --- in fact, several --- could be done on Ralph Miliband's work. Still very relevant in 2024.
What conclusions do I draw? That there is no viable left in the UK and hasn't been for a long as I can remember. Build a mass socialist party? Based on what? The peak time for any kind of mass party of the left was 1945. Effectively, since then, it's been a defensive downhill slide to the current situation of a 'no politics, we're British' situation. Why? Because a significant proportion of the British public, say at least 1/3rd, are content, if not altogether happy, with the current setup. 1/3rd are royally screwed by neoliberalism and 1/3rd don't give a shit or feel powerless to do anything to change the status quo. The remains of the organised left, are locked in the politics of their grandparents, still arguing about whether the former Soviet Union is state capitalist or a sellout, or some other fantasy.
We are the citizens of an imperialist state with all that that entails, even the poor are relatively privileged when compared to the vast majority of the people of the world and continue to be so because of it. The so-called intellectuals of the left, those who analyse and formulate policies have let us down, they've become professional leftists, academics, authors etc, who make their living being leftists and very comfortable, thank you very much. As ever, it's the people on the front line, Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Nicaragua et al and yes, Russia and China, yet again, who are confronting imperialism but this is not something the Western left wants to hear, it doesn't fit into their theories of a 'pure' revolution.
William:
I personally have no time for pessimism. Better to light a single candle --- or a Molotov cocktail ---- than to curse the darkness.
Lots to do. Eg. study and discuss this article about why the Scottish Socialist Party failed: https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/p/socialism-in-scotland-lessons-from
Or get active with your local Palestine solidarity group.
Or do research for THE LEFT LAN.E.
Or: .... I can think of 50 progressive things to do.
You call it pessimism, I call it realism. As I pointed out, the real struggle is elsewhere.
PS: I'm not saying don't demonstrate, don't organise, all I'm saying is that right now, we don't have a left, we don't have a theoretical, let alone a practical response to the Empire, so while the left here, is always busy telling the rest of the world what to do, the rest of the world is busy getting on and doing it, with or without us. True, it isn't revolution but it's definitely anti-imperialism, a stepping stone on the way to revolution.
Hello to both of you. My first comment on this excellent site.
I am a university lecturer. My opinion is that basically since the 2008 crash, the kids of today have been manifesting “left” in a way which is profoundly more real than anything I have seen from older generations such as mine. They care more; they accept less bullshit; they are less willing to accept compromises or believe centrists. In the last few weeks, the phrase “lesser of two evils” and the associated concept (ie the lesser of two evils is still evil) have become mainstream. Despite or possibly because of being immersed in a soup of fake news and propaganda, the kids I meet (not a high-powered university either) understand politics and their world to a far deeper degree.
The kids who were 18 in 2008 are 34 now. An electorally insignificant youth sentiment then, is getting further onto the board with each election. By the time there is the possibility of a meaningful election, they will be 44. They are extremely likely to be as economically excluded then as they are now.
Corbyn would have won every constituency in 2019 if nobody over 50 had voted. The next meaningful election will be 15 years after that point.
The GameStop event shows that this generation are able and willing to blast money at their opponents when they see the contest as both personal and a playable game. To me, the task is simple. Keep the youth on the boil so that they don’t turn right as they age; keep the spotlight on Starmer; basically this moment now, don’t let it fade; there is the potential for something seismically new to happen. In about 10-15 years, as the 2008 generation ages through the population and nothing improves politically or economically since 2008, we will start to approach a tipping point.
That’s my reply to William. My reply to Alan is that I think Starmer is significantly more evil than most of his predecessors. I think he’s controlled by blackmail since before he was appointed DPP, and indeed the blackmail material is probably what got him promoted (and his obedient response to it is what got him a second hook in the form of his culpability for the non-prosecution of Jimmy Saville, who is what in turn got him promoted to Prime Minister). I think that if a group of largely non-Jews, aware of the “crying wolf” racist trope, nevertheless make false allegations of antisemitism for their own personal gain, this shows that such people have no boundaries. There is no limit to the evil of which they are capable. Kinnock… would probably have been an improvement over thatcher? Starmer will not be significantly different from Johnson and Sunak. This is the guy who’s going to break the Labour Party, possibly to our benefit.
Picking up on this : " ++ Of course, we should also raise hell about the plans of Starmer and likely future Health Secretary West Streeting to bring the NHS more and more under the control of private capital. The further commodification of health care is a REALLY bad idea." If I understand it correctly, what Streeting is proposing is to use the private sector facilities and staff to address the urgent need to reduce the waiting list. That has to be a good thing for all those long suffering patients waiting years to get the treatment they need. He is also aiming to bring about much needed internal reforms of a massively bureaucratic top down service. A free service for all at the point of delivery is what makes the NHS unique; but , as all nationalised industries it is massively bureacucratic and has become hugely inefficient. A proposal to shift £ 9 billion of NHS money into the social care sector will free up thousands of beds. That cannot be a bad thing. Reforming the pension scheme so as to make it attractive to retirees to come back to the job and opening operating theatres at week ends also seem to be eminently rational. Whether Labour's long term plan may be to " commodify" the NHS may well prove to be true, but on the evidence so far, that does not seem to be the case.
I think you are broadly right to see Starmer as largely in continuity with most Labour leaders.
But there are good reasons why many people are so angry at Starmer and his party now. Firstly the Corbyn era massively raised hopes as to what Labour could be. Those hopes are contemptuously dashed every time a Labour spokesperson opens their mouth now.
Secondly, this change is rammed home by Labour's support for the daily horrors inflicted on Palestine. No previous Labour leader would have been quite so servile towards Israel, but the Labour right signed a Faustian pact with the Zionist lobby: in exchange for their help destroying Corbyn, the Zionist lobby get to dictate Labour's stance on Israel for ever.
Thirdly, Starmer lied through his teeth to get elected as Labour leader. He sat down with the Pat McFaddens and worked out what Labour members wanted to be told, then cynically ditched it all once elected. Compare this to Tony Blair, who for all his wickedness didn't seriously hide what he stood for. The blatent dishonesty of Starmer's manoevre has left many straightforward folk gasping.
They haven’t been as brutal or as blatant about it before. They haven’t actually gloated publicly about sabotaging the party before.
Amos: To subscribe to TLL, email: theleftlanepolitics@gmail.com and I will send you the subscribe link. Alan