politicscouk--2020-09-18--The Corbyn-era autopsy proves that the 2019 election was a disaster waiting to happen

Left Out : The Inside Story of Labour Under Corbyn by Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire ( Bodley Head , £18.99 ) This Land : The Story of a Movement by Owen Jones ( Allen Lane , £20 ) On March 1st 2017 , the week after Labour lost the Copeland by-election , Owen Jones published a column in the Guardian with the headline : 'Jeremy Corbyn says he 's staying .
That 's not good enough . '
More in sorrow than in anger , Jones voiced what he had been saying in private for months : if Corbyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around , he should step down and allow a younger left-wing MP inherit what insiders called 'the Project ' .
`` If Labour loses the next election a rightwing Tory government , infused with an increasingly xenophobic and authoritarian brand of populism , will have a whopping , unassailable majority , '' Jones warned .
`` Corbyn will certainly resign .
The left will be blamed for breaking the Labour party .
Several leftwing MPs will lose their seats .
The remaining MPs will certainly not nominate any candidate on the left .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ right . ''
That scenario was largely correct , but about 2019 , not 2017 .
In the short-term , Corbyn defied received wisdom to lead Labour to 40 % of the vote , a swing of historic proportions .
The day after that result , Jones wrote a very different column , combining triumphalism with repentance and a dab of blame-shifting : `` I was n't a bit wrong , or slightly wrong , or mostly wrong , but totally wrong .
Having one foot in the Labour movement and one in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ susceptible to their groupthink .
Never again . ''
From now on , he would only err in the opposite direction .
Jones was not alone .
Corbyn may have lost the election but he won a resounding victory over the media and Corbynsceptic Labour MPs , and he adopted the traditional victor ’ s attitude towards compromise .
Talk of replacing him , whether from critical friends or sworn enemies , died the moment the exit poll came out .
He dismissed advice to tame his doubters by welcoming the more amenable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plan to work on a soft ( ish ) Brexit deal with a humiliated Theresa May .
At Glastonbury , he received a hero 's welcome which felt bizarre to me at the time - although I was stuck behind a tree so perhaps I missed the full effect - and now looks like the definition of hubris .
Perhaps it 's hindsight talking , but James Schneider , Corbyn ’ s director of strategic communications , claims to remember worrying about what the coming period of cultural polarisation and parliamentary trench @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader 's movement politics .
`` Fucking hell , '' he said , `` we are done for .
`` ” The Project 's doom was not averted , merely postponed .
Left Out and This Land are fundamentally the same story told from different angles .
Though young , Pogrund and Maguire are impartial hacks of the old school ( for the Sunday Times and Times respectively ) , who provide the same ultra-detailed , in-the-room storytelling as Tim Shipman .
We learn perhaps too much , for instance , about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shuker .
Jones , a left-wing celebrity and lightning rod , was by his own admission both observer and participant : a Guardian columnist so close to the Project from day one that he was offered a job in Corbyn 's office .
Perhaps surprisingly , and to the credit of all three authors , their accounts usually concur , often right down to specific sources and anecdotes .
That 's reassuring , though the story itself is traumatic .
`` I 've never been involved in anything so unpleasant and bitter in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andy McDonald says of the parliamentary Labour party ( PLP ) meetings following Corbyn 's ascent to the leadership .
Four years later , Tom Watson was confiding to Peter Mandelson that his job as deputy leader felt like swimming through a `` terrible swamp '' .
While it is hard to square some of Jones ' columns at the time with what he clearly knew was happening behind the scenes , his candour is better late than never .
Left Out , by opening with the 2017 election result , is all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the other hand , starts by whizzing through the left 's wilderness years , from the rise of neoliberalism in the late 1970s through the humbling of Tony Benn in 1981 and the triumph of New Labour in 1997 , to the unexpected window of opportunity opened by the failure of Ed Miliband 's vacillations and the swelling of protest movements such as UK Uncut .
Even in his insider account of Corbyn ’ s 2015 leadership campaign , though , there are ominous signs : John McDonnell advises the candidate not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' .
Adviser Cat Smith asks him : `` Do you want this ? ''
Now there 's a question neither book can answer .
Corbyn was the 200-1 longshot with no leadership experience and , it transpired , no capacity to grow into the role .
If he did actually want to be prime minister , then he certainly did n't want to do what it took .
The inherent problem with maverick anti-politicians , on both left and right , is that they tend to be bad at politics .
Corbyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strengths : personal loyalty and a distaste for confrontation are admirable in many jobs but not that of a party leader .
`` His office was a shambles , '' a former shadow Cabinet member tells Jones .
`` And it was a shambles because of his personality : he just does n't know how to say no . ''
In one of Left Out 's most tragicomic scenes , Seumas Milne , Karie Murphy and Andrew Fisher — described by Clive Lewis as Corbyn 's `` triumvirate '' —fight over what exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there quietly , like a bad riddle .
Even Jones bemoans Corbyn 's `` mulish '' intransigence , sloppiness , peevish impatience with the media , simplistic anti-imperialism and inability to strategise .
The extreme hostility that greeted Corbyn in 2015 — from most of the media and the PLP , and a venomous clique of old-guard staffers — fostered a siege mentality that further guaranteed bad decision-making .
He had innumerable enemies , for sure , but he gave them so much ammunition .
It only got worse .
By the summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grumpy and exhausted .
Aides feared that he was experiencing a nervous breakdown .
Lest you find Corbyn too pitiable , remember that the one issue on which he took a resolute stand was antisemitism , where his judgement was shamefully poor .
When even loyalists were begging him to apologise , his wife Laura Alvarez and a `` kitchen cabinet '' of Jewish socialists in the safe space of Islington North convinced him to stand firm .
He was always good at taking advice from people who agreed with him .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a litany of missed opportunities which regrettably omits his own public inconsistencies - Jones reveals that Milne feared that if Labour adopted the IHRA guidelines in full , then Corbyn himself would be disciplined for antisemitism , which says more about Corbyn than it does about the guidelines .
Corbyn 's passivity and indecision created a power vacuum which nobody could fill .
Almost every key player turns out to have been weaker than was generally assumed .
Tom Watson : the arch-plotter ?
Once one of Gordon Brown 's most ruthless lieutenants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shrinking with his weight .
The 'coup ' of June 2016 ?
A desperate convulsion born of `` absolute panic '' .
Seumas Milne , the Stalinist Svengali ?
A director of strategy and communications who could neither strategise nor communicate .
An `` absent father '' figure , tardy , amateurish and remote .
Jones writes damningly of his former mentor at the Guardian .
`` Not a single person who worked for Corbyn , '' he says , `` is prepared to defend Milne 's management abilities . ''
Even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy adviser Andrew Fisher was the brains behind the 2017 manifesto but quit during 2019 , complaining of a `` lack of professionalism , competence and human decency '' in Corbyn 's team .
The force of will that enabled chief of staff Karie Murphy to professionalise the operation also made her an autocratic bully who fell out with Corbyn herself in late 2019 over her absurd attempt to abolish Tom Watson 's job .
`` What I saw happen to her over the years made me think : this is how dictatorships @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jones .
The only figure of consistent substance and talent in Corbyn 's inner circle was a tragic one .
John McDonnell knew that he could have done the job better but also that he would never have been given the chance .
Time and again in both books , he makes the right call , tactically and morally — on antisemitism , Brexit , the Salisbury poisonings , the treatment of opponents — only to be shoved to the sidelines .
On all of these issues , Corbyn succumbed to the inevitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unnecessary damage .
During the summer of 2018 , after falling out over disciplinary proceedings against Margaret Hodge - another unforced error - McDonnell barely spoke to the man his wife jokingly called his only friend in Westminster .
Jones , a former McDonnell staffer who calls his old boss `` Labour 's lost leader '' , reports that Momentum founder Jon Lansman approached the shadow chancellor , who was already transforming his public image from spiky socialist bruiser into amiable Uncle John , about replacing Corbyn in the spring of 2016 but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently consume at least 50 % of Labour Twitter , that 's one worth chewing over .
McDonnell 's question to Tom Baldwin from People 's Vote in 2018 is revealing : `` Are you people who will help us win power ?
Or are you people who are going to stop us winning power ? ''
Unlike Corbyn , he explicitly wanted power , because what was the Project worth without it ?
Starting the story earlier than Pogrund and Maguire , Jones is strong on Labour 's unexpectedly brilliant 2017 campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the few '' from bad old Tony Blair ) and the origins of Labour 's Brexit mess .
Remarkably , speechwriter Joss MacDonald admits : `` Most people in LOTO [ the leader of the opposition 's office ] did not take [ the 2016 referendum ] seriously at all .
Most thought if we left , it would n't really cause us any political difficulties.
” ( Narrator : It did cause political difficulties . )
Even long after the result , the assumption was that it would hurt the Tories more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ - he talked about Brexit `` with the enthusiasm of someone reading a photocopying manual , '' according to Fisher - which explains both his tone-deaf response to the result and his inability to commit to a coherent stance .
He was no longer , as Jones describes the 2015 version , `` a plain speaker who stuck to his principles '' ” but a cynical triangulator with a Brexit position so slippery that Emily Thornberry was reprimanded for talking about membership of the customs union instead of a customs union .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day comes down to the difference between a definite and indefinite article , then it 's probably a bad policy .
Jones was a reluctant Remainer who had previously argued for Lexit ( a word he claims without pride to have invented ) but he is probably right to compare Labour 's Brexit quandary to the interactive Black Mirror episode Bandersnatch : every branch on the decision tree would have ended badly .
Cultural polarisation wreaked havoc with Labour 's coalition of metropolitan liberal Remainers and older smalltown Leavers , although it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters were already deserting Labour in 2017 and they had many other reasons to distrust a man who could n't even bring himself to sing the national anthem .
It 's not as if Brexit broke up an otherwise happy family .
Far from being the arch-Remainer , cunningly manipulating the party towards a second referendum , shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer emerges from both books as a dutiful pragmatist who would have been quite happy to get Brexit done if Corbyn and May could have come to an understanding , and only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it at Labour 's September 2018 conference .
Whatever the respect-the-vote crew say now , the simple fact is that a majority of Labour MPs , members and voters opposed Brexit and the push for a referendum from constituency Labour parties was a fine example of the party democracy that the Project claimed to champion .
Yet Corbyn , instinctively hostile to the cross-party People 's Vote campaign , even alienated socialist Remainers such as Michael Chessum of pro-Labour Another Europe Is Possible by accusing them of sabotage and collaboration with Blairites .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shadow Cabinet meetings turned into brutal rows between Remainers and Leavers , with party chair Ian Lavery positively feral on the issue .
When Corbyn intervened to cool down one clash with Starmer , Lavery apparently told him to `` shut the fuck up '' .
Much though the current incumbents have lowered the bar , it is almost impossible to imagine how Corbyn 's Labour party could have run the country when they could n't even run a professional election campaign .
In an August 2019 memo , Milne wrote that Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeremy and Labour as tired , stale , hopelessly divided , indecisive , toxic and extreme '' .
Set aside `` extreme '' and that 's an accurate self-diagnosis .
Now fully in control of the party machine , Corbyn 's team combined incoherent messaging and an undeliverable manifesto with what Jones calls `` operational collapse '' .
The triumvirate had fallen , with Milne and Murphy demoted and Fisher halfway out the door .
Even Corbyn felt disempowered .
Witnesses to a dinner during the 2019 party conference tell Pogrund and Maguire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't deserve Jeremy .
He did n't even want to do this . ''
Despite all the protestations that Corbynism did n't really exist - only socialism - the left staked a once-in-a-generation opportunity on one man who , at least after 2017 , clearly was n't up to the task .
For the Project , he was both genesis and nemesis .
Even the succession planning was botched , with the inexperienced , overrated Durham MP Laura Pidcock the clear favourite until she lost her seat , and Rebecca Long-Bailey far from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would now be wise to make peace with Starmer in order to defend its most cherished policies but many Corbynites seem as wedded to surly impotence as the most incorrigible Corbynsceptics were , and where are most of them now ?
Not in the House of Commons .
So what is Corbyn 's legacy ?
Despite Jones ' fears in his post-Copeland column , Labour has inched , rather than hurtled , to the right under Starmer .
The new leader 's pledge to retain many of his predecessor 's key positions suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party 's centre of gravity after all .
It 's hard to imagine Labour abetting , say , benefit cuts in the foreseeable future .
While both his opponents in 2015 and the mayfly-like Change UK lacked an inspiring vision , Corbyn did at least believe in something .
But these two books amount to an irresistible argument for the unglamorous virtue of competence , without which all of the wonderful ideas that swirled around the Project were , to the country 's detriment , so much hot air .
This explains both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his extreme pragmatism .
Like McDonnell , who provides Left Out 's melancholy final image , he knows that the finest principles go nowhere without power .
Unlike McDonnell , he 's in the driving seat .
Dorian Lynskey writes about politics and culture for titles including the Guardian , Observer , GQ and New Statesman .
He is the author of 33 Revolutions Per Minute : A History of Protest Songs and The Ministry of Truth : A Biography of George Orwell 's 1984 .
He co-hosts the Remainiacs and Bunker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter here .
Left Out : The Inside Story of Labour Under Corbyn by Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire and This Land : The Story of a Movement by Owen Jones are both currently on sale .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Dorian Lynskey
Left Out: The Inside Story of Labour Under Corbyn by Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire (Bodley Head, £18.99)
This Land: The Story of a Movement by Owen Jones (Allen Lane, £20)
On March 1st 2017, the week after Labour lost the Copeland by-election, Owen Jones published a column in the Guardian with the headline: 'Jeremy Corbyn says he's staying. That's not good enough.' More in sorrow than in anger, Jones voiced what he had been saying in private for months: if Corbyn could not turn the party's fortunes around, he should step down and allow a younger left-wing MP inherit what insiders called 'the Project'.
"If Labour loses the next election a rightwing Tory government, infused with an increasingly xenophobic and authoritarian brand of populism, will have a whopping, unassailable majority," Jones warned. "Corbyn will certainly resign. The left will be blamed for breaking the Labour party. Several leftwing MPs will lose their seats. The remaining MPs will certainly not nominate any candidate on the left. The party will hurtle off to the right."
That scenario was largely correct, but about 2019, not 2017. In the short-term, Corbyn defied received wisdom to lead Labour to 40% of the vote, a swing of historic proportions. The day after that result, Jones wrote a very different column, combining triumphalism with repentance and a dab of blame-shifting: "I wasn't a bit wrong, or slightly wrong, or mostly wrong, but totally wrong. Having one foot in the Labour movement and one in the mainstream media undoubtedly left me more susceptible to their groupthink. Never again." From now on, he would only err in the opposite direction.
Jones was not alone. Corbyn may have lost the election but he won a resounding victory over the media and Corbynsceptic Labour MPs, and he adopted the traditional victor’s attitude towards compromise. Talk of replacing him, whether from critical friends or sworn enemies, died the moment the exit poll came out.
He dismissed advice to tame his doubters by welcoming the more amenable back into the shadow Cabinet and rejected a plan to work on a soft(ish) Brexit deal with a humiliated Theresa May. At Glastonbury, he received a hero's welcome which felt bizarre to me at the time – although I was stuck behind a tree so perhaps I missed the full effect – and now looks like the definition of hubris.
Perhaps it's hindsight talking, but James Schneider, Corbyn’s director of strategic communications, claims to remember worrying about what the coming period of cultural polarisation and parliamentary trench warfare over Brexit would do to the leader's movement politics. "Fucking hell," he said, "we are done for."” The Project's doom was not averted, merely postponed.
Left Out and This Land are fundamentally the same story told from different angles. Though young, Pogrund and Maguire are impartial hacks of the old school (for the Sunday Times and Times respectively), who provide the same ultra-detailed, in-the-room storytelling as Tim Shipman. We learn perhaps too much, for instance, about the catering skills of Change UK's Gavin Shuker. Jones, a left-wing celebrity and lightning rod, was by his own admission both observer and participant: a Guardian columnist so close to the Project from day one that he was offered a job in Corbyn's office.
Perhaps surprisingly, and to the credit of all three authors, their accounts usually concur, often right down to specific sources and anecdotes. That's reassuring, though the story itself is traumatic. "I've never been involved in anything so unpleasant and bitter in my whole life," Corbyn ally Andy McDonald says of the parliamentary Labour party (PLP) meetings following Corbyn's ascent to the leadership. Four years later, Tom Watson was confiding to Peter Mandelson that his job as deputy leader felt like swimming through a "terrible swamp".
While it is hard to square some of Jones' columns at the time with what he clearly knew was happening behind the scenes, his candour is better late than never. Left Out, by opening with the 2017 election result, is all fall and no rise. Jones, on the other hand, starts by whizzing through the left's wilderness years, from the rise of neoliberalism in the late 1970s through the humbling of Tony Benn in 1981 and the triumph of New Labour in 1997, to the unexpected window of opportunity opened by the failure of Ed Miliband's vacillations and the swelling of protest movements such as UK Uncut. Even in his insider account of Corbyn’s 2015 leadership campaign, though, there are ominous signs: John McDonnell advises the candidate not to risk the left being "annihilated". Adviser Cat Smith asks him: "Do you want this?"
Now there's a question neither book can answer. Corbyn was the 200-1 longshot with no leadership experience and, it transpired, no capacity to grow into the role. If he did actually want to be prime minister, then he certainly didn't want to do what it took. The inherent problem with maverick anti-politicians, on both left and right, is that they tend to be bad at politics. Corbyn's myriad weaknesses came to include his strengths: personal loyalty and a distaste for confrontation are admirable in many jobs but not that of a party leader.
"His office was a shambles," a former shadow Cabinet member tells Jones. "And it was a shambles because of his personality: he just doesn't know how to say no." In one of Left Out's most tragicomic scenes, Seumas Milne, Karie Murphy and Andrew Fisher — described by Clive Lewis as Corbyn's "triumvirate" —fight over what exactly he means while the man himself sits there quietly, like a bad riddle.
Even Jones bemoans Corbyn's "mulish" intransigence, sloppiness, peevish impatience with the media, simplistic anti-imperialism and inability to strategise. The extreme hostility that greeted Corbyn in 2015 — from most of the media and the PLP, and a venomous clique of old-guard staffers — fostered a siege mentality that further guaranteed bad decision-making. He had innumerable enemies, for sure, but he gave them so much ammunition. It only got worse. By the summer of 2019, he was passive-aggressive, grumpy and exhausted. Aides feared that he was experiencing a nervous breakdown.
Lest you find Corbyn too pitiable, remember that the one issue on which he took a resolute stand was antisemitism, where his judgement was shamefully poor. When even loyalists were begging him to apologise, his wife Laura Alvarez and a "kitchen cabinet" of Jewish socialists in the safe space of Islington North convinced him to stand firm. He was always good at taking advice from people who agreed with him. In a long chapter on the crisis – a litany of missed opportunities which regrettably omits his own public inconsistencies – Jones reveals that Milne feared that if Labour adopted the IHRA guidelines in full, then Corbyn himself would be disciplined for antisemitism, which says more about Corbyn than it does about the guidelines.
Corbyn's passivity and indecision created a power vacuum which nobody could fill. Almost every key player turns out to have been weaker than was generally assumed. Tom Watson: the arch-plotter? Once one of Gordon Brown's most ruthless lieutenants, his appetite for political skulduggery was shrinking with his weight. The 'coup' of June 2016? A desperate convulsion born of "absolute panic". Seumas Milne, the Stalinist Svengali? A director of strategy and communications who could neither strategise nor communicate. An "absent father" figure, tardy, amateurish and remote. Jones writes damningly of his former mentor at the Guardian. "Not a single person who worked for Corbyn," he says, "is prepared to defend Milne's management abilities."
Even the more capable characters eventually floundered. Senior policy adviser Andrew Fisher was the brains behind the 2017 manifesto but quit during 2019, complaining of a "lack of professionalism, competence and human decency" in Corbyn's team. The force of will that enabled chief of staff Karie Murphy to professionalise the operation also made her an autocratic bully who fell out with Corbyn herself in late 2019 over her absurd attempt to abolish Tom Watson's job. "What I saw happen to her over the years made me think: this is how dictatorships happen," one former aide tells Jones.
The only figure of consistent substance and talent in Corbyn's inner circle was a tragic one. John McDonnell knew that he could have done the job better but also that he would never have been given the chance. Time and again in both books, he makes the right call, tactically and morally — on antisemitism, Brexit, the Salisbury poisonings, the treatment of opponents — only to be shoved to the sidelines. On all of these issues, Corbyn succumbed to the inevitable only after causing himself and his party unnecessary damage. During the summer of 2018, after falling out over disciplinary proceedings against Margaret Hodge – another unforced error – McDonnell barely spoke to the man his wife jokingly called his only friend in Westminster.
Jones, a former McDonnell staffer who calls his old boss "Labour's lost leader", reports that Momentum founder Jon Lansman approached the shadow chancellor, who was already transforming his public image from spiky socialist bruiser into amiable Uncle John, about replacing Corbyn in the spring of 2016 but was sent packing. Given that counterfactuals currently consume at least 50% of Labour Twitter, that's one worth chewing over. McDonnell's question to Tom Baldwin from People's Vote in 2018 is revealing: "Are you people who will help us win power? Or are you people who are going to stop us winning power?" Unlike Corbyn, he explicitly wanted power, because what was the Project worth without it?
Starting the story earlier than Pogrund and Maguire, Jones is strong on Labour's unexpectedly brilliant 2017 campaign (Milne lifted "the many not the few" from bad old Tony Blair) and the origins of Labour's Brexit mess. Remarkably, speechwriter Joss MacDonald admits: "Most people in LOTO [the leader of the opposition's office] did not take [the 2016 referendum] seriously at all. Most thought if we left, it wouldn't really cause us any political difficulties.” (Narrator: It did cause political difficulties.)
Even long after the result, the assumption was that it would hurt the Tories more than Labour. Corbyn himself was agnostic – he talked about Brexit "with the enthusiasm of someone reading a photocopying manual," according to Fisher – which explains both his tone-deaf response to the result and his inability to commit to a coherent stance. He was no longer, as Jones describes the 2015 version, "a plain speaker who stuck to his principles"” but a cynical triangulator with a Brexit position so slippery that Emily Thornberry was reprimanded for talking about membership of the customs union instead of a customs union. If your policy on the biggest issue of the day comes down to the difference between a definite and indefinite article, then it's probably a bad policy.
Jones was a reluctant Remainer who had previously argued for Lexit (a word he claims without pride to have invented) but he is probably right to compare Labour's Brexit quandary to the interactive Black Mirror episode Bandersnatch: every branch on the decision tree would have ended badly. Cultural polarisation wreaked havoc with Labour's coalition of metropolitan liberal Remainers and older smalltown Leavers, although it's worth noting that socially conservative northern voters were already deserting Labour in 2017 and they had many other reasons to distrust a man who couldn't even bring himself to sing the national anthem. It's not as if Brexit broke up an otherwise happy family.
Far from being the arch-Remainer, cunningly manipulating the party towards a second referendum, shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer emerges from both books as a dutiful pragmatist who would have been quite happy to get Brexit done if Corbyn and May could have come to an understanding, and only came around to the enterprise of preventing it at Labour's September 2018 conference.
Whatever the respect-the-vote crew say now, the simple fact is that a majority of Labour MPs, members and voters opposed Brexit and the push for a referendum from constituency Labour parties was a fine example of the party democracy that the Project claimed to champion. Yet Corbyn, instinctively hostile to the cross-party People's Vote campaign, even alienated socialist Remainers such as Michael Chessum of pro-Labour Another Europe Is Possible by accusing them of sabotage and collaboration with Blairites. Brexit created splits within splits, as shadow Cabinet meetings turned into brutal rows between Remainers and Leavers, with party chair Ian Lavery positively feral on the issue. When Corbyn intervened to cool down one clash with Starmer, Lavery apparently told him to "shut the fuck up".
Much though the current incumbents have lowered the bar, it is almost impossible to imagine how Corbyn's Labour party could have run the country when they couldn't even run a professional election campaign. In an August 2019 memo, Milne wrote that Labour's opponents would "seek to portray Jeremy and Labour as tired, stale, hopelessly divided, indecisive, toxic and extreme". Set aside "extreme" and that's an accurate self-diagnosis.
Now fully in control of the party machine, Corbyn's team combined incoherent messaging and an undeliverable manifesto with what Jones calls "operational collapse". The triumvirate had fallen, with Milne and Murphy demoted and Fisher halfway out the door. Even Corbyn felt disempowered. Witnesses to a dinner during the 2019 party conference tell Pogrund and Maguire that Alvarez cried: "You don't deserve Jeremy. He didn't even want to do this."
Despite all the protestations that Corbynism didn't really exist – only socialism – the left staked a once-in-a-generation opportunity on one man who, at least after 2017, clearly wasn't up to the task. For the Project, he was both genesis and nemesis. Even the succession planning was botched, with the inexperienced, overrated Durham MP Laura Pidcock the clear favourite until she lost her seat, and Rebecca Long-Bailey far from being the heir apparent.
The left would now be wise to make peace with Starmer in order to defend its most cherished policies but many Corbynites seem as wedded to surly impotence as the most incorrigible Corbynsceptics were, and where are most of them now? Not in the House of Commons.
So what is Corbyn's legacy? Despite Jones' fears in his post-Copeland column, Labour has inched, rather than hurtled, to the right under Starmer. The new leader's pledge to retain many of his predecessor's key positions suggests that Corbyn did succeed in shifting the party's centre of gravity after all. It's hard to imagine Labour abetting, say, benefit cuts in the foreseeable future. While both his opponents in 2015 and the mayfly-like Change UK lacked an inspiring vision, Corbyn did at least believe in something. But these two books amount to an irresistible argument for the unglamorous virtue of competence, without which all of the wonderful ideas that swirled around the Project were, to the country's detriment, so much hot air.
This explains both Starmer's walloping mandate from the membership and his extreme pragmatism. Like McDonnell, who provides Left Out's melancholy final image, he knows that the finest principles go nowhere without power. Unlike McDonnell, he's in the driving seat.
Dorian Lynskey writes about politics and culture for titles including the Guardian, Observer, GQ and New Statesman. He is the author of 33 Revolutions Per Minute: A History of Protest Songs and The Ministry of Truth: A Biography of George Orwell's 1984. He co-hosts the Remainiacs and Bunker podcasts. You can follow him on Twitter here. Left Out: The Inside Story of Labour Under Corbyn by Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire and This Land: The Story of a Movement by Owen Jones are both currently on sale.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-09-18--Week in Review: A deal is still the most likely outcome

Lots of noise in the Brexit process this week .
The EU and the British team are now operating with abject suspicion of each other .
Boris Johnson invented the threat of a food blockade to justify an assault on the treaty he 'd only just signed .
Tory MPs in the Commons rose one after another to insist that the EU was not negotiating in `` good faith '' .
It all looks terrible .
But a deal is still , even in this context , the most likely outcome .
That 's not to say it 'll happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its European policy and it is liable to make some very foolish decisions indeed .
But the basic incentives have not changed : a deal is still in everyone 's interest .
For the EU , no-deal is a failure .
It is not the kind of failure they want to be associated with .
That does n't mean they 're going to trip over their red lines , but they will likely put this week 's antics into the 'domestic showboating ' category and they will offer compromises - indeed , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deal over the line .
The same must ultimately be true for the UK .
The public will not realistically look at the content of the deal , any more than it paid much attention to the content of the withdrawal agreement .
In the media narrative , events will be simply defined as 'deal good ' and 'no-deal bad ' .
For a government reeling from accusations of incompetence from all sides , no-deal would be a disaster .
If there were really firm issues of Brexit principles at stake , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in truth the divisions here are not unbridgeable .
On fisheries and level playing field provisions on labour and the environment , the eventual landing zone is perfectly visible .
It 's state aid that is the problem .
The EU has - implicitly - backed down from asking for full EU law and European Court of Justice jurisdiction when it asked the UK to provide the details of its envisioned state aid regime .
Now it is up to the UK to provide it .
In reality , all it needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Markets Authority under the same principles operating now .
And why would n't they do that ?
The existing state aid regime is flexible and fair .
During covid , for instance , it has bent with the requirements of the period .
There 's nothing in it stopping Britain from achieving economic success .
Would the government really throw away the chance of a deal for that ?
It seems inconceivable - not on the basis of reason , but on the basis of its own interests .
Anyone on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deal .
There is a temptation to go the other way .
We can all see the story line play out already .
A deal will be used to attack Remainers .
Even though it is a pitiful thing - severing a frictionless relationship with our biggest trading partner in exchange for a series of possible future deals which anyway would never make up for it - it will be projected as a triumph .
It will be treated as proof that the Brexiters knew what they were doing .
Managing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interpreted as negotiating brilliance .
And worst , No.10 will likely try to portray Johnson 's juvenile threats this week as the moment the EU blinked .
None of this will be appetising .
But no-deal would be worse .
The government would take damage for competence , sure , and the Brexit project will have been shown to fail .
But that will come with severe consequences to people 's lives .
And who will Johnson and Dominic Cummings blame ?
Not themselves .
They 'll blame the EU .
Perhaps that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it does ?
Public antipathy towards Europe could grow , amid chaos and significant material decline .
Britain and Europe would have no working relationship to operate from , so they would likely bunker down into a blame game typified by animosity and denunciations .
A deal , on the other hand , even a small deal like this one , offers a springboard for more cooperation , on things like financial services and data .
It provides a framework which can be built on .
It makes it easier , when you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK to rejoin the EU sometime in the future .
No-deal might show why Brexit was so foolish , but it would make reversing it harder .
This might all be wrong .
No.10 behaves in the most unconscionably stupid ways .
It is so beset with unchallenged tribalist sci-fi zeal that it could well sabotage its own political interests for an imaginary long-term economic strategy which it will never achieve .
You should never underestimate their capacity for egregious error .
And talks often create their own momentum , develop their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which can push people towards outcomes they did not intend to pursue .
But taken on the level of incentive , most people - on both sides , across the spectrum - want a deal .
And when incentives align like that , they usually come to fruition .
We should hope they do .
The alternative would be very ugly indeed .
And no amount of vindication will make up for it .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

Lots of noise in the Brexit process this week. The EU and the British team are now operating with abject suspicion of each other. Boris Johnson invented the threat of a food blockade to justify an assault on the treaty he'd only just signed. Tory MPs in the Commons rose one after another to insist that the EU was not negotiating in "good faith". It all looks terrible.
But a deal is still, even in this context, the most likely outcome. That's not to say it'll happen. No.10 is really quite deranged in its European policy and it is liable to make some very foolish decisions indeed. But the basic incentives have not changed: a deal is still in everyone's interest.
For the EU, no-deal is a failure. It is not the kind of failure they want to be associated with. That doesn't mean they're going to trip over their red lines, but they will likely put this week's antics into the 'domestic showboating' category and they will offer compromises – indeed, they already have done – if it gets a deal over the line.
The same must ultimately be true for the UK. The public will not realistically look at the content of the deal, any more than it paid much attention to the content of the withdrawal agreement. In the media narrative, events will be simply defined as 'deal good' and 'no-deal bad'. For a government reeling from accusations of incompetence from all sides, no-deal would be a disaster.
If there were really firm issues of Brexit principles at stake, maybe it would be different. But in truth the divisions here are not unbridgeable. On fisheries and level playing field provisions on labour and the environment, the eventual landing zone is perfectly visible. It's state aid that is the problem. The EU has – implicitly – backed down from asking for full EU law and European Court of Justice jurisdiction when it asked the UK to provide the details of its envisioned state aid regime. Now it is up to the UK to provide it. In reality, all it needs to do is hand it to the Competitions and Markets Authority under the same principles operating now.
And why wouldn't they do that? The existing state aid regime is flexible and fair. During covid, for instance, it has bent with the requirements of the period. There's nothing in it stopping Britain from achieving economic success. Would the government really throw away the chance of a deal for that? It seems inconceivable – not on the basis of reason, but on the basis of its own interests.
Anyone on the Remain side of the debate should want a deal. There is a temptation to go the other way. We can all see the story line play out already. A deal will be used to attack Remainers. Even though it is a pitiful thing – severing a frictionless relationship with our biggest trading partner in exchange for a series of possible future deals which anyway would never make up for it – it will be projected as a triumph. It will be treated as proof that the Brexiters knew what they were doing. Managing a cheap, highly unambitious deal will be interpreted as negotiating brilliance. And worst, No.10 will likely try to portray Johnson's juvenile threats this week as the moment the EU blinked.
None of this will be appetising. But no-deal would be worse. The government would take damage for competence, sure, and the Brexit project will have been shown to fail. But that will come with severe consequences to people's lives. And who will Johnson and Dominic Cummings blame? Not themselves. They'll blame the EU.
Perhaps that won't work. But what if it does? Public antipathy towards Europe could grow, amid chaos and significant material decline. Britain and Europe would have no working relationship to operate from, so they would likely bunker down into a blame game typified by animosity and denunciations.
A deal, on the other hand, even a small deal like this one, offers a springboard for more cooperation, on things like financial services and data. It provides a framework which can be built on. It makes it easier, when you really get down to it, for the UK to rejoin the EU sometime in the future. No-deal might show why Brexit was so foolish, but it would make reversing it harder.
This might all be wrong. No.10 behaves in the most unconscionably stupid ways. It is so beset with unchallenged tribalist sci-fi zeal that it could well sabotage its own political interests for an imaginary long-term economic strategy which it will never achieve. You should never underestimate their capacity for egregious error. And talks often create their own momentum, develop their own narrative of betrayal and counter-betrayal, which can push people towards outcomes they did not intend to pursue.
But taken on the level of incentive, most people – on both sides, across the spectrum – want a deal. And when incentives align like that, they usually come to fruition. We should hope they do. The alternative would be very ugly indeed. And no amount of vindication will make up for it.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-09-21--Crimes against mingling: Government covid response reaches new height of absurdity

What is the point of laws ?
Seriously .
It seems a ridiculous question until you actually ask it .
Obviously laws are there to protect people and promote public welfare .
They uphold standards of behaviour which enable stability and good governance .
They delimit a common set of fair , reasonable and proportionate rules which can be duly enforced with public consent .
Except when they do n't .
The new coronavirus restrictions for England , published - in all seriousness - 20 minutes before they became law , invent an entirely new crime : mingling .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mingling with any person who is participating in the gathering but is not a member of the same qualifying group as them '' .
If this seems unclear , you are not alone .
The government itself does not understand the new law .
When Priti Patel went on Radio 4 to explain it , she declared that two families stopping to chat on the way to the park was `` absolutely mingling '' and therefore , quite literally , now a crime .
This was not just absolutism .
Farcically , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the barrister Adam Wagner explained , the mingling law relates to people already at a gathering , not those who accidentally encounter each other when not at one .
It was no doubt unreasonable to expect the author of the legislation to know what it actually was .
But of course the home secretary 's confusion simply reinforced how absurd the law was to begin with .
Nobody has made it clear why any form of mingling should be illegal .
Social interaction has been one of the lifelines of this crisis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distanced people are made safer by ignoring one another instead of engaging in some conversation .
But mingling is only one element of the stupidity .
For months we have known that it is much safer to be outdoors than indoors .
And yet , under the Rule of Six , they are to be treated as equally dangerous .
A park , unlike a living room , can safely host hundreds of people .
Now , for some reason , it is illegal to know more than five of them .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even babies in the Rule of Six - something which does n't apply in Scotland .
That blocks many families from legally meeting even one other person .
Meanwhile , the government makes exceptions for grouse-shooting parties .
But of course it 's not just the cruelty or hypocrisy , but also the directly contradictory policy-making .
The government has effectively bribed people to eat in restaurants and forced them back to offices , but if you 're a couple with three kids and a new baby you ca n't chat in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We should n't expect laws to be perfect , but should expect a basic glimmer of consistency .
We recognise there must be anomalies , because some situations will require either blanket restrictions or exceptions .
For this reason we will wear a face covering on an empty train but not in a crowded pub .
The alternative would be to let the entire hospitality industry sink .
But this implicit admission of conflicting interests , and the need for sensible judgement , must apply to other areas too .
We know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every specific nuance of an activity or encounter , and that 's why it should n't try to .
The key here is clarity .
Of course people need to know what they are advised – and allowed – to do .
But that means not making unenforceable or preposterous laws .
It 's not just helpful for the government to take people with it : it 's absolutely essential .
We do not exist to serve laws , laws exist to serve us .
If a new rule is met with outright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not follow it .
That makes the law useless and the people enforcing it ridiculous .
But it 's also highly damaging .
The full rejection of pragmatism and exposure of stupidity compromises the foundations of a legal system .
When people lose respect for individual laws , others may follow .
And yet this is not just about principle .
It 's about a real and impending crisis .
As we inch closer to a second wave , everything – literally – depends on public goodwill .
The government needs the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It needs them to self-isolate .
It needs them , apparently , to denounce their neighbours .
But in return the people need something too : confidence .
They need to trust the laws and trust the government is doing all it can .
They need to know ministers are looking out for public health and the NHS , not special interests and polling data .
Most pressingly of all , they need the reassurance of testing as soon as they develop symptoms , so they can get on with their lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The government is failing on every single count .
But , of course , the government has shown us that we do n't especially need to follow these laws anyway .
Whether it 's eye tests in Barnard Castle or breaches of the Northern Ireland Protocol , Downing Street has set the example and the public will presumably follow it .
Doubtless , when the second wave hits , it will be easy to lay the blame at people illegally mingling .
Perhaps we will even forget Boris Johnson 's promise , back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curb the tide within 12 weeks '' and `` send coronavirus packing '' .
The government 's total , ongoing , shambling chaos has not only threatened to compromise public goodwill but to eliminate it altogether .
Of course , these new rules are an effort to protect the population .
But they are also an effort to protect Downing Street 's power .
It is easy to identify the purpose of laws .
It is much harder to identify the purpose of the government .
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political writer and commentator .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

What is the point of laws? Seriously. It seems a ridiculous question until you actually ask it. Obviously laws are there to protect people and promote public welfare. They uphold standards of behaviour which enable stability and good governance. They delimit a common set of fair, reasonable and proportionate rules which can be duly enforced with public consent. Except when they don’t.
The new coronavirus restrictions for England, published – in all seriousness – 20 minutes before they became law, invent an entirely new crime: mingling. The provisions forbid people at gatherings from “mingling with any person who is participating in the gathering but is not a member of the same qualifying group as them”.
If this seems unclear, you are not alone. The government itself does not understand the new law. When Priti Patel went on Radio 4 to explain it, she declared that two families stopping to chat on the way to the park was “absolutely mingling” and therefore, quite literally, now a crime. This was not just absolutism. Farcically, it also appeared to be incorrect. As the barrister Adam Wagner explained, the mingling law relates to people already at a gathering, not those who accidentally encounter each other when not at one. It was no doubt unreasonable to expect the author of the legislation to know what it actually was.
But of course the home secretary’s confusion simply reinforced how absurd the law was to begin with. Nobody has made it clear why any form of mingling should be illegal. Social interaction has been one of the lifelines of this crisis, and it is not apparent why socially distanced people are made safer by ignoring one another instead of engaging in some conversation.
But mingling is only one element of the stupidity. For months we have known that it is much safer to be outdoors than indoors. And yet, under the Rule of Six, they are to be treated as equally dangerous. A park, unlike a living room, can safely host hundreds of people. Now, for some reason, it is illegal to know more than five of them.
Then there is the arbitrariness of including children and even babies in the Rule of Six – something which doesn’t apply in Scotland. That blocks many families from legally meeting even one other person. Meanwhile, the government makes exceptions for grouse-shooting parties. But of course it’s not just the cruelty or hypocrisy, but also the directly contradictory policy-making. The government has effectively bribed people to eat in restaurants and forced them back to offices, but if you’re a couple with three kids and a new baby you can’t chat in the park with another human being. We shouldn’t expect laws to be perfect, but should expect a basic glimmer of consistency.
We recognise there must be anomalies, because some situations will require either blanket restrictions or exceptions. For this reason we will wear a face covering on an empty train but not in a crowded pub. The alternative would be to let the entire hospitality industry sink. But this implicit admission of conflicting interests, and the need for sensible judgement, must apply to other areas too. We know that the law cannot anticipate and police every specific nuance of an activity or encounter, and that’s why it shouldn’t try to.
The key here is clarity. Of course people need to know what they are advised – and allowed – to do. But that means not making unenforceable or preposterous laws.
It’s not just helpful for the government to take people with it: it’s absolutely essential. We do not exist to serve laws, laws exist to serve us. If a new rule is met with outright incredulity, laughter or contempt, people will not follow it. That makes the law useless and the people enforcing it ridiculous. But it’s also highly damaging. The full rejection of pragmatism and exposure of stupidity compromises the foundations of a legal system. When people lose respect for individual laws, others may follow.
And yet this is not just about principle. It’s about a real and impending crisis. As we inch closer to a second wave, everything – literally – depends on public goodwill. The government needs the public to understand and obey the rules. It needs them to self-isolate. It needs them, apparently, to denounce their neighbours.
But in return the people need something too: confidence. They need to trust the laws and trust the government is doing all it can. They need to know ministers are looking out for public health and the NHS, not special interests and polling data. Most pressingly of all, they need the reassurance of testing as soon as they develop symptoms, so they can get on with their lives quickly and protect those around them. The government is failing on every single count.
But, of course, the government has shown us that we don’t especially need to follow these laws anyway. Whether it’s eye tests in Barnard Castle or breaches of the Northern Ireland Protocol, Downing Street has set the example and the public will presumably follow it. Doubtless, when the second wave hits, it will be easy to lay the blame at people illegally mingling. Perhaps we will even forget Boris Johnson’s promise, back in March, that we would “curb the tide within 12 weeks” and “send coronavirus packing”.
The government’s total, ongoing, shambling chaos has not only threatened to compromise public goodwill but to eliminate it altogether. Of course, these new rules are an effort to protect the population. But they are also an effort to protect Downing Street’s power. It is easy to identify the purpose of laws. It is much harder to identify the purpose of the government.
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-09-22--Labour conference: Starmer breaks decisively with Corbyn

Until now it had been all show-don't-tell .
Keir Starmer 's style of leadership was an implicit rebuke to Jeremy Corbyn .
He focused on competence above all other qualities - the precise element whose absence arguably did the most damage under the former regime .
He mercilessly dropped front-benchers for anti-semitism , as opposed to Corbyn 's tortured , endless prevarications .
But under this speech , that message became explicit .
Starmer laid out a series of values which could fit neatly with the Labour left - addressing structural racism and inequality and fixing social care .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he argued , it was all meaningless .
`` I can see in my mind 's eye the country I want us to be , '' he said .
`` I can see it .
I can describe it .
But it 's all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people .
We 've got a long road ahead of us .
It starts with being a credible opposition . ''
The Labour leader was also able to aim that criticism at the current prime minister .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' he said .
`` And I think we 've learnt a lot about this prime minister .
Tory backbenchers know it .
His Cabinet knows it .
We all know it .
He 's just not serious .
He 's just not up to the job . ''
It 's a strong line , that one - 'just not up to the job ' - one which rings true and you can imagine being said down the pub .
It came packaged with a pretty severe threat which signalled an escalation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` There should be nothing inevitable about a second lockdown , '' Starmer said .
`` It would be a sign of government failure , not an act of God . ''
It seems that if there is another lockdown , the Labour leader will treat it as proof of No.10 's incompetence and use that as the basis for ongoing criticism of its performance .
Starmer 's argument for competence was aimed at the Corbyn leadership and the Johnson administration in equal measure .
But his overall message for why competence mattered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was directed at the Red Wall seats which turned blue in 2019 , urging them to reaffirm their faith in the party .
`` So to those people in Doncaster and Deeside , in Glasgow and Grimsby , in Stoke and in Stevenage , to those who have turned away from Labour , I say this : we hear you .
Never again will Labour take you or the things you care about for granted .
And I ask you : Take another look at Labour .
We 're under new leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do . ''
That message , in and of itself , was about competence too .
Because the simple fact is that Labour can not win an election without being seen as patriotic .
This should n't need saying - that you need to clearly like the country you wish to run .
But it was beyond the capabilities of the former leadership .
That carries an implication which goes beyond Labour 's fortunes to that of the liberal-left in general - here and across the West .
Progressive values must be packaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not - if those politics become unmoored from love of country - then you have created the battle-lines in a culture war which you can not win and anyway should not want to fight .
These ideas are entirely compatible .
Unless that is recognised , the defeats will keep on coming .
This speech is n't going to break through .
It had to be delivered virtually , which reduces impact and press coverage .
It is competing for news attention when all eyes are on the new covid restrictions the prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was a firm confirmation of all the things which had until this point been implicit under Starmer : Competence as the guiding principle , a firm break with Corbyn , and an appeal to patriotic sentiment .
It is entirely the right approach .
But as Starmer himself said , it 's a long and tough road , given where Labour finds itself .
Coming up with the right plan is just the start .
Now it has to be delivered .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is out now .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

Until now it had been all show-don’t-tell. Keir Starmer’s style of leadership was an implicit rebuke to Jeremy Corbyn. He focused on competence above all other qualities – the precise element whose absence arguably did the most damage under the former regime. He mercilessly dropped front-benchers for anti-semitism, as opposed to Corbyn’s tortured, endless prevarications. But under this speech, that message became explicit.
Starmer laid out a series of values which could fit neatly with the Labour left – addressing structural racism and inequality and fixing social care. But unless the party made itself electable, he argued, it was all meaningless. “I can see in my mind’s eye the country I want us to be,” he said. “I can see it. I can describe it. But it’s all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people. We’ve got a long road ahead of us. It starts with being a credible opposition.”
The Labour leader was also able to aim that criticism at the current prime minister. “A crisis reveals character like nothing else,” he said. “And I think we’ve learnt a lot about this prime minister. Tory backbenchers know it. His Cabinet knows it. We all know it. He’s just not serious. He’s just not up to the job.”
It’s a strong line, that one – ‘just not up to the job’ – one which rings true and you can imagine being said down the pub. It came packaged with a pretty severe threat which signalled an escalation in Labour’s response to covid. “There should be nothing inevitable about a second lockdown,” Starmer said. “It would be a sign of government failure, not an act of God.” It seems that if there is another lockdown, the Labour leader will treat it as proof of No.10’s incompetence and use that as the basis for ongoing criticism of its performance.
Starmer’s argument for competence was aimed at the Corbyn leadership and the Johnson administration in equal measure. But his overall message for why competence mattered was framed in patriotic language. And that was directed at the Red Wall seats which turned blue in 2019, urging them to reaffirm their faith in the party.
“So to those people in Doncaster and Deeside, in Glasgow and Grimsby, in Stoke and in Stevenage, to those who have turned away from Labour, I say this: we hear you. Never again will Labour take you or the things you care about for granted. And I ask you: Take another look at Labour. We’re under new leadership. We love this country as you do.”
That message, in and of itself, was about competence too. Because the simple fact is that Labour cannot win an election without being seen as patriotic. This shouldn’t need saying – that you need to clearly like the country you wish to run. But it was beyond the capabilities of the former leadership.
That carries an implication which goes beyond Labour’s fortunes to that of the liberal-left in general – here and across the West. Progressive values must be packaged in patriotic sentiment. If they’re not – if those politics become unmoored from love of country – then you have created the battle-lines in a culture war which you cannot win and anyway should not want to fight. These ideas are entirely compatible. Unless that is recognised, the defeats will keep on coming.
This speech isn’t going to break through. It had to be delivered virtually, which reduces impact and press coverage. It is competing for news attention when all eyes are on the new covid restrictions the prime minister will announce later today. But it was a firm confirmation of all the things which had until this point been implicit under Starmer: Competence as the guiding principle, a firm break with Corbyn, and an appeal to patriotic sentiment.
It is entirely the right approach. But as Starmer himself said, it’s a long and tough road, given where Labour finds itself. Coming up with the right plan is just the start. Now it has to be delivered.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-09-22--Deliver for the Midlands by connecting it with HS2

As we come together for a virtual Labour conference , we have a welcome opportunity to pay tribute to the tireless work of Labour campaigners and activists who - day in and day out - are straining every sinew to deliver for their communities .
In the East Midlands , our combined efforts on developing and securing investment and working to scope out projects leave our area on the cusp of a transport revolution .
At its heart is the need to redress historic underinvestment in our region .
The East Midlands currently has the lowest transport spend per head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , 49 % below the UK average ( £483 ) and less than a quarter of that allocated in London ( £1,019 ) .
If the East Midlands was funded in line with the UK average , it would receive £1bn extra to spend on transport each year .
Our Labour councils and councillors are in the vanguard of this work and we are working with Midlands Connect , the strategic transport body for the Midlands , which has developed a rail scheme with its partners that will deliver a real step-change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We want to guarantee fast , frequent connections to the HS2 East Midlands Hub station at Toton .
This work promises to spearhead the region 's economic renewal post-covid and will accelerate the benefits of HS2 .
Our plan – published by a group of councils , Midlands Connect and East Midlands Airport - includes new and improved rail , bus and tram networks and enhanced road infrastructure .
Under the proposals , more than 20 villages , towns and cities across the East Midlands will have direct access to the HS2 station @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Newark , Matlock , Mansfield and Long Eaton .
The vision is split into three phases , with the first earmarked for completion by 2030 , to stimulate development well before the first HS2 trains arrive in the East Midlands .
These improvements are fully integrated with the work of the East Midlands Development Corporation , which the government has supported to deliver 84,000 highly-skilled jobs and 4,500 homes at key growth sites close to the HS2 station at Toton , including East Midlands Airport , Chetwynd Barracks and Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong case for HS2 trains to serve Leicester and Nottingham city centres .
It 's a game changing plan that maximises the benefits of the high speed line to the Midlands .
The proposals would see high speed trains directly connect the city centres of Leicester , Leeds , Birmingham and Nottingham via the East Midlands Hub station at Toton .
Under the plans , high speed trains would utilise both HS2 and the existing Midland Main Line , more than halving journey times and boosting the economy by an estimated £1.4 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest cities closer than ever before has huge implications for businesses looking to reach new markets , employees seeking out new job opportunities and individuals keen to explore new leisure and cultural experiences .
All this means that when people think transport , they are starting to think about the Midlands and that 's something we can be proud of .
Labour councillors are at the heart of this work and I and my colleagues in Parliament are committed to doing all we can to push the Midlands Connect agenda forwards - to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the communities we are proud to serve .
Lilian Greenwood is the Labour MP for Nottingham South .
You can follow her on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Lilian Greenwood
As we come together for a virtual Labour conference, we have a welcome opportunity to pay tribute to the tireless work of Labour campaigners and activists who – day in and day out – are straining every sinew to deliver for their communities.
In the East Midlands, our combined efforts on developing and securing investment and working to scope out projects leave our area on the cusp of a transport revolution. At its heart is the need to redress historic underinvestment in our region. The East Midlands currently has the lowest transport spend per head of anywhere in the UK (£245), 49% below the UK average (£483) and less than a quarter of that allocated in London (£1,019). If the East Midlands was funded in line with the UK average, it would receive £1bn extra to spend on transport each year.
Our Labour councils and councillors are in the vanguard of this work and we are working with Midlands Connect, the strategic transport body for the Midlands, which has developed a rail scheme with its partners that will deliver a real step-change in rail connectivity in the region.
We want to guarantee fast, frequent connections to the HS2 East Midlands Hub station at Toton. This work promises to spearhead the region's economic renewal post-covid and will accelerate the benefits of HS2.
Our plan – published by a group of councils, Midlands Connect and East Midlands Airport – includes new and improved rail, bus and tram networks and enhanced road infrastructure. Under the proposals, more than 20 villages, towns and cities across the East Midlands will have direct access to the HS2 station, including Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Newark, Matlock, Mansfield and Long Eaton.
The vision is split into three phases, with the first earmarked for completion by 2030, to stimulate development well before the first HS2 trains arrive in the East Midlands. These improvements are fully integrated with the work of the East Midlands Development Corporation, which the government has supported to deliver 84,000 highly-skilled jobs and 4,500 homes at key growth sites close to the HS2 station at Toton, including East Midlands Airport, Chetwynd Barracks and Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station.
Midlands Connect have also submitted a strong case for HS2 trains to serve Leicester and Nottingham city centres. It's a game changing plan that maximises the benefits of the high speed line to the Midlands. The proposals would see high speed trains directly connect the city centres of Leicester, Leeds, Birmingham and Nottingham via the East Midlands Hub station at Toton.
Under the plans, high speed trains would utilise both HS2 and the existing Midland Main Line, more than halving journey times and boosting the economy by an estimated £1.4 billion. Bringing some of the country's biggest cities closer than ever before has huge implications for businesses looking to reach new markets, employees seeking out new job opportunities and individuals keen to explore new leisure and cultural experiences.
All this means that when people think transport, they are starting to think about the Midlands and that's something we can be proud of. Labour councillors are at the heart of this work and I and my colleagues in Parliament are committed to doing all we can to push the Midlands Connect agenda forwards – to make the Midlands further connected and deliver for the communities we are proud to serve.
Lilian Greenwood is the Labour MP for Nottingham South. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-09-23--TikTok deal: Now China and the US can breach users' privacy

Following months of threats against TikTok , the Trump administration has given the go-ahead to a deal that will put US users ' data at risk of snooping - not only from ByteDance , but also from US companies and the US government .
It 's another loss for consumer privacy in the United States .
The deal agreed to in principle by Trump will result in the creation of a new company called TikTok Global , which would be headquartered in America .
According to ByteDance , the new international TikTok subsidiary will be 20 % controlled by US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the latter of which would become a commercial partner able to advertise to US consumers on the platform .
Following the deal , US TikTok data would be housed exclusively on Oracle cloud servers within America .
As a result , US government agencies would be able to access American users ' data by leveraging warrants and gag orders .
The deal raises new privacy concerns for users – concerns that could potentially affect international TikTok users .
It was previously claimed that TikTok Global would be setup to control the data of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ users as well , which theoretically means that the US government can snoop on those countries ' users too .
On this , we have yet to receive clarity regarding the Oracle deal .
The TikTok shake-up is being touted as a win for US national security because it would permit US-based experts to audit TikTok 's source code and algorithms .
However , even with those audits undertaken , it seems like it could be hard to conclusively ascertain whether the versions of the TikTok USA apps published to app stores by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to China .
After all , despite Trump 's claims , ByteDance has made it clear that the deal would leave the Chinese company as the majority stakeholder in TikTok Global .
As a result it would still own and control its apps , and any data that it collects via its platform .
To this end , ByteDance will not be transferring any ownership of its source code or algorithms to US companies .
This means that ByteDance will still be able to exploit consumer data for marketing purposes , it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is stored on Oracle ’ s servers , and it could still potentially alter its apps after they have been checked for backdoors .
These concerns have also been expressed by Senator Marco Rubio , who is wary that the deal fails to adequately rectify the national security threats posed by TikTok .
This risk is compounded by the fact that - because it remains majority controlled by a Chinese company – TikTok Global is technically legally compelled to comply with China 's National Intelligence Law .
As a result , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collected for US TikTok users ultimately ends up , the deal simply serves to expand the amount of data surveillance those users are exposed to – including US companies and its own intelligence community .
Hardly the win for privacy and security that the Trump administration would like voters to believe it is .
Unfortunately , this is the kind of outcome data privacy advocates expected .
The US government has proven itself to have no real interest in protecting people ’ s data and privacy .
Instead , it is far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with China – by getting its fingers in the TikTok pot for US companies like Oracle .
It now stands to gain a massive new customer to prop up its ailing cloud storage business .
For US citizens the outcome is lackluster , and the potential effect on international TikTok users is troubling , to say the least .
With the deal in place , TikTok will continue to be a massive threat to consumer privacy , and , even if the app can be prevented from exfiltrating data back to China , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working behind the scenes to harvest everything .
In the meantime , despite all the rhetoric , what US citizens really need is a strong Federal-level privacy bill that restricts the amount of data that companies are legally permitted to harvest in the first place , and what that data can be used for .
Unfortunately , with US intelligence keen to take as much data as possible , this is the part of the puzzle that seems permanently out of reach .
Ray Walsh is a digital privacy expert for ProPrivacy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Ray Walsh
Following months of threats against TikTok, the Trump administration has given the go-ahead to a deal that will put US users' data at risk of snooping – not only from ByteDance, but also from US companies and the US government. It's another loss for consumer privacy in the United States.
The deal agreed to in principle by Trump will result in the creation of a new company called TikTok Global, which would be headquartered in America. According to ByteDance, the new international TikTok subsidiary will be 20% controlled by US interests – specifically Oracle and Walmart – the latter of which would become a commercial partner able to advertise to US consumers on the platform.
Following the deal, US TikTok data would be housed exclusively on Oracle cloud servers within America. As a result, US government agencies would be able to access American users' data by leveraging warrants and gag orders.
The deal raises new privacy concerns for users – concerns that could potentially affect international TikTok users. It was previously claimed that TikTok Global would be setup to control the data of Canadian, Australian and New Zealand TikTok users as well, which theoretically means that the US government can snoop on those countries' users too. On this, we have yet to receive clarity regarding the Oracle deal.
The TikTok shake-up is being touted as a win for US national security because it would permit US-based experts to audit TikTok's source code and algorithms. However, even with those audits undertaken, it seems like it could be hard to conclusively ascertain whether the versions of the TikTok USA apps published to app stores by ByteDance were not still exfiltrating data back to China.
After all, despite Trump's claims, ByteDance has made it clear that the deal would leave the Chinese company as the majority stakeholder in TikTok Global. As a result it would still own and control its apps, and any data that it collects via its platform. To this end, ByteDance will not be transferring any ownership of its source code or algorithms to US companies.
This means that ByteDance will still be able to exploit consumer data for marketing purposes, it will still have access to the data that is stored on Oracle’s servers, and it could still potentially alter its apps after they have been checked for backdoors.
These concerns have also been expressed by Senator Marco Rubio, who is wary that the deal fails to adequately rectify the national security threats posed by TikTok. This risk is compounded by the fact that – because it remains majority controlled by a Chinese company – TikTok Global is technically legally compelled to comply with China's National Intelligence Law.
As a result, it would seem that rather than limiting where data collected for US TikTok users ultimately ends up, the deal simply serves to expand the amount of data surveillance those users are exposed to – including US companies and its own intelligence community. Hardly the win for privacy and security that the Trump administration would like voters to believe it is.
Unfortunately, this is the kind of outcome data privacy advocates expected. The US government has proven itself to have no real interest in protecting people’s data and privacy. Instead, it is far more concerned with engaging in a trade war with China – by getting its fingers in the TikTok pot for US companies like Oracle. It now stands to gain a massive new customer to prop up its ailing cloud storage business.
For US citizens the outcome is lackluster, and the potential effect on international TikTok users is troubling, to say the least. With the deal in place, TikTok will continue to be a massive threat to consumer privacy, and, even if the app can be prevented from exfiltrating data back to China, consumers will have a new data predator working behind the scenes to harvest everything.
In the meantime, despite all the rhetoric, what US citizens really need is a strong Federal-level privacy bill that restricts the amount of data that companies are legally permitted to harvest in the first place, and what that data can be used for. Unfortunately, with US intelligence keen to take as much data as possible, this is the part of the puzzle that seems permanently out of reach.
Ray Walsh is a digital privacy expert for ProPrivacy. You can follow the group on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-09-24--Europe is illegally forcing refugees away from its borders

The EU 's long-awaited New Pact on Migration is out .
Rather than inspiring any shimmer of hope for a more humane approach to asylum and migration , it promises to further toughen Europe 's migration policy .
There is a strong focus on collaboration between member states on the return of people who have been refused protection or asylum , which will be accompanied by a new role within the Commission for an EU coordinator for returns .
A strengthened border control protocol is on the cards , to ensure `` full checking '' of everyone who enters the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a culture of state 'pushbacks ' - the illegal forcing back of people crossing borders , including vulnerable groups claiming refugee status or other forms of international protection .
It 's within this context that civil society groups across Europe have come together to launch a new cross-European partnership against illegal pushbacks at Europe 's internal and external borders , on land and sea .
The End Pushbacks Partnership , consisting of ten organisations monitoring pushbacks and advocating against border violence across Europe , is demanding accountability as part of the New Pact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to play a more decisive role in holding member states to account if they resort to unlawfully pushing individuals back when crossing borders in search for protection .
The evidence that illegal and violent pushbacks are occurring at the EU 's borders is abundant .
It ranges from witness accounts to images , videos , NGO and civil society reports , active inquiries , investigations and case law .
Yet the violations continue , ever more frequently , visibly and violently .
In Greece , pushbacks at sea have not ceased .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coast of Lesvos was recorded .
The Hellenic Coast Guard refused the rescue of 34 people despite distress calls .
One-hundred-and-fifty-nine people were subjected to illegal pushbacks in the span of a week .
Border Violence Monitoring Network 's ( BVMN ) analyses of video footage show involvement of the Hellenic Coast Guard in pushbacks .
A New York Times investigation estimates 1,072 people have been illegally expelled since March .
On the land border to Turkey , Greece will go ahead with plans to extend a cement and barbed-wire fence .
UNHCR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reports and their own recorded data of pushbacks .
Meanwhile , at the Croatian border to Serbia , Asylum Protection Serbia reported pushbacks of 20 people .
The continuing pushbacks across the border to Bosnia are creating a dangerous bottleneck at border towns and a growing humanitarian crisis .
Alarmingly , the Asylum Information Database ( AIDA ) found an increase in pushbacks at both side of borders in more than half the European countries analysed , including Bulgaria , Hungary , Poland , Cyprus , Spain , Turkey , Romania , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as at internal borders with other EU member states .
Pushbacks are an undeniable Europe-wide phenomenon .
They can no longer be ignored .
We now live in a Europe where displaced individuals are forcibly marked with red crosses when they attempt to access EU territory , where individuals in distress at sea are attacked and fired at by EU coast guards in broad daylight , and where people fleeing war torn countries are shot dead when attempting to cross EU borders .
Contrary to the values upon which it was founded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The question is now how the EU will now choose to react to this endemic erosion of its constitutional commitment to human rights .
The End Pushbacks Partnership is sending a clear message to the EU and its member states : pushbacks and human rights violations at borders are unlawful and unacceptable , and must be brought to a halt .
It is time for the European Commission to take a more decisive stance against these violations carried out by member states , and for much stronger accountability mechanisms .
By joining together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to contribute to an end of silence and inaction , and to the beginning of a Europe that truly protects its fundamental values of human rights and human dignity .
Selma Mesic is coordinator of the End Pushbacks Partnership .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Selma Mesic
The EU's long-awaited New Pact on Migration is out. Rather than inspiring any shimmer of hope for a more humane approach to asylum and migration, it promises to further toughen Europe's migration policy.
There is a strong focus on collaboration between member states on the return of people who have been refused protection or asylum, which will be accompanied by a new role within the Commission for an EU coordinator for returns. A strengthened border control protocol is on the cards, to ensure "full checking" of everyone who enters the EU's borders. It will continue a culture of state 'pushbacks' – the illegal forcing back of people crossing borders, including vulnerable groups claiming refugee status or other forms of international protection.
It's within this context that civil society groups across Europe have come together to launch a new cross-European partnership against illegal pushbacks at Europe's internal and external borders, on land and sea. The End Pushbacks Partnership, consisting of ten organisations monitoring pushbacks and advocating against border violence across Europe, is demanding accountability as part of the New Pact. It calls on the European Commission to play a more decisive role in holding member states to account if they resort to unlawfully pushing individuals back when crossing borders in search for protection.
The evidence that illegal and violent pushbacks are occurring at the EU's borders is abundant. It ranges from witness accounts to images, videos, NGO and civil society reports, active inquiries, investigations and case law. Yet the violations continue, ever more frequently, visibly and violently.
In Greece, pushbacks at sea have not ceased. In mid-August, another illegal pushback off the coast of Lesvos was recorded. The Hellenic Coast Guard refused the rescue of 34 people despite distress calls. One-hundred-and-fifty-nine people were subjected to illegal pushbacks in the span of a week. Border Violence Monitoring Network's (BVMN) analyses of video footage show involvement of the Hellenic Coast Guard in pushbacks. A New York Times investigation estimates 1,072 people have been illegally expelled since March.
On the land border to Turkey, Greece will go ahead with plans to extend a cement and barbed-wire fence. UNHCR called on the Greek government to investigate the reports and their own recorded data of pushbacks. Meanwhile, at the Croatian border to Serbia, Asylum Protection Serbia reported pushbacks of 20 people. The continuing pushbacks across the border to Bosnia are creating a dangerous bottleneck at border towns and a growing humanitarian crisis.
Alarmingly, the Asylum Information Database (AIDA) found an increase in pushbacks at both side of borders in more than half the European countries analysed, including Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Cyprus, Spain, Turkey, Romania, Serbia, Greece and Italy, as well as at internal borders with other EU member states.
Pushbacks are an undeniable Europe-wide phenomenon. They can no longer be ignored. We now live in a Europe where displaced individuals are forcibly marked with red crosses when they attempt to access EU territory, where individuals in distress at sea are attacked and fired at by EU coast guards in broad daylight, and where people fleeing war torn countries are shot dead when attempting to cross EU borders. Contrary to the values upon which it was founded, the EU remains largely silent.
The question is now how the EU will now choose to react to this endemic erosion of its constitutional commitment to human rights. The End Pushbacks Partnership is sending a clear message to the EU and its member states: pushbacks and human rights violations at borders are unlawful and unacceptable, and must be brought to a halt. It is time for the European Commission to take a more decisive stance against these violations carried out by member states, and for much stronger accountability mechanisms.
By joining together in solidarity across Europe, we hope to contribute to an end of silence and inaction, and to the beginning of a Europe that truly protects its fundamental values of human rights and human dignity.
Selma Mesic is coordinator of the End Pushbacks Partnership.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.