Corbyn - connecting with the traditional labour vote...

[free spirit]

I believe that the idea behind mementum was that it was aiming to be involved in more grassroots activism

What he needed to do was to begin a dialogue that was one part love in, one part row. The vulnerable and disaffected need to know that Labour is on their side. Unequivocally. That Corbyn may prevent foreign adventures, but my God will he stand on the deck of a carrier and salute our boys if they need it.

That he will put their jobs, their wages, their housing first and have a fucking good row about stuff like racism/immigration that we don't all agree on. That would get respect.

At some point, now or later, you will have to accept Corbyn isn't that person. What depresses me is how evident the failure around the referendum was weeks out and how a lack of communicable political ideas created a vacuum. 1m people on council waiting lists, 350k immigrants per year. An answer Remain couldn't give. That was the time for Corbyn to say to Cameron, 'I will back remain vigorously if you announce massive social housing plans, restrictions on buy to let and a freeze on further social housing sales'. If you don't I tell the world why.

but cameron would have known that he couldn't do that without facing a massive PLP revolt, so it would have been an empty threat from Corbyn.

tbh I think he's played it well in the long run in terms of not being seen as a tory stooge by refusing to share a platform with Cameron nor endorse his campaign wholesale.

 

[Wilf]

to be serious, re your points upthread. You've experience in organising, in 'agitation' and you know the ropes. How many of the momentum members have that learned experience? How does a connect happen with a society as rent and move to new job or live in shared accomadation with strangers etc foster the ability to grow links. You have to walk a mile in another mans shoes and for him to see you doing it right? Or mybe its wearing the same shoes anyway but being able to put down roots and get a community response to things active. I have no answers

Suppose I drift in and out of actually doing it, partly in an anarcho context and partly in an anti-austerity contaext. I've been involved in Teesside solidarity over the last 3 years or so, an uneasy mix of 'protesting' and actual community organising. Also, a clothing bank which we tried to push as a 'free shop', a non-charitable mutual aid thing. It really isn't easy, doing stuff on sanctions for example. No problem at all doing the easy bits - meeting people who are affected, talking, getting people to stand outside a job centre. But getting a viable, self sustaining response, embedded in a community... more difficult. At the same time it is doable and there are people on here with great experience.

Despite all my pronouncing about what the corbynos should be doing, I've only got a superficial sense of what momentum does. However, what I have seen seems very party focused. Suppose the bee in my bonnet is that they and their bennite forebears don't see the thing as being about community roots. As butchers says, it's activism.

 

[Rob Ray]

to be serious, re your points upthread. You've experience in organising, in 'agitation' and you know the ropes. How many of the momentum members have that learned experience? How does a connect happen with a society as rent and move to new job or live in shared accomadation with strangers etc foster the ability to grow links.

I think there's a tendency to be a bit down on younger Momentum activists (older ones are often discounted, somehow) because they don't know owt or seem prominent, but surely all of us have been in that position at one time or another. Hell I'd go so far as to say most of us still are, it's not like we've collectively built a massive social movement where they haven't. For all the experience in organising that older activists have it's not like we can claim many big wins from the last 40 years.

I'm tempted to cut them some slack, most likely as with any big intake of enthusiastic newbies some of them will turn out gold, some shit, and most somewhere inbetween. What might be important from the perspective of wanting more of the former than the latter would be encouraging better practice and ways to be useful outside party politics.

 

[Wilf]

I'm tempted to cut them some slack, most likely as with any big intake of enthusiastic newbies some of them will turn out gold, some shit, and most somewhere inbetween.

I probably should too. I remember there was a criticism of the labour left in the 80s as 'resolutionaries'. Don't think that's quite as true now, there's a better understanding of people's lives and all that. It's just that as a project corbynism doesn't seem to be thinking about real 'connections' and how that might work beyond the structures of the labour movement.

 

[free spirit]

Despite all my pronouncing about what the corbynos should be doing, I've only got a superficial sense of what momentum does. However, what I have seen seems very party focused. Suppose the bee in my bonnet is that they and their bennite forebears don't see the thing as being about community roots. As butchers says, it's activism.

If I remember right, one of the main initial aims of momentum was to do just that, to organise grassroots initiatives and projects in conjunction with unions.

But they only had a few months of setting the organisation up prior to launching into activity around the council elections then the referendum, as well as continually having to fight rear guard actions to support corbyn.

it's a bit too early to judge whether they're getting anywhere with this approach or not really.

 

[Rob Ray]

It's just that as a project corbynism doesn't seem to be thinking about real 'connections' and how that might work beyond the structures of the labour movement.

Yeah I've certainly not heard much on that score either. On the other hand I'm not Labour, let alone Momentum, so have no idea what their internal musings are like. Anyone Urbanites connected in those spheres?

 

[no-no]

Turning to track 2 of my broken record... that's interesting. Corbyn's comments on immigration in the ref were just what people 'like me' instinctively wanted to hear (traditional, middle class lefties). However they didn't come out of conversations with working class voters or working class experiences.

I'm not by that suggesting anything like there's a well of working class racism that corbyn needs to embrace. He/Labour needs a better position on migration, shaped by the notion we are currently living with a bosses model of free movement. It should have been easy to enter into that debate and the way in was by understanding working class experiences of globalisation and de-industrialisation.

What would a workers model of free movement look like? Restrictions in certain trades? certain areas?

 

[Wilf]

What would a workers model of free movement look like? Restrictions in certain trades? certain areas?

As an actual policy, to put before voters at an election, I don't know (and despite doing about 200 posts on the labour party in the last couple of days, I'm not actually in it). In some ways, this will be shaped by which version of brexit wins out in the tory party - and labour will need to respond. For me, the starting point of that response is what's important. You have to recognise that working class concerns about migration, jobs and services are not inherently racist and also that liberal calls for 'open borders' are irrelevant. Think about migration as a process of labour supply that has been shaped by neo-liberalism, causing division. Most of all, combat that division with solidarity, try and get migrants in a union and all that. Also, kick the fuck out of the edl, literally and metaphorically. When it comes to battles over services, jobs and resources, fight back against the real people who have denied those things and dominated our society, the ruling class.

Sorry, rambling, a mixture of medication and real depression as to where we've ended up.

 

[Rob Ray]

What would a workers model of free movement look like?

Ask the small questions, why don't you. How does the working class reconstitute the leverage provided by collectively-restricted labour in an era of not only vast and expanding labour reserves, but also the rise of modern globalised logistics and fast-advancing automation at levels which could wipe out millions more jobs? If the answer is "save the Labour Party vote" I'll be surprised.

 

[no-no]

There are a lot of liberals who believe opposition to free movement equals racism. Whenever I've broached the subject with friends I get the raised eyebrow. It does seem to be getting talked about since brexit which can only be a good thing.

How can it be a good idea to abandon our working classes, strengthening the right all for the benefit of working abroad. If there is such a right, your right to expect to find gainful employment in the area your family live should trump your own right to work abroad.

 

[no-no]

Ask the small questions, why don't you. How does the working class reconstitute the leverage provided by collectively-restricted labour in an era of not only vast and expanding labour reserves, but also the rise of modern globalised logistics and fast-advancing automation at levels which could wipe out millions more jobs? If the answer is "save the Labour Party vote" I'll be surprised.

So, if we were to protect our workers, the EU and the rest of the world would continue as per usual....and who's going to move their business here if labour is more expensive? and how are we to compete without imported labour? I don't pretend to know much about this, it's part of the reason I like reading threads on urban....Since we spend a huge proportion of our wages on energy and rent/mortgage....renationalising the energy firms and a huge house building splurge might be a way to keep wages competitive.

 

[free spirit]

There are a lot of liberals who believe opposition to free movement equals racism. Whenever I've broached the subject with friends I get the raised eyebrow. It does seem to be getting talked about since brexit which can only be a good thing.

How can it be a good idea to abandon our working classes, strengthening the right all for the benefit of working abroad. If there is such a right, your right to expect to find gainful employment in the area your family live should trump your own right to work abroad.

what are your thoughts on the agency workers directive and the swedish derogation, which the UK opted to include in UK law that gives businesses a way around the legislations intent of stopping foreign agency workers being used to undermine local pay and conditions?

To me, removing that loophole from UK law would have solved a good proportion of the issues, such as those that led to the wildcat strikes in Lindsey and elsewhere across Yorks & Humberside electrical contractors a few years ago.

It'd not entirely solve the problem, but it would have stopped the issue of whole teams of foreign agency workers being shipped in to big projects to live on site / in temp accommodation and undercut local workers pay and conditions.

 

[Rob Ray]

Whoa hold on there one question at a time!

who's going to move their business here if labour is more expensive?

Skills-based companies, or firms which like the location (Britain benefits both from GMT and its handy position between Europe and the US). But that's a relatively small section of the available labour force, especially given how comprehensively education has been fucked up.

how are we to compete without imported labour?

Depends what you mean by compete and what industry, in what circumstance. There's no one-size-fits-all, that's what makes the whole thing so complex.

 

[no-no]

what are your thoughts on the agency workers directive and the swedish derogation, which the UK opted to include in UK law that gives businesses a way around the legislations intent of stopping foreign agency workers being used to undermine local pay and conditions?

To me, removing that loophole from UK law would have solved a good proportion of the issues, such as those that led to the wildcat strikes in Lindsey and elsewhere across Yorks & Humberside electrical contractors a few years ago.

It'd not entirely solve the problem, but it would have stopped the issue of whole teams of foreign agency workers being shipped in to big projects to live on site / in temp accommodation and undercut local workers pay and conditions.

First I've heard of it. If I understand it right, they can undercut local wages if they employ agency staff on a permanent basis? To me this is what Wilf means when he talks about a bosses model of free movement.

I have heard agency workers refer to the Swedish derogation. What is this? | workSMART

I have misunderstood this......will come back later...ah no....it is being used to employ foreign workers for less than local pay.

 

[no-no]

what are your thoughts on the agency workers directive and the swedish derogation, which the UK opted to include in UK law that gives businesses a way around the legislations intent of stopping foreign agency workers being used to undermine local pay and conditions?

To me, removing that loophole from UK law would have solved a good proportion of the issues, such as those that led to the wildcat strikes in Lindsey and elsewhere across Yorks & Humberside electrical contractors a few years ago.

It'd not entirely solve the problem, but it would have stopped the issue of whole teams of foreign agency workers being shipped in to big projects to live on site / in temp accommodation and undercut local workers pay and conditions.

While it wouldn't solve the problem, it's a legitimate claim the unions are making. and it's fuel for the rightwing, we should clean up and not give them the ammo.

 

[Ole]

After a semi-denial of Peter Walker's representation by McDonnell earlier, here is the full quote to clarify:

 

[ViolentPanda]

There are a lot of liberals who believe opposition to free movement equals racism. Whenever I've broached the subject with friends I get the raised eyebrow. It does seem to be getting talked about since brexit which can only be a good thing.

Then, (not very) respectfully they need to remember that with the EU, "free movement" is defined as encompassing goods and services as well as people, and that free movement of the first two can actually promote situations where free movement of people will be taken as anti-working class. The "racism" your friends see, isn't racism, it's a reaction stimulated by loss of services and employment. A similar phenomenon, though not EU-produced, was Irish immigration into the UK in the 60s and 70s, and population movement from the north-west in the 80s.

How can it be a good idea to abandon our working classes, strengthening the right all for the benefit of working abroad. If there is such a right, your right to expect to find gainful employment in the area your family live should trump your own right to work abroad.

There's no rights but those you take and keep hold of. Our supine TUs have made sure that collectively-won collective rights have withered on the vine.

 

[free spirit]

While it wouldn't solve the problem, it's a legitimate claim the unions are making. and it's fuel for the rightwing, we should clean up and not give them the ammo.

The problem Labour have had with it being that it was them that originally put this into UK law, so they couldn't make a massive issue out of it at the last election (though IIRC they did have a policy of repealing that section just didn't make much of it).... but now Corbyn should be able to use it to skewer the neoliberal bastards in the party as this is one policy that they did that's partly responsible for such disaffection with the EU on immigration that the UK has voted us out of it entirely.

Corbyn on the other hand is completely untarnished by all that baggage.

 

[DotCommunist]

literally dragged him by his jacket lapels and manhandled him away. No matter what his handler imagined he might have said, nothing could be more devastating than the image itself. No one with any real authority would allow himself to be treated in such a fashion. Had he any natural authority no one would dare.

I went and had a think on think on this and I cannot agree. Some people aren't physical. Some people don't project physicality that would preclude handling in such a manner. What you seem to suggest is that a leader must be able to project an aura of 'do NOT fuck with me or you will be hurt'. Thats not how it is supposed to work is it. I've known plenty of big lads who could do the 'don't even tap my shoulder' thing and some were good guys some thick, some just genuine bad lads. But thats not how leadership has to be, its not how this ones playing it either (no labour support here from me). You're handy. Has anyone ever grabbed you by the lapels and moved you out of harms way cos they know the ways of the cobbles and you don't? probably no I'd say. It doesn't make you a shit leader, it makes you a shit street fighter but then there's a lot of us about. Simply, if you value a man by how he is handled by bigger men then its not a great idea to do so.

 

[treelover]

I went and had a think on think on this and I cannot agree. Some people aren't physical. Some people don't project physicality that would preclude handling in such a manner. What you seem to suggest is that a leader must be able to project an aura of 'do NOT fuck with me or you will be hurt'. Thats not how it is supposed to work is it. I've known plenty of big lads who could do the 'don't even tap my shoulder' thing and some were good guys some thick, some just genuine bad lads. But thats not how leadership has to be, its not how this ones playing it either (no labour support here from me). You're handy. Has anyone ever grabbed you by the lapels and moved you out of harms way cos they know the ways of the cobbles and you don't? probably no I'd say. It doesn't make you a shit leader, it makes you a shit street fighter but then there's a lot of us about. Simply, if you value a man by how he is handled by bigger men then its not a great idea to do so.

Plenty of keyboard warriors though

 

[Pickman's model]

I went and had a think on think on this and I cannot agree. Some people aren't physical. Some people don't project physicality that would preclude handling in such a manner. What you seem to suggest is that a leader must be able to project an aura of 'do NOT fuck with me or you will be hurt'. Thats not how it is supposed to work is it. I've known plenty of big lads who could do the 'don't even tap my shoulder' thing and some were good guys some thick, some just genuine bad lads. But thats not how leadership has to be, its not how this ones playing it either (no labour support here from me). You're handy. Has anyone ever grabbed you by the lapels and moved you out of harms way cos they know the ways of the cobbles and you don't? probably no I'd say. It doesn't make you a shit leader, it makes you a shit street fighter but then there's a lot of us about. Simply, if you value a man by how he is handled by bigger men then its not a great idea to do so.

Leadership's someone making you do something you don't want to do because they want you to do it, but without compulsion, without forcing you to. I've met a few people you'd follow through anything - one former r.a. member I knew in the 90s leaps to mind. It's not about their actual street fighting ability, but their ability to exude confidence and make you believe it would all be OK.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I went and had a think on think on this and I cannot agree. Some people aren't physical. Some people don't project physicality that would preclude handling in such a manner. What you seem to suggest is that a leader must be able to project an aura of 'do NOT fuck with me or you will be hurt'. Thats not how it is supposed to work is it. I've known plenty of big lads who could do the 'don't even tap my shoulder' thing and some were good guys some thick, some just genuine bad lads. But thats not how leadership has to be, its not how this ones playing it either (no labour support here from me). You're handy. Has anyone ever grabbed you by the lapels and moved you out of harms way cos they know the ways of the cobbles and you don't? probably no I'd say. It doesn't make you a shit leader, it makes you a shit street fighter but then there's a lot of us about. Simply, if you value a man by how he is handled by bigger men then its not a great idea to do so.

What I meant of course is that he lacks 'real political authority'. It is bad enough having to be kept away from the media (physically restrained again today) but on another level altogether to be kept away by aides, from a one to one meeting with his own deputy leader Tom Watson, out of, and I kid you not, 'a duty of care'. It is frankly impossible to imagine any other political leader - Merkel, Obama, or even someone like Sturgeon more than a couple tiers below, being treated in such a way. The chance of him now surviving - even to the end of the week - is about zero.

 

[DotCommunist]

What I meant of course is that he lacks 'real political authority'. It is bad enough having to be kept away from the media (physically restrained again today) but on another level altogether to be kept away by aides, from a one to one meeting with his own deputy leader Tom Watson, out of, and I kid you not, 'a duty of care'. It is frankly impossible to imagine any other political leader - Merkel, Obama, or even someone like Sturgeon more than a couple tiers below, being treated in such a way. The chance of him now surviving - even to the end of the week - is about zero.

managed, an irascible man whose last fist fight was 40 years ago at school. Probably. We'll see. I hope he hangs in just for the annoyance factor

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

What you seem to suggest is that a leader must be able to project an aura of 'do NOT fuck with me or you will be hurt'.

Ahem!

 

[Vintage Paw]

Why does he just not go out on the streets & connect with people?

This is just the thing though. He has been doing. For the past 9 months. He goes to all sorts of random little events that 'ordinary' politicians wouldn't think to go to. And along the way he stops to talk to every person who vaguely looks like they want to say hi, has a big old chat with them, ends up being late for this, that and the other as his aides try to rush him along. He's very much the sort of person who goes out on the streets and connects with people. The main question you should be asking is why you never see it.

 

[Vintage Paw]

What he needed to do was to begin a dialogue that was one part love in, one part row. The vulnerable and disaffected need to know that Labour is on their side. Unequivocally. That Corbyn may prevent foreign adventures, but my God will he stand on the deck of a carrier and salute our boys if they need it.

That he will put their jobs, their wages, their housing first and have a fucking good row about stuff like racism/immigration that we don't all agree on. That would get respect.

At some point, now or later, you will have to accept Corbyn isn't that person. What depresses me is how evident the failure around the referendum was weeks out and how a lack of communicable political ideas created a vacuum. 1m people on council waiting lists, 350k immigrants per year. An answer Remain couldn't give. That was the time for Corbyn to say to Cameron, 'I will back remain vigorously if you announce massive social housing plans, restrictions on buy to let and a freeze on further social housing sales'. If you don't I tell the world why.

If all the above is true, then who should it be instead? As I see it, there is no mythical wonder candidate standing in the wings who can do all of that. Our choice is Corbyn, who at least believes the right sort of things, and a neolib type who very much doesn't but who will be able to get across their words of wrongness with slightly more aplomb.

 

[newbie]

What I meant of course is that he lacks 'real political authority'. It is bad enough having to be kept away from the media (physically restrained again today) but on another level altogether to be kept away by aides, from a one to one meeting with his own deputy leader Tom Watson, out of, and I kid you not, 'a duty of care'. It is frankly impossible to imagine any other political leader - Merkel, Obama, or even someone like Sturgeon more than a couple tiers below, being treated in such a way. The chance of him now surviving - even to the end of the week - is about zero.

it's certainly a pretty humiliating position for a leader to be in, needing to be protected from bullying in a one to one meeting his someone on his own team. Makes me wonder what hope has he in leader to leader negotiation in the future? Do they fear he'd be bullied by a Cameron, Obama or Merkel? We all know his stubborness on issues that he decides to take a stand on, but a leader that could be bullied while grinding out the mundane detail of a trade agreement is of no real use to anyone.

otoh he clearly lacks 'real political authority', a 172-40 sort of lack, so his objective position is too weak to provide any authoritative leadership. Nor does he have the luxury of time to build it or the resources to put together a proper shadow cabinet to form any sort of effective parliamentary opposition with coherent policies. That's a position May or Leadsome or whoever will be delighted to exploit.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Are we sure that the 'needing to be protected' thing isn't just some more hostile PR bullshit?

Certainly sounds like it ...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Meanwhile, do the psephologists among us think the analysis here makes sense?

Here's Why A Pro-EU Party Could Be Screwed At The Next General Election

The suggestion is that most of the seats Labour need to win are more or less strongly 'leave' but that their hold seats, at least the big urban ones, tend more to 'remain'

 

[teqniq]

Are we sure that the 'needing to be protected' thing isn't just some more hostile PR bullshit?

Certainly sounds like it ...

That was my first thought when I read it, the rest of the Graun article carries on in much the same way.