There's a steady trickle of these unverifiable anecdotes before the Hartlepool by-election has even happened, getting their excuses in early, but no discussion of what this "breach of trust" actually was—and certainly no mention of Labour's change of line on Brexit after 2017.
Hartlepool voted 70% Leave in 2016. The following year, Labour pledged to accept the referendum result and increased its vote by 17%, two years into Corbyn's leadership. When Labour promised a second referendum in 2019, its vote dropped by 15%.
Lewis Goodall looked at the impact of Labour's change of line on Brexit in an excellent article the week before the 2019 election that accurately predicted what would happen on polling day. You can't talk about "trust" without acknowledging this.
This is what actually happened in the so-called "red wall" seats under Corbyn: a huge surge in 2017, far in excess of Brown or Miliband's performance, then a regression to the 2010 level while the Tories gobbled up the UKIP vote to jump forward.
Don't expect any honest account of this if Labour loses next week—Starmer was the one who insisted most vehemently on the change of Brexit line whose fruits he may be about to reap. Expect more entitled whinging about Corbyn from people who've had a remarkably easy ride so far.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
He's right, of course. But I can't help recall that Sanghera signed an open letter telling people not to vote for Labour because of alleged concerns about antisemitism in 2019. It said nothing at all about the racism of Johnson or the Tories, and several Tories signed it.
The implicit but unmistakable message of this letter was: a vote for Johnson is morally permissible in a way that a vote for Corbyn is not. No wonder the likes of Tony Parsons, Frederick Forsyth and indefatigable Saudi apologist Ghanem Nuseibeh signed it.
The hypocrisy was breathtaking: the signatories demanded to know "which other community's concerns are disposable", while giving a green light to the party of Windrush and the "hostile environment". Tellingly, the only other factor they could think of was Brexit.
I came across this piece for the first time the other day, from the height of pre-election madness in 2019, and it's quite a good summary of the sheer dross that passes for commentary on world affairs in the British media—always geared towards having a pop at the left. 1/
The claims of "serious irregularities" and "clear manipulation" from the OAS were complete bunk, as was clear at the time, not merely in hindsight. 2/
Within days of this article appearing, the coup regime had massacred those protesting against the ousting of Morales by the Bolivian army. But hey, don't call it a coup guys: that "doesn't cut it." 3/
This is a very good and depressing piece, and really drives home the point that Uber isn't so much a company as a latter-day version of the Pinkertons, lavishly subsidized by venture capital through its multi-billion losses to smash up workers' rights.
"Despite signing the bill [to regulate Uber], Newsom was still trying to negotiate an agreement that would ultimately shield them from it."
Another would-be foe: “The goal of the matter is for everyone to walk away equally unhappy”—the centrist credo really, how inspiring! Can't imagine how Uber has been able to roll over the opposition to its schemes like a tank.
This interview with one of Starmer’s aides, whiny and petulant as it is, is still worth looking at properly to see how inane and vacuous their political vision is. 1/
Harris says that she cries when she thinks about Labour MPs who lost their seats in 2019 (not about the people who have already suffered and will continue suffering under a Conservative government). But why did they lose those seats? 2/
The MPs she mentions all represented Leave-voting constituencies (margins ranging from 9 to 16%). They all gained votes under Corbyn in 2017 but lost in 2019. 3/
Some familiar figures are pushing the absurd and defamatory claim that Ken Loach supports Holocaust denial. The story of this bogus talking-point, which relies upon multiple layers of falsehood and guilt-by-association, makes for a revealing case-study. 1/
It dates back to the 2017 Labour conference. In a NYT op-ed, Howard Jacobson claimed that “a motion to question the truth of the Holocaust was proposed” from the conference floor—a crude fabrication, which the NYT sanctioned in its pages. 2/
If you follow the link supplied by Jacobson or his editors, you’ll see that he was wrong on 3 counts: it wasn’t a motion, it wasn’t at the conference, and it wasn’t in favour of Holocaust denial. Quite the hat-trick! 3/
I wrote this piece back in December, but the plea for consistency was strictly rhetorical: I never expected the NYT and kindred spirits to learn any lessons from Trump. Now they're at it again in their Trumpian reporting on Ecuador's election. 1/
The fact that Latin American left-wing politicians were "accused of corruption and authoritarian overreach" tells us nothing; Biden and the Democrats have been accused of the same by Trump and the Capitol Hill mob. The question is whether those charges have any substance. 2/
Brazil's PT leaders were "accused of corruption" by a rabidly partisan magistrate who went on to take a cabinet post under Bolsonaro after paving the way for his electoral triumph. 3/