Sunday 4 June 2023

Solidarity with Jamie Driscoll

Another day, another stitch up. As everyone reading this will now know, Jamie Driscoll - Mayor for the North of Tyne combined authority - has been barred from the Labour longlist to retain his job. If you listen to the Labour right wingers defending the decision, it's because he hosted an Evening With ... session in which he spoke to Ken Loach about his films. Loach, you'll remember, was chucked out of the Labour Party because he attended meetings and events of organisations banned by Keir Starmer's NEC, and not the spurious claims of antisemitism put about by sundry right wingers. As for Driscoll, his exclusion by the notorious "due diligence" process absolutely had nothing to do with his support for Jeremy Corbyn, chairing his local Momentum branch, and beating local establishment heavies to the mayoral nomination in the first place.

But the question, as it always is whenever Starmer's purge-happy lackeys take someone out, is what is to be done? The NEC is packed with stooges, what is left of the left wing membership are dwindling, and the institutional means within Labour to force a reversal are not immediately apparent. In other words, Starmer and his NKVD cosplayers carry in as they do because there's political price to be paid. In fact, some of them would take a critical John McDonnell tweet and an angry Owen Jones video as marks of distinction.

With Labour stitched up like a kipper, how to make Starmer pay when he comes for left wingers? There are two paths open for a Driscoll fightback. The first is the one underway: using leverage in the party and the labour movement. This evening, Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham put out a joint open letter urging the NEC to listen to an appeal. One undoubtedly accompanied by behind-the-scenes arm-twisting and getting on side sympathetic and reliable council and Labour group leaders across the North. Accompanying this was a press release from Unite. Breaking from her self-imposed silence on matters Labour Party, Sharon Graham said "What is emerging from Labour is a pattern of behaviour to literally take out any MP or mayor who backs key manifesto demands on the re-nationalisation of energy, action on rampant profiteering and investment in UK steel."

The problem with this first approach is, as things stand, nothing will happen. And that will be the case if the CWU and FBU also board the Jamie train and come out in support. As those fighting the institutional fight well know, if Starmer and the NEC are going to budge all the biggest unions have to be on board. The GMB, who are a bit annoyed by Labour's statement that it wants to stop drilling and exploration in the North Sea, might be amenable right now. You can count Usdaw out. And that leaves Unison who, historically, have preferred behind-the-scenes lobbying to making a scene but are guided by an ultra-cautious Labourism that is loath the rock the boat lest it damages the party's electoral chances. Starvation of funds, withdrawal of union staff on campaign days, no freebie literature, Starmer might be trying to pull off Tony Blair's strategy of only being reliant on wealthy backers but he's nowhere near yet and that makes the party vulnerable to this kind of pressure. The only problem with union leaderships, particularly when they're right wingers, is they have different ideas and rarely pull in the same direction. For a movement founded on solidarity, acting less than the sum of its parts is the status quo where their relationship to the Labour Party is concerned.

The labour movement campaign has another advantage though. A public fight for reinstatement will generate publicity and, crucially, sympathy among the good and mostly Labour-loyal people of the North East. That their Mayor has been deselected by Labour because he held an event with a famous film maker is how most normal punters would see it, and rightly conclude he was given the heave ho because Starmer didn't like his politics. We've seen similar situations before from local authorities to MPs to mayors, and where this sense of unfairness can tap into an insurgent dynamic Labour can be made to pay in votes and seats. Obviously, I'm not suggesting Driscoll is going to jump ship and run anyway. But if his reinstatement campaign goes nowhere, which is likely, then a hard-done-by story intersecting with the general distrust about half of Labour voters have of Starmer can easily fuel a protest vote dynamic Driscoll could ride back into office without the party ticket. This is the second option, is one Labour's strategists never take seriously but has, more often than not, caught them on the hop.

Here's the thing. Starmer's stitching is never going to stop until the left in the Labour Party get serious about thinking what costs it can impose on an overweening leadership who hold them in nothing but contempt. Until we're able to do this, Driscoll will be far from the last Labour politician to get the axe.

Image Credit

19 comments:

Jim Denham said...

I'd agree with the overall thrust of this post and would concur that simply speaking on a platform with Ken Loach should not be a disciplinary matter. But it's not true that accusations of antisemitism against Loach are "spurious".

Loach's record includes endorsement of Jim Allen’s antisemitic play “Perdition” in 1987 and refusal to condemn Holocaust denial in 2017 (only to say that his comments had, of course, been misrepresented).

Anonymous said...

A minor point, but Driscoll's expulsion taking place while the stage version of Loach's 'I, Daniel Blake' is on at the local theatre looks even more tone-deaf.

Shai Masot said...

@jim denham.

Wrong about Loach!😊

https://twitter.com/DanFinn95/status/1359912828707229699/photo/1

meanwhile fron our New Labour friends:

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/campbell-behind-pig-poster-7275427.html



David said...

Sounds like the Ken Livingstone approach. Let's hope for a better outcome if so!

Impressionist said...

Jim Denham
I'd understood that the play told of the collaboration of some Zionists with the Nazis in Budapest during the Second World War. Am I mistaken? Or is the problem that the collaborators are identified as Zionists rather than just as collaborators? Is this what would make it anti-semitic?

Anonymous said...

Expulsion?

There has been no expulsion.

Aimit Palemglad said...

I notice the debate here has already swung in to the "it's anti-semitism if he approved of /met/shared a lift with someone who said/wrote/did something that might be anti-semitic but we aren't sure about the details" territory.
Anyone saying anything critical of anyone or anything that might be considered Jewish, unless it's that they are too cosy with someone who has been called anti-semitic, or where they are the "wrong kind" (i.e. not pro-Israeli enough, not anti-Palestinian enough, or too friendly with people not approved of) is likely to be labelled anti-semitic. It's the perfect smear - it can't ever be removed, there is no defence against it, and the labellers have absolute authority. Once they decide you are one, that's it. You are one fully and totally. You can't be a bit of one, or temporarily, mistakenly one. No, it's all or nothing - but the nothing bit can be very temporary indeed. And the people who get to decide which are self-selecting. They don't have to provide any convincing evidence. They don't have to justify the claim. Just the accusation is enough for the smear to stick, and it is infectious. Just talking to another person who has been designated as an AS can lead to you catching it. The best way to protect yourself from it is to accuse someone else, preferably someone who has enemies, and keep everyone's attention focused on them. Being Jewish is not reliable protection - you'll be called self-hating, which is code for anti-semitic. One day they'll invent a test for AS. They'll tie you to a chair and lower it into a pool. If you drown, it's proof you were an AS. If you don't drown, you're a witch and you'll be burned.

Anonymous said...

I have no idea if Perdition is actually AS or not (as with most people I have never seen it) but the consensus irrespective of that seems to be that it is a deeply problematic piece and a long way from Loach's best work.

Though if anything I am more concerned about his reported comments on Holocaust Denial a few years ago.

Jim Denham said...

Interviewed by the BBC's Jo Coburn during the 2017 Labour Party conference Loach insinuated that Jews fabricate their own oppression for personal gain—a staple of anti-Semitic invective for centuries—was just the beginning. When asked by Coburn about a fringe session at the Labour conference where a panelist called for open “yes or no” discussion of the Holocaust, the filmmaker point-blank refused to condemn Holocaust denial, demurring that “history is for all of us to discuss” before going off on an unrelated rant about Israeli evil. Here’s the exchange:

COBURN: There was a fringe meeting yesterday that we talked about at the beginning of the show where there was a discussion about the Holocaust, did it happen or didn’t it… would you say that was unacceptable?



LOACH: I think history is for us all to discuss, wouldn’t you?



COBURN: Say that again, sorry, I missed that.



LOACH: History is for all of us to discuss. All history is our common heritage to discuss and analyze. The founding of the state of Israel, for example, based on ethnic cleansing is there for us all to discuss. The role of Israel now is there for us to discuss. So don’t try to subvert that by false stories of anti-Semitism.

Aimit Palemglad said...

"reported comments". Get back to us when you have evidence of actual comments, including their content, and the context.

Imagine there was a discussion on conspiracy theories, and what people are prepared to believe an why. One of the conspiracy theories chosen might be holocaust denial. It is particularly interesting as there is a vast amount of evidence that the holocaust happened, from a wide range of sources, including many thousands of victims, and the armed forces personnel who liberated the camps, and the vast amount of Nazi documentation. Yet the deniers are able to convince themselves that all this evidence is bogus, the stories made up, the people fake. Something which you might imagine is much more difficult to believe than that it happened.

In the course of our discussion on the denial conspiracy, many comments would be made that could be easily taken out of context by those who might wish to harm the participants. For example, from the above you could take "Aimit said the evidence was bogus, the stories made up and the people fake" he added that "it was difficult to believe it had happened".

Smearing people by wilfully misquoting, or quoting out of context, is an age old technique which is lapped up by the gullible, stupid, malicious, ill-intentioned or partisan. In this, they are succumbing to their wish for something to be true in exactly the same way that deniers lap up their BS - because they want it to be true.

Anonymous said...

Jim Denham

Those Loach quotes you have provided there do not say the same thing that you are alleging, in the very same comment, that they say.

Jim Denham said...

Aimit and Anon; here's the context:

Loach began by forcefully denying the presence of anti-Semitism not just in the Labour party, but on the left in general. “I’ve been going to Labour party meeting for over 50 years,” Loach said. “I’ve gone to trade union meetings. I’ve gone to meetings of left groups and campaigns. I have never, in that whole time, heard a single anti-Semitic word or racist word. Now, I’m not saying it doesn’t exist in society.”

Awkwardly, Loach then followed up this assertion of anti-Semitic innocence by rattling off a series of extremely anti-Semitic claims. First, he declared that progressive Jews, including Labour members of parliament, were inventing anti-Semitic incidents for political purposes, to tarnish Jeremy Corbyn. “It’s funny these stories suddenly appeared when Jeremy Corbyn became leader, isn’t it?” he mused. His BBC interviewer Coburn countered, “Well, they would explain that perhaps Jeremy Corbyn has allowed the oxygen for those sort of views.”

In fact, multiple Jewish Labour MPs have been open about their experiences of prejudice and Corbyn’s failure to counter it. MP Ruth Smeeth famously lamented how the party under Corbyn was no longer “a safe space for Jews.” And among other Labour luminaries, London’s first Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan blamed “the leader of my party” for “failing” to call out anti-Semitism. To Loach, however, these are not honest accounts of bigotry, but a sinister anti-Corbyn conspiracy. “Their aim is to destabilize Jeremy’s leadership,” he insisted. “This story, there is no validity to it. In my experience, no validity whatsoever.”

But Loach’s ugly insinuation that Jews fabricate their own oppression for personal gain—a staple of anti-Semitic invective for centuries—was just the beginning. When asked by Coburn about a fringe session at the Labour conference where a panelist called for open “yes or no” discussion of the Holocaust, the filmmaker point-blank refused to condemn Holocaust denial, demurring that “history is for all of us to discuss” before going off on an unrelated rant about Israeli evil. Here’s the exchange:

COBURN: There was a fringe meeting yesterday that we talked about at the beginning of the show where there was a discussion about the Holocaust, did it happen or didn’t it… would you say that was unacceptable?



LOACH: I think history is for us all to discuss, wouldn’t you?



COBURN: Say that again, sorry, I missed that.



LOACH: History is for all of us to discuss. All history is our common heritage to discuss and analyze. The founding of the state of Israel, for example, based on ethnic cleansing is there for us all to discuss. The role of Israel now is there for us to discuss. So don’t try to subvert that by false stories of anti-Semitism.

David Parry said...

Jim Denham

Let's get this right: are you suggesting that recognising that anti-Semitism was cynically weaponised by right-wing figures within the Labour party (yes, including MPs who happened to Jewish, such as Ruth Smeeth and Margaret Hodge) to undermine Corbyn is itself anti-Semitic? Do you really think Smeeth and Hodge deserve to be credited as good-faith actors?

Anonymous said...

Margaret Hodge? Who tried to demolish a Jewish cemetery in the 80s? That was prevented by the campaigning MP for Islington North who is the very same MP today..?

Ludus57 said...

There is nothing antisemitic here. Loach is simply making the reasonable observation that history is open for all to discuss.

Ludus57 said...

I Think Jim is being a bad-faith actor in this instance.

JN said...

Anonymous,

No, Margaret Hodge who wanted to appease BNP voters (actual or imagined) with housing policies that could reasonably be described as institutional racism. I don't know if she realised that the BNP was founded and led by literal neo-Nazis?

Anonymous said...

So... in addition to reposting the same Loach dialogue which we already told him is entirely unconvincing as anti-Semitism, Jim is also asking us to accept that to question an accusation of anti-Semitism is itself anti-Semitic? Did I read that right?

Imagine if the official definition of anti-Semitism were amended to include criteria such as "discussion which makes Israel look bad", "questioning accusations of anti-Semitism", and "questioning the official definition of anti-Semitism". If I were an ordinary Jew living somewhere outside of Israel, I don't think I'd like that development.

Jim Denham said...

Anon: "we already told him is entirely unconvincing as anti-Semitism": is that a royal "we", Anon? And just because you've "already told" me something, does that mean I have to agree with you?

So, I take it that you think holocaust denial is a legitimate area for debate and doing so is not evidence of antisemitism?

Seriously?