Scenes from the battle for the soul of the Labour party
|
Version 0 of 1. The Labour party is divided between those who believe that Jeremy Corbyn can continue as leader, despite having lost the confidence of 80% of his MPs, and those who think he cannot. I have noticed on your letters page an increase in comment which seems to be based on a perception that members of the NEC who no longer support Jeremy’s leadership have tried to remove him from the ballot paper by bending the party’s rules and constitution and have failed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The NEC are elected as guardians of the party’s constitution, and our task last Tuesday was to inform ourselves what were the party’s rules, what were the precedents for a leadership challenge, and what was the legal advice. Lawyers who have advised the party on such issues over many years were consulted by the general secretary at the request of the leader’s office. Their response was very clear; both the rules and the precedent showed that Jeremy Corbyn required 51 nominations to be on the ballot paper. When this advice was received, the leader’s office instructed the general secretary to take legal advice from a specific named lawyer, who, I believe, has not advised the party before. He gave contrary advice. At the meeting more than one NEC member stated that they accepted the advice of the party’s usual lawyers and believed it to be correct but that, nevertheless, they would cast their vote for Jeremy Corbyn to be on the ballot paper automatically because they had been so instructed by their organisation. If, therefore, there has been any breach of the party’s rules and constitution, it seems to me that it is Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters who are responsible.Margaret Beckett MPLabour, Derby South; member, Labour party national executive committee • I confess. I rejoined the Labour party earlier this month solely to defend Jeremy Corbyn against his own PLP and the NEC. I thought I became a “card carrying” member and was promised that I would be able to take part in leadership elections, but now find that I’ve been disenfranchised by the NEC and their 12 January cut-off. Equally bizarrely, my local branch meeting scheduled for 15 July, to “welcome new members” among other things, was cancelled at very short notice under the pretext of an unspecified “threat”. Coincidence or conspiracy? Today I have had to spend a further £25 to become a “registered supporter” in order to get a vote, and – surprise, surprise – there was no notification/email from Labour central office that there was a strict deadline for registration of 5pm on 20 July. Corbyn is a much-needed breath of fresh air to UK politics, and that is probably why Labour party membership numbers have exploded. The general public are sick of vacuous, mealy-mouthed and self-serving politicians. It is lovely to have someone who is highly principled. moral and who speaks their mind, no matter what the media response – sadly including the Guardian – says. So bite the bullet, if you can. Pay the £25 and show the MPs and MEPs who really owns the Labour party. Simon RoseIlkley, West Yorkshire • I suggest that Polly Toynbee (Forget Trident: Labour needs to focus on issues that matter, 19 July) read the report written by LSE academics on journalistic representations of Jeremy Corbyn. Their analysis found that he was represented unfairly by the British press through a process of vilification that went well beyond the normal limits of fair debate and disagreement in a democracy. They argue that he is systematically treated with scorn and ridicule in both the broadsheet and the tabloid press, in a way no other political leader is or has been. They conclude that this vilification is unhealthy from a democratic point of view, and poses serious ethical questions as to the role of the media in a democracy. Most of us have come to expect what the report calls an “attackdog” approach from tabloids such as the Sun and the Daily Express, but surely the Guardian is committed to meeting basic standards of fairness in its reporting?Professor Diane ReayFaculty of education, University of Cambridge • Christina Green says Jeremy Corbyn “does not have the support of many Labour voters” (Letters, 19 July). She and others who intend to vote on this basis should reflect on the reality rather than the propaganda. A recent ComRes poll found that Labour voters think Corbyn has a much better chance of winning a general election than either Angela Eagle or Owen Smith: by a margin of 50% against 23% compared with Eagle, and 44% against 26% compared with Smith.Peter McKennaLiverpool • As far as I know, Momentum is not a political party. If Cath Ryde, the chair of Bolton Momentum (Letters, 18 July) believes that it and its leaders should be treated like a party, then they should form one, and put up candidates in a local and national elections, rather than try to take over an existing party. If they do, a genuine leftwing option can be put to the electorate alongside a Labour party of whatever ilk. Like most of your readers, I have no time for Ukip, but at least it had the courage to go to the electorate in an appropriate democratic way, a courage which, so far, Momentum lacks.Rachel EsterWootton Bassett, Wiltshire • Zoe Williams’ assertion that Labour party leadership contender Owen Smith MP is not “tarnished by the Blair years and the vote on the Iraq war” repeats Smith’s pitch to Labour members, but it doesn’t quite compute with his previous public statements (Owen Smith: decent bloke, good politics. But is that enough?, 18 July). Interviewing Smith in 2006, Wales Online noted: “He didn’t know whether he would have voted against the war”, with Smith arguing “the tradition of the Labour Party and the tradition of left-wing engagement to remove dictators was a noble, valuable tradition, and one that in South Wales, from the Spanish Civil War onwards, we have recognised and played a part in.” Smith goes on to note he supports privatisation of the NHS, Private Finance Initiatives and academies, explaining “I’m not someone, frankly, who gets terribly wound up about some of the ideological nuances”. This was clear when he abstained on the 2015 welfare bill, which the government’s own figures said would push 330,000 children from low-income families further into poverty, with single mothers and ethnic minorities hit particularly hard. Asked if he was prepared to “annihilate possibly millions of people” by firing Trident by the BBC’s Andrew Marr on Sunday, Smith replied that: “You’ve got to be prepared to say yes to that.” A decent bloke?Ian SinclairLondon • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |