Breakdown w/ Bawltrey: What does the settlement really mean for Labour?
This is much more than the question of antisemitism within the Labour Party. Corbyn's response, and how others responded shines a light on the fact that the Labour Party isn't the united front Starmer hoped for. Coming a month after Rebecca Long-Bailey was sacked as Shadow Education Secretary for the sharing of an article that contained an anti-Israel claim, this has become another opportunity for the left to respond to what they see as the injustice of their election loss and the change in leadership. The extent to which Corbynites once well-placed in the shadow cabinet are now relegated to the backbenches or junior frontbech positions shows that.
For the left, this is about putting right the 'wrongs' of those antisemitism allegations, many of which were rooted in genuine concern by Jewish members. For the left, these allegations were a deliberate smear by the right-wing press and the media, and was one of the causes for their election defeat. This settlement, to them, is the final nail in the coffin for the legacy of the left during their period of leadership. Whether you like it or not, the Corbyn era was one of the most significant ever, where the Labour Party became a more member-focused party, and where the divisions between the views of the parliamentary party and the membership couldn't be clearer.
The re-commitment to socialism and nationalisation, in addition to a radical economic plan, as well as the democratisation of the party is what the left likes to see as their legacy. For them, this settlement the undoing of that legacy and represents an acknowledgment of the allegations made during that period.
We're not going to speculate as to the future of the party and how Starmer will navigate Labour out of this, but one things for sure, he will expect resistance.
John Bawltrey is Senior Political Analyst for the Harbour Express
Comments
Post a Comment