Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall

This post has 12 comments

• 
  Scottishguy
  December 19th, 2021
  

  labour are dead here in Scotland, their headstone reads ” They died telling Tory lies, deid in 2015″ At the last election here, they came third behind the Tories, in Scotland. ffs

  Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall
• 
  caesar963
  December 20th, 2021
  

  Yeah, but you have to prepare yourselves now for their “strange rebirth” - whatever that means. Presumably they’ll be born of a jackal this time, or something. Imagine that, Jezza Corbyn’s heid emerging from a jackal’s birth canal, ready to cervix the nation once more. And you thought the nightmares you had about the guy were bad before.

  Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall
• 
  Anon8901
  December 20th, 2021
  

  Written before Corbyn lost a general election from the jaws of victory, and the left finally noticed he was a rather dull little man that we’d rather the 80s had forgotten about (and I instinctively vote for this lot…).

  Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall
• 
  Webby1948
  December 20th, 2021
  

  Thanks to the uploader, first of all. Speaking personally, I couldn’t listen to this. Maybe it’s a dose of reality I can’t handle,but I don’t recognise ”the traditional social democratic centre-left which we have known since the war ”. It was a far more radical Labour that set up the NHS, nationalised the coal and steel industries and the railways. and then in the ’60s kept Britain out of the Vietnam war. The Labour which came to power in 1945 was very much like Harold Wilson’s 60s government, and remained the same throughout the 70s, hindered by the great OPEC price increase which the right wing press blamed on Labour, like it did the 2008 global crisis. The great change began in response to Thatcher in the 80s. what killed Labour was Blair’s embrace of Tory-lite policies which were mollified By Gordon Brown but not enough so. Blair is partly responsible for the mess in the Middle East, having supported Bush over Iraq and been cheered on by the jingo right wing press in Britain, particularly Murdoch’s Sun.
  As for ‘Corbynism’. What a vague term that is. It used to be called Socialism after the war, during the period this author is calling, quote again ”
  the traditional social democratic centre-left”
  I would find this book too self-regarding and irritating to listen to. But thanks for uploading it.

  Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall
• 
  caesar963
  December 21st, 2021
  

  Well, many of the reforms were inspired & recommended by the Beveridge Report; & William Beveridge, a Liberal party MP & economist, was by no means a radical socialist. Nor was Harold Wilson. There was something of a post-war consensus in Britain on many key social issues. The Tory party also committed to partial implementation of Beveridge’s proposals - if elected. The Archbishop of Canterbury considered the report to be an expression of the spirit & ethos of Christianity.

  Attlee’s Labour held onto the brutish empire, thereby making the domestic reforms unaffordable, & lost power in 1951. There was a radical choice to be made there, but they failed to make it.

  In order to prevail in elections, the Labour party has to skew towards the “traditional social democratic centre-left.”
  On the Middle East, if Blair had never existed, the region would still be an insoluble mess, & the Americans were always going in following 9/11.

  Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall
• 
  Webby1948
  December 22nd, 2021
  

  So many points to argue with here but let’s start with Blair. You cannot say with any authority that had Blair ‘never existed’ the Middle East would be the mess it is. By helping to legitimise Bush, Blair was instrumental in setting the dominoes falling and the overthrow of Gaddafi and attempted destruction of Syria, the latter two under the spurious pretext of the Arab Spring were made all the easier for that. Blair fabricated the case for toppling Saddam and alienated many on the left in the process. The left had coexisted if uneasily with his neoliberalism till then. And as Blair lied, so did Cameron over Libya, but the right has traditionally been happier taking the country to war than has the left.
  No argument that post 1945 social policies found acceptance among religious leaders. Christian Socialists were a powerful force back then. But Attlee’s government was as radical as Western socialism is ever likely to get, with the introduction of the welfare state and all the other aspects already mentioned. Beveridge was a Liberal, but Liberals then were not the Tory lite party they are now. Beveridge was quite amenabl4e to social policies, as his 1936 book ‘Planning Under Socialism’ testifies.
  Your second paragraph is way off base.
  Labour did not hold on to the British Empire, and neither were the ‘domestic reforms unaffordable’ much to the disapproval of Churchill who had to put up with the welfare state and would have held on to India for the rest of the century. India gained its independence under Labour, as did Burma, Ceylon, Egypt,and Palestine. In 1951 Labour lost to the Tories but got more votes.I do not accept there was any ‘radical choice’ to be made then, in fact it’s hard to see what you mean by that.
  What Labour has to do to win future elections is to court the right wing media which is in the overwhelming majority. In doing so it might well have to adopt ’social democratic centre-left’ policies. But the ‘tradition’ only goes back as far as Blair.The true heart of Labout is traditionally socialist.

  Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall
• 
  caesar963
  December 22nd, 2021
  

  Once again, Blair or no, the Americans were going in after 9/11. Blair merely wanted to temper/influence their campaign. He was p’haps hoping for something like his impact on Kosovo several yrs before. Britain has been a minor (non?) player since Suez, or even before, when sidelined during WW2. The Middle East has virtually always been a chaotic, oppressive, violent mess. Gaddafi (& Libya) was in the Maghreb region in North Africa, therefore not in the Middle East. Even so, I would not submit Gaddafi or the Syrian (chemical weapons deploying) regimes as examples of non-oppressive, stable, civilised polities. Would their populations - or anyone - agree with that absurdity?

  “Blair fabricated the case for toppling Saddam and alienated many on the left in the process.” - This is another interesting internal point of British politics. But on the world scene…?

  As for “the right has traditionally been happier taking the country to war than has the left” - countless examples of both right & left (as they were then constituted) taking Britain to war. You’re forgetting Attlee’s Labour & the Korean War, for some reason. Empires are always at war. To hold people against their will & to ruthlessly exploit countries, you must be in a continuous state of war.

  Attlee’s govt was a key architect of NATO in 1949. In 1950 Attlee readily accepted the need for Allied entry in the Korean War and for a new rearmament program. The foreign secretary, Bevin, was profoundly hawkish as well (”Hasn’t Anthony Eden grown fat?” satirical commentators observed) Bevin was also instrumental to the founding of the Information Research Department (IRD), a secret propaganda wing of the UK Foreign Office which specialised in disinformation, anti-communism, and pro-colonial propaganda. Read professor of History, John Newsinger’s (author “The Blood Never Dried”) article “War, Empire & the Attlee govt 1945–1951″ (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306396818779864). Wherein “the author challenges the dominant view of the progressive radicalism of the postwar Attlee govt by exposing the brutality of its imperial adventures. Examining British involvement in Vietnam, Indonesia, Greece, Malaya, Kenya, India, Palestine, Iran & Korea, the piece paints a very different & bloody historical narrative from the dominant one. It argues that the welfare state was accompanied by the creation of the warfare state & that it was the Labour Party which cemented the ‘special relationship’ with the US, which today the vast majority of the Labour Party would still like to see hold sway in terms of foreign policy & questionable foreign interventions.”

  Attlee & Bevin worked together on the decision to produce a British atomic bomb, despite intense opposition from pro-Soviet elements of the Labour Party, a group Bevin detested. Bevin told the committee in Oct ‘46, that ‘We’ve got to have this thing over here whatever it costs … We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack flying on top of it.’ It was a matter of both prestige & national security.

  As I said, the report they acted on was not radically socialist - was not intended to be. Beveridge was not radically socialist, nor was the Archbishop of Canterbury. All reform is not radically socialist, and cannot be claimed or co-opted to be so. Some reform works. We need only observe the failures of all the toxically radical “isms” throughout the century. There is a long tradition of liberal & Christian reform initiatives, such as abolition.
  Contemporary commentary observed that the Beveridge Report was merely a continuation of Liberal party reforms from earlier in the century. The welfare state of the UK did indeed begin to evolve in the 1900s & early 1910s.

  As for my off-base para: the radical choice was full withdrawal from all of the countries where you never belonged. Labour failed to divest itself of the Brutish Empire. What about all of the other African, Asian, Pacific & even European territories & countries?
  The Brits had been withdrawing since at least the early 1920s. The were being “invited to leave” by the Irish & the Indians. As far as radicalism, the Attlee govt was effectively operating an apartheid state in the part of Ireland which they controlled & had ultimate responsibility for. Right on their doorstep.

  “and neither were the domestic reforms unaffordable” - minor govt initiatives cost too much - something as extensive & open-ended as an NHS & enlarged Welfare State - with so many institutions needing to be established - is ruinously expensive. It goes from (virtually) not being part of the budget to being an enormous proportion of public spending. Potentially, the largest. Essentially blandly declaring that it really wasn’t that expensive, is the sort of fatuous “thinking” which discredits the entire socialist project. This was a country that was still on rations - for 10 yrs on from D-Day.

  It was always the more social democratic centre-left - even conservative - tendency within Labour that won them the elections. This goes all the way back. The radical section had to be marginalised, as it does not win elections.
  The true heartland of the Labour party & movement was traditionally held to be the North of England. Where did they go in the last election?

  Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall
• 
  caesar963
  December 22nd, 2021
  

  I remember a professor we had for British 20th century history arguing the Attlee govt’s failure to chose between radically costly NHS/welfare state domestic reform & their enormously expensive defence spending - which included multiple foreign military adventures, development of atomic bombs, & administration of a no longer “profitable” - yet still vast - empire. And the ongoing necessity of rationing. Too many horses to ride.

  Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall
• 
  Webby1948
  December 23rd, 2021
  

  Another pagefull of overkill I see.
  Just a few things. I’ve no intention of filling a webpage in arguing with you.
  Libya has been regarded as a Middle Eastern country since World War Two, along with Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and so on. Israel too, since 1948.
  No doubt the Americans were going after Saddam anyway, but they needed Blair to give the conflict, or the massacre, some legitimacy. Blair was only too delighted to please and has been amply rewarded monetarily at least, since then.
  If you think Britain was ’sidelined’ during the Second World War you have a loose grasp of history. And if you think the failed states of Iraq and Libya are better places to live in now than before they were destroyed by the US and other western countries, you’re daft.
  Pretty facile too, to call Syria for deploying chemicals considering most of the allegations have been disproved, in particular the Douma incident in 2018. America’s not averse to using tear gas against its own protestors, and that’s regarded as a chemical weapon.
  In 1945 Britain was heavily in debt having fought a war. Nobody could say otherwise. But back then Labour was able to set up the NHS and the welfare state despite that because there was a national consensus for a reforming, nationalising form of government. That consensus held pretty well until Thatcher. There isn’t one now. The post-45 Labour government was pretty radically socialist no matter how you want to look at it or pick out some of its members and argue otherwise.

  Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall
• 
  caesar963
  December 23rd, 2021
  

  Argument? It’s an exchange of views. Although I do insist on more historical rigour & accuracy, as outlined above - no guesses, no silly emotion. Sure, the Middle East encompasses Egypt (due to Sinai Penin), Turkey, Iran, Iraq, S Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, UAE, Israel, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain. Can you provide credible authority for extending Middle Eastern geographic region into Maghreb - to actually incl Libya? What was the specific WW2 decision to which you refer?

  The “Blair legitimacy” thing is really an internal British view. Internationally, it’s more of a “Yo, Blair!” afterthought/punchline. The planners in the Pentagon wouldn’t have had sleepless nights over “How will this go down in Sedgefield?!” Honesty, no. “Old Europe” was immaterial, as Rumsfeld said. Really, all of Europe. That’s been a political reality since close of WW2.

  “If u think Brit was ’sidelined’ during WW2 you have a loose grasp of hist.” You never studied the conferences held by Allied leaders during the war? At Yalta, Roosevelt was concerned primarily with building a relationship of stability with Stalin for postwar period. Major issue was the dialogue betw the 2 powers. Churchill was literally marginalised, even made the butt of jokes, & not incl in several meetings betw the big 2. Britain was told that it must dismantle its Brutish Empire. You seriously never learned this? The hist curriculum over there is notoriously reprehensible. That might be tough to hear for the first time. At earlier Tehran conf, Roosevelt was invited to stay in both the British & Russian embassies. He selected the Russian embassy, as it allowed him to gain more direct access to Stalin & build his trust. This was the objective - what is called realpolitik (the politics of reality). This is why the overall outcome of the conferences reflected Amer & Russ interests.

  “And if u think failed states of Iraq & Libya are better places to live in than before they were destroyed by US (& Brit?) you’re daft.” - As I explained at the outset, the Middle East (& Libya, if u like) has virtually always been a chaotic, violent, unstable mess. Just as it was with Saddam making war on neighbours, gassing the Kurds, & torturing his own people.

  “call Syria for deploying chemicals considering most of the allegations have been disproved, in partic the Douma incid in 18. America’s not averse to using tear gas against protestors & that’s regarded as a chem weap.” - Of course the Syrian & Russ regimes deny use of chemical weapons. Does anyone else? When u say “disproved” do you again have any credible sources? Apart from the Assad regime itself, which used Sarin gas against its people. As for American gas, Brits used such gas - & rubber bullets - & live bullets - & torture - against civilians in N Ireland. And murdered peaceful civil rights marchers. Such state terror is evidenced throughout.

  “The post-45 Labour government was pretty radically socialist no matter how you want to look at it or pick out some of its members.” - They did act on a liberal reform programme, yeah. The leaders of the party & most of the members were influential, as I explained. True, it’s moderates that win elections.

  On the disturbing side, we must face the fact that they were effectively operating an apartheid state in part of Ireland which they controlled. Attlee’s govt was a key architect of NATO; accepted the need for entry in Korean War & for a new rearmament program. Their decision to produce a Brit atom bomb.

  Their enormously costly defence spending - which incl multiple foreign military adventures & admin of a no longer “profitable” - yet still vast - empire. Newsinger’s “War, Empire & the Attlee govt″ will be deeply upsetting as it “challenges the view of the progressive radicalism of Attlee govt by exposing the brutality of its imperial adventures. Examining Brit involvement in Vietnam, Indonesia, Greece, Malaya, Kenya, India, Palestine, Iran & Korea.” It argues that the welfare state was accompanied by the creation of the warfare state & that it was the Labour Party which cemented the ‘special relationship’ - consequently, Blair & co were merely working in this same tradition.

  Also, the true heartland of the Labour party & movement in the North of England. What happened in the last election?

  Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall
• 
  caesar963
  December 23rd, 2021
  

  Many would not be as comfortable to define “radically socialist” as including all of those hard line decisions, brutal actions & policies. It’s a profoundly power politics approach.

  Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall
• 
  Bytbiter
  April 11th, 2022
  

  I suspect Atlee tried to hang on to the empire because the proles love a bit of flag-waving. See also: Brexit.

  Left for Dead? The Strange Death & Rebirth of the Labour Party - Lewis Goodall

Add a comment (please log in before commenting)