Seumas Milne appointed Labour’s Head of Strategy and Communications

Labour Press

Seumas Milne has been appointed as Labour’s Executive Director of Strategy and Communications. Seumas joins the Labour Leader’s office on leave from the Guardian where he is a columnist and associate editor. He will take up his position on 26th October 2015.

Seumas is a former comment editor and labour editor at the Guardian. He previously worked at the Economist, is the author of books about the miners’ strike, global politics and economic policy and was for ten years an executive member of the National Union of Journalists.

78 comments on “Seumas Milne appointed Labour’s Head of Strategy and Communications

  1. An excellent appointment. Like JC himself, Milne is a deeply principled socialist.

    These are people I would trust to compromise because I believe in their intentions.

  2. The important thing here must be that the storyteller does not himself become the story. There are plenty of people out there who will try to use SM as a stick to beat JC.

  3. Francis King: The important thing here must be that the storyteller does not himself become the story. There are plenty of people out there who will try to use SM as a stick to beat JC.

    It has already begun. Twitter is aflame with the frothing of the dark side in response to this appointment.

  4. Karl Stewart on said:

    John: Twitter is aflame with the frothing of the dark side in response to this appointment.

    Well, as a great man once quite rightly said: “Twitter and Britain are not the same thing.”

  5. Presumably the reaction to the appointment would have been predicted and therefore calculated into the equation.

    Surely one of the lessons of JC’s victory is that it’s possible to do things that “they” say you shouldn’t and get away with it?

    A lesson btw that I am absorbing myself, as someone who had no inkling that it was possible less than 6 months ago.

  6. Vanya: Surely one of the lessons of JC’s victory is that it’s possible to do things that “they” say you shouldn’t and get away with it?

    ‘Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
    None but ourselves can free our minds.’

    Bob Marley

  7. Vanya: no inkling that it was possible less than 6 months ago.

    For JC to become Labour leader I meant, not that we can do things “they” say we shouldn’t 🙂

  8. jock mctrousers on said:

    Karl Stewart,

    That’s a shock! I’d been wondering why his site hadn’t been updated since Oct 3 ( I subscribe to his newsletter, but it stopped coming as did a random sample of other email newsletters etc – anyone else having this problem with Hotmail?).

    Nice guy, and incredibly hardworking. He produced these really substantial newsletters practically daily for years. Here’s a couple of the more recent ones:

    Bank regulation 8 years on, why has next to nothing been done?
    http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2015/10/bank-regulation-8-years-on-why-has-next-to-nothing-been-done/

    Why UK productivity remains so stagnant
    http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2015/10/why-uk-productivity-remains-so-stagnant/

    RIP with great respect and thanks.

  9. Karl Stewart on said:

    He’s not someone I know a great deal about, but he always seemed to me to be on the right side generally and wrote some intelligent and thoughtful stuff. Perhaps we could have an article/obituary?

    Returning to the subject of this thread, it’s sickening to read some of the attacks on Milne coming from the right, quotes torn out of context and making lying accusations about him.

    He’s been attacked for suggesting that the murder of Lee Rigby, which he utterly condemned, was different from other forms of terrorism. Let’s remind ourselves that this government, like its predecessor, is allied with the country from which al-qaeda originates, Saudi Arabia, a medieval absolute monarchy where women are beheaded for being in love, where men are crucified for being in love with other men, and all those attacking Milne want to maintain this alliance with Saudi Arabia and continue to arm them so that they can continue to fund, arm and train the al-qaeda forces in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

    The right actually do fund, arm and train these terrorists – Milne condemns them and writes intelligently about terrorism’s different forms, its root causes and ways to end it.

    He’s also been attacked by these same hypocrites for arguing that Stalin’s crimes were of a different nature to Hitler’s. The people attacking Milne on this are those who support today’s neo-nazis in the former Ukraine and elsewhere in eastern Europe.

    It’s strange that anyone on the left is eventually accused of ‘stalinism’ despite the fact that nobody on the left supports it, volumes of books have been written by the left accounting for this period in our history and there is nothing new to say about it.

    By contrast, the right supports their whole history of capitalism and imperialism, defends everything associated with it as a ‘civilising force’, staunchly defends the UK’s alliance with the US despite the US’s blood-soaked history, and still points to the European slave-owning settlers’ ‘Bill of Rights’ as the ideal of human achievement.

    And those who believe in ‘God’ are never asked why they defend the killing of every person apart from one family in the biblical ‘Great Flood’ story.

  10. Karl Stewart: And those who believe in ‘God’ are never asked why they defend the killing of every person apart from one family in the biblical ‘Great Flood’ story.

    I have never known anyone feel the need to defend the actions of God.

  11. Karl Stewart on said:

    Andy Newman,
    But it is true that they do worship ‘him’ and that their big main book that’s central to their whole belief system does tell the story of how ‘he’ killed everyone in the world apart from Noah, Mrs Noah and their kids.

  12. Andy Newman on said:

    Karl Stewart: But it is true that they do worship ‘him’ and that their big main book that’s central to their whole belief system does tell the story of how ‘he’ killed everyone in the world apart from Noah, Mrs Noah and their kids.

    I am not sure that the literal truth of the Old Testament is an article of faith for most Christians

  13. Karl Stewart on said:

    Andy Newman: I am not sure that the literal truth of the Old Testament is an article of faith for most Christians

    Very true, but it is taught as a parable with an important ‘cleansing-the-world-of-sin’ theme.

    As a schoolboy, I remember being taught a set of fairly light-hearted songs about Noah and the ark.

  14. #20 No. I’m not aware of any recent cases of people being put to death for wearing garments made out of two different types of material (Leviticus 19:19) for example.

    I’ve heard of crimes against fashion but that’s taking things a bit too far if you ask me.

  15. jim mclean on said:

    Karl Stewart:

    It is well documented that the McLeans had their own boat in the flood.
    Andy Newman,
    But it is true that they do worship ‘him’ and that their big main book that’s central to their whole belief system does tell the story of how ‘he’ killed everyone in the world apart from Noah, Mrs Noah and their kids.

  16. Joseph on said:

    it’s certainly an interesting development. Difficult to think of anybody further to the left in the mainstream media. It would be like David Cameron appointing someone like Melanie Phillips as his press spokesman. Very interesting few years to come.

  17. Karl Stewart,

    I remember leafing through a childrens’ book of Bible stories one day in Sainsbury’s, and the chapter on Noah was breezily titled “A Fresh Start”. Priceless!

    It’s also interesting to read up on exactly what was exercising God so much at that time. Check it out.

  18. #33 What I find annoying about the article, or more importantly the comments, is the silly nonsense about homophobia based on the use of the word “straight”.

    On the other hand the list of people associated (if the article is to be believed) with Straight Left is pretty impressive, even if Seamus (a great writer and speaker) is removed from the equation.

    The idea that he is now doing the job Alistair Campbell used to do is a serious buzz to be honest 🙂

  19. #28

    What has become brutally obvious in the past week, however, is the gulf that separates the official view of French state policy at home and abroad and how it is seen by many of the country’s Muslim citizens. That’s true in Britain too, of course. But what is hailed by white France as a colour-blind secularism that ensures equality for all is experienced by many Muslims as discrimination and denial of basic liberties.

    This is one of the quotes from SM that “Coatsey” seems to have such a huge problem with.

    As a Communist, I deplore the murders of the Charlie Hebdo journalists, and I note that so did Seamus Milne.

    But what can anyone have a problem with those words of Milne’s, quoted by “Coatsey”?

    Can anyone with any honesty have a serious problem, with those words unless you’re an islamaphobic tosser? Does “Coatsey” REALLY have a problem?

    Does “Coatsey” think that all’s well in the ghettos of Northern Paris? Or that there’s no serious problem of institutional racism in the French police or exclusion of Muslims from the wider society?

    Does “Coatsey” think that the problem in France is all these uppity Arabs and Muslims?

    Is Coatsey on the side of the oppressed or the oppressor?

    To be honest I think Coatsey’s on the right side. And so is Seamus Milne. What we all need to do is recognise it.

    And most importantly, all of these issues in Britain have become the subject of debate amongst thousands and thousands of people. Our ideas are now something we can have serious every day conversations with people outside of our traditional left bubble. And I have to keep pinching myself to realise I’m not dreaming 🙂

  20. Karl Stewart on said:

    Jim Monaghan,
    Hardly a “critique” to be honest. The article you link to focuses mainly on Milne’s reaction to the murder of employees of the racist French magazine “Charlie Hebdo”.

    I’d say Milne got it about right. He rightly condemned the brutal murders and then, as an intelligent political commentator, he went on to ask ‘why’ and offered some opinions on the deep-seated racism that permeates French society.

    This was a refreshing antidote to the sickening “je suis Charlie” and “France is all about liberty, equality, fraternity” shite that almost every other commentator was spouting at the time.

    But there was nothing from any of these various “je suis Charlie” commentators, or in in your friend’s ‘critique’ of Milne about the mass murder, by French police, in the centre of Paris, of 200 peaceful French/Algerian protesters in 1961.

    Not only has no-one ever been prosecuted for this, not only has this massacre never even been investigated, but the French state only officially recognised that this massacre had even happened just four years ago.

    So yes Milne was right to condemn the brutal murders of employees of the racist “Charlie Hebdo” magazine, and he was also right to highlight the deeply racist psyche of the French state.

  21. Karl Stewart on said:

    John,

    That article is spot on John. This is the best bit for me…

    “Seumas Milne has never unleashed war on other countries, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. He has never unleashed Cruise Missiles, ordered the bombing of towns and cities, subverted international law, or in any way created the conditions of crisis, chaos, and societal collapse out of which the bestial violence of al-Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL has emerged.”

    (…to be fair, then you start rambling a bit…)

  22. John on the reaction to Milne’s appointment:

    ‘What we have seen take place is nothing less than a feral and unhinged scream from the swamp of reaction that resides in our culture, where every crank with a computer resides, consumed with bitterness and untreated angst, much of it in the form of self loathing over their own inadequacies and lack of talent – not to mention in some cases a jump from the extreme left to extreme right of the political spectrum, with all the psychological dysfunction such a metamorphosis describes’.

    Wow! You write this whilst fire works were going off outside your window, got that kind of feel? Or possibly there’s a Halloween dimension.

  23. jock mctrousers on said:

    John,

    I agree that Andrew Coates is a wrong ‘un. I vaguely remember having Jim Monaghan down as roughly alright for a Scot Nat, but he’s sure show his colours by linking to this crap. Neil Clark is a fool for questioning whether the mainstream media might be giving us accurate info about Belarus and Slobodan Milosevic? No, Coates = wrong side,

  24. If anything sinks Jeremy Corbyn it will be squabbles between different factions of his “supporters”. The reactions to the appointment of Seumas Milne and the reactions to those reactions are a textbook example of the British left’s inability to bury the hatchet anywhere other than in each other’s vital organs…

  25. #38 Tbh I wrote that in the spirit of what Francis is gettiing at #45.

    Also while under the influence of another type of spirit.

  26. Francis King:
    If anything sinks Jeremy Corbyn it will be squabbles between different factions of his “supporters”. The reactions to the appointment of Seumas Milne and the reactions to those reactions are a textbook example of the British left’s inability to bury the hatchet anywhere other than in each other’s vital organs…

    To describe the campaign of demonisation and unvarnished hatred levelled against Seumas Milne as part of. ‘squabble’ has to be the understatement of the year.

    It was in fact tantamount to incitement on the part of a clutch of unreconstructed bastards intent on doing whatever it takes to undermine Corbyn’s leadership.

    I reserve the right to elicit solidarity with Seumas, someone I consider a valued comrade and friend.

  27. I fear you’re rather illustrating my point John. The Corbyn camp contains both comrades and enemies of Seumas Milne. It contains people who disagree on the EU, on Ukraine, on who to work with within Labour, etc. etc. They all need to find ways of working together in a more or less civil way. The tone of some of the criticism of Seumas Milne has been completely out of order, but the need is to calm things down, not stir them up more.

  28. Francis King: The Corbyn camp contains both comrades and enemies of Seumas Milne

    Sorry Francis, but that just won’t wash. The attacks on Seumas are in the same vein as the smears against Jeremy, and some are just variations of the same attack (association with terrorists etc).

    The people involved in attacking Seumas are working to undermine and derail this rare and amazing opportunity we now have with Jeremy as leader. Very clearly they are not part of any ‘Corbyn camp’. Rather, they are in the same category as Simon Danczuk & Co.

  29. Andy Newman on said:

    Francis King:
    I fear you’re rather illustrating my point John. The Corbyn camp contains both comrades and enemies of Seumas Milne. It contains people who disagree on the EU, on Ukraine, on who to work with within Labour, etc. etc. They all need to find ways of working together in a more or less civil way. The tone of some of the criticism of Seumas Milne has been completely out of order, but the need is to calm things down, not stir them up more.

    In truth both you and John are sort of right.

    The key appointments of McDonnell as shadow chancellor and Seumus Milne as cmmunications director are signals that Corbyn is going to be undaunted in pursuing the twin core sttategies of growth led anti-austerity and breaking from slavish adherence to US foreign policy.

    Many people may have this or that doubt about either appointment, and it is legitimate to debate them, and we need to win over the briadest possible coalition.

    But those whose criticism of John, Jeremy or Seumus crosses the line into Macarthyite hysteria, and Andrew Coates is indeed a bad pony, do deserve a robust response.

    TBH, the break with austerity will find allies in the unions and centre left, and we can prevail.

    The break with Atlanticism towards a new foreign policy also has a constituency of support, and perhaps a large one, previously untapped by any mainstream party.

    But let us not fool ourselves that those two constituencies of potential support are the same, and they may not even overlap.
    Both GMB and Unite, fir example, have demicratically decided policy voted fir my their lay members in support of Trident.

    Jeremy will have to keep both constituencies on board, and that may well require compromises which will be a type of politics that many of his supporters are unused to, and possibly concessions over issues that some Corbyn supporters consider to be red lines

  30. Andy Newman: Both GMB and Unite, fir example, have demicratically decided policy voted fir my their lay members in support of Trident.

    Certainly as far as Unite is concerned, that is about protecting members’ jobs rather than support for Atlanticism. Some serious policy work on defence diversification and employment guarantees should be able to address this and allow the Labour Party to adopt a clear policy of not renewing / replacing Trident.

  31. Andy Newman: Both GMB and Unite, fir example, have demicratically decided policy voted fir my their lay members in support of Trident.

    Jeremy will have to keep both constituencies on board, and that may well require compromises which will be a type of politics that many of his supporters are unused to, and possibly concessions over issues that some Corbyn supporters consider to be red lines

    The price Labour will pay for succumbing to trade union sectionalism is Scotland, where the argument against Trident was won a long time since.

    The tail cannot be allowed to wag the dog, Andy. Support for Trident in 2015 flies in the face of the entire progressive movement. I hope the leadership of the GMB and Unite come round to understanding this asap, otherwise they may face the uncomfortable experience of future national anti-Trident demos starting outside their headquarters in London.

  32. john Grimshaw on said:

    John,

    There is a strange difference between England and Scotland. Kezia Dugdale is pro Trident but large numbers of Scottish Labour supporters are not. Corbyn is anti Trident but the majority of pLP MPs are pro etc.

  33. The question is, can we as a movement present a credible arms conversion programme that will replace all those jobs lost by the renunciation of trident to the workers in those communities that rely on those jobs?

    Rather than being dismissive of that question, let’s embrace it.

    We have the incredible privelege to be living in a time when such discussions are more possible than at any time for at least 30 years, probably more.

    Bear in mind that a pretty huge percentage of unionised industrial workers are employed in this industry.

    And the vote at the Scottish Labour conference is proof of how positive we can be about this.

    Now is a time to talk politics, and not just in the narrow world we’ve been confined to for so long.

  34. Vanya: The question is, can we as a movement present a credible arms conversion programme that will replace all those jobs lost by the renunciation of trident to the workers in those communities that rely on those jobs?

    I have no doubt that we can and should as a matter of priority. If Labour can come up with a structured and detailed conversion plan, sourcing and utilising expert opinion to provide it with credibility, then it would take us forward in leaps and bounds.

    The key now is to be audacious and bold in the tradition of the postwar Labour govt. After all, if a man like Jeremy Corbyn, with his radical politics, can become leader of Labour less than a decade after Blair, and John McDonnell his shadow chancellor, abolishing Trident and replacing the jobs involved is surely mere child’s play.

  35. Andy Newman on said:

    John,

    It is not up to the “leadership” of Unite or GMB. It is policy voted on by lay member decision making conferences to which the leadership are accountable.

    The party cannot dictate to the unions, and the demicratic processes will just have to be played out. I can guarantee that motions calling for scrapping Trident will be debated at GMB Congess next June, and it is highly likely to also go to Unite conference.

    But it is important to understand that winning the leadership provided a fantastic beachhead for the policy planks that Jeremy fought on to be persued through the party, but they did not automatically become party policy. The process of winning them through the party still needs to be gone through, and within that process those unions with pro Trident policy are obligated by their own mandates to express that view, though narurally the unions dont have a veto, and the vigour with which they choose to argue will depend on a lot of factors.

    There will be a lot of good will towards Corbyn after the strength of Labour response to steel closures, TU Bill and tax credits, but dont underestimate the difficulty of aligning union support behind Corbyn on the defence and foreign policy agendas.

    With regard to the argument about Scotland, that is another sectional interest that needs to be managed, and it illustrates both the problem of diverging electoral considerations in different parts if the UK, and the fact that Corbyn cannot keep everyone happy all the time.

  36. Andy Newman on said:

    John,

    I agree that the tail cannot be allowed to wag the dog, which is why we cannot tolerate the party leadership dictating to tbe unions

    🙂

  37. John: if a man like Jeremy Corbyn, with his radical politics, can become leader of Labour less than a decade after Blair, and John McDonnell his shadow chancellor, abolishing Trident and replacing the jobs involved is surely mere child’s play.

    That would be nice. But I can’t help thinking that the vested interests of the NATO military-industrial complex will be a rather tougher nut to crack than a Labour leadership election.

  38. Andy Newman on said:

    Francis King,

    Winning a general election will also be a significant challange, and is going to require a coalitional approach far broader than the existing ranks of those enthused by the policy positions advocated by Corbyn during the leadership contest

  39. John Grimshaw on said:

    Andy Newman: going to require a coalitional approach far broader than the existing ranks of those enthused by the policy positions advocated by Corbyn during the leadership contest

    Not too coalitional I hope?

  40. John: The key now is to be audacious and bold in the tradition of the postwar Labour govt.

    Generally this is a good analogy, but not however on questions such as trident.

    One of the incredible things about the current situation is that we now have a Labour leader who throughout his career in politics has consistently opposed virtually every aspect of US and British imperialist policy.

    John: abolishing Trident and replacing the jobs involved is surely mere child’s play.

    In theory and with the will and the power many progressive policies are merely child’s play.

    But we need both, and both are interlinked.

    I’m intending to spend a bit of time looking at existing policy suggestions on the subject of arms conversion. I understand that activists in Unite have made some progress on the issue. And of course there was the report by the joint shop stewards committee at Lucas Aerospace in the 70s (I think?)

  41. Andy Newman: Winning a general election will also be a significant challange, and is going to require a coalitional approach far broader than the existing ranks of those enthused by the policy positions advocated by Corbyn during the leadership contest

    Sounds eerily like Third Way. The problem to my mind has been the over emphasis placed on seeking coalition with wider forces rather than shaping one.

    The key surely is to make the arguments with the clarity and unassailable logic they require in order to win people.

  42. #64 IF Danczuk is still the Labour candidate for Rochdale at the next general election, presumably we would see his return to Parliament as the best outcome out of all the likely options?

    Which seems coalitional to me, except that I doubt he would have the same attitude to some of his more left wing colleagues.

    And clearly the fewer candidates of his ilk Labour has by then the better.

  43. Francis King: But I can’t help thinking that the vested interests of the NATO military-industrial complex will be a rather tougher nut to crack than a Labour leadership election.

    Securing a compliant Labour leader has always been ta priority of the vested interests of the NATO military-industrial complex.
    The US foreign policy agenda, at least since the end of the war, has given substantial resources to securing the complicity of social democratic and trade union leaders.
    The fact is that the Cold Warriors who had influence in the engineering, teaching, steel, civil service and other unions have lost traction. But there are still a fair number of Labour MPs plugged into these Atlanticist (and Zionist) networks

  44. Karl Stewart on said:

    Vanya: IF Danczuk is still the Labour candidate for Rochdale at the next general election, presumably we would see his return to Parliament as the best outcome out of all the likely options?

    I don’t think he should be supported under any circumstances.

  45. Unless Danczuk is deselected, he will be the Labour candidate in 2020. Standing a candidate against him (or other right-wingers) would be a unhelpful diversion from the main aim of getting a Labour government elected, create divisions amongst the left, and be a gift to the media.

    There is no evidence (at least not yet, and not that I know of) that Danczuk is wildly unpopular amongst his constituents, so there is no reason to expect that a non-Labour candidate from the left would beat him, or even receive a respectable vote. Corbyn would be forced to back Danczuk, and sections of the left would denounce him for it.

    Alternatively, were Danczuk to be deselected, a different set of problems would emerge. Danczuk would probably resign and stand as an independent in the ensuing by-election. What happens if two dozen Labour MPs go down to Rochdale to publicly campaign for Danczuk? Under rules, they should be deemed expelled from the party. But would that be ratified by the NEC? How would the 12 union members vote?

    Half the PLP would probably threaten to resign the whip on the grounds that they don’t have much to lose, but do have a lot to win. If Corbyn blinks and the Danscuk-backing MPs are un-expelled, his leadership is effectively over. Conversely, if the MPs are expelled and the PLP carry out their threat, Labour would no longer be the largest group in the Opposition. Corbyn would cease to be leader of the Opposition.

    Or perhaps none of this happens, but a media-fuelled Danczuk goes on to win a by-election nonetheless. Or UKIP scrape through the middle. Where would this leave Corbyn’s leadership?

  46. John Grimshaw on said:

    Vanya: IF Danczuk is still the Labour candidate for Rochdale at the next general election, presumably we would see his return to Parliament as the best outcome out of all the likely options?

    Vote Labour but with no illusions?

  47. John Grimshaw on said:

    My understanding (but could be wrong) is that Corbyn has said that he thinks that CLPs should be free to appoint their own candidates, not that people should be parachuted in, as in the past. I’m happy with that even if it means the likes of Danczuk get re-selected, if that is what the local party wants and there is no evidence of tomfoolery. This doesn’t mean that, however within a democratic framework the Left can’t challenge an established right wing MP.

  48. #69 Well no, because that slogan appears to apply to the Labour Party as a whole. So perhaps “vote Danzcuck with no illusions, in the unfortunate event that he’s still the Labour candidate.”. Catchy, eh?

    Although to honest it always was a vacuous slogan anyway. No illusions? In what/who? What can/ could be achieved by a Labour government is and always has been an algebraic question.

    Better than, “Labour to power on a socialist programme,” on the subject of which, a leading member in Manchster of the grouping that came up with that particular slogan while they were still in the Labour Party has just resigned to become a Corbynista. Apparently he’s not alone.

    Clearly the prospects at the moment for parties that prioritise building a left electoral challenge to Labour are not wonderful at the moment.

    A reminder of better days for Danzcuk and his pals and why it would be truly painful to ask people to vote for him:

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=18sK8Vi4vUE

  49. #71 Sadly politics is full of pain however.

    #70 You have something here. It will be interesting to see how these things develop, albeit in my case from the outside.

  50. Karl Stewart on said:

    Calvin,
    I don’t think a refusal to support this odious Tory scumbag will quite result in the sky falling on all our heads.

  51. #73 Depends on what you mean by the sky falling in.

    If you’re confident Labour can get a majority in the next general election without winning in any of the constituencies where there are Labour candidates we have a problem with, I’m afraid I’m not.

    If you don’t think it matters if Labour wins or not if it means relying on Blairites that’s another matter. It is of course the mirror of their barely disguised position.

    However it’s probably a little unwise to discuss the issue in such stark and absolute terms so early in proceedings.

    Who knows whether Danzcuk will still be the candidate. If he had any principle he’d resign.

  52. John Grimshaw on said:

    Vanya: Better than, “Labour to power on a socialist programme,” on the subject of which, a leading member in Manchster of the grouping that came up with that particular slogan while they were still in the Labour Party has just resigned to become a Corbynista. Apparently he’s not alone.

    Do tell!

  53. John Grimshaw on said:

    Vanya: Who knows whether Danzcuk will still be the candidate. If he had any principle he’d resign.

    Yes but he won’t I presume. I didn’t mean to pick on him particularly he was just the best example I could think of. There’s a whole raft of pseudo-Tory Labour MPs who are of no help to the working class movement. My understanding, from admittedly a very Islington source, is that Corbyn wishes to rejuvenate the LP and facilitate, by democratic means, the replacement of those MPs with others. That’s why so many of these “creatures” with their sinecures are getting stressed. Whether of course there was an LP “golden era” and whether it’s possible to rejuvenate is a separate debate.

  54. John Grimshaw on said:

    Vanya,

    Yes I caught that Vanya. Apparently he is now employing another woman to do his work who his first wife claims he was having an affair with some years ago. What’s weird is that he used to employ this new woman ten years ago and she took him to court citing bullying and sexual discrimination. This was settled out of court and never came before the beak. I have no interest in people’s personal life as long as it’s reasonably legal but the more you look into Danczuk the more it’s obvious that he is “dodgy”.