Tag Archives: Blair

Conference 2019, Democracy and the Labour Party

Clause four: Fight for real socialism!

Clause four, rewritten under Tony Blair in 1995, carries a totemic status for both the right and left. Therefore it was correct to support the rule change that would have reinstated the old Fabian 1918 clause four, striking a blow against the Blairite right. The NEC, however, sensing that this might well have gotten a majority, suggested to set up a ‘working group’ instead – a recipe to kick the issue into the long grass, of course. Jim Kennedy, chair of the Organisation Committee, told the movers: “Rest assured, your voices will be heard” – while telling delegates to vote against. The rule change was supported by a slim majority of CLP delegates (56%), but as over 99% of affiliates (union and socialist societies) voted against, the constitutional amendment fell.

The rule change by Rochford and Southend East, Doncaster Central, and Wallasey (and inspired by Socialist Appeal) falls far short of what is required – leaving most of the existing clause four untouched. For instance, it upholds the current international order by talking about how Labour is “committed to the defence and security of the British people” and “cooperating in European institutions, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other international bodies” (presumably including Nato).

Frankly, we need to be far more radical about our vision for the future. The old Fabian clause formulations, especially the crucial fourth – “to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry” – are too often celebrated as being a defining socialist moment. Yet, when first mooted in November 1917 – amidst the slaughter of inter-imperialist war – Sidney Webb, its principle author, had no thought of promoting genuine socialism. He wanted a government of experts, elections existing merely to ratify their enlightened decisions.
Top leaders of the Fabian Society, including HG Wells and George Bernard Shaw, considered themselves social engineers of the highest order. The role of these very clever people was to slowly and courteously persuade the great and the good of the benefits of ‘socialism’.

Naturally, Marxists have always opposed Fabianism. Fredrick Engels showed particular contempt for this “well-meaning gang of eddicated middle class folk”. For them, Engels concluded, “fear of revolution is their guiding principle.”

The working class was to be lifted out of their ignorance – with the unruly sections herded into “human sorting houses” to be trained for work. The Fabians were also ardently pro-imperialists. The British empire was portrayed as a benevolent bringer of democracy and a saviour of the ‘lower breeds’. Naturally, come the 1914-18 great war, the Fabians did their best to serve the imperial cause. Europe had to be saved from the Junkers and Prussian militarism.

But then the October Revolution shook the whole capitalist world to its very foundations. Bourgeois politicians rushed to make concessions. Hence, Sidney Webb cynically calculated that his clause four socialism could be used to divert the considerable rank-and-file sympathy that existed for the Russian Revolution into safe and peaceful constitutional channels. Obviously, clause four socialism had to be implicitly anti-Marxist: the Fabians consciously sought to ameliorate the mounting contradictions between labour and capital … and thus put off socialism.

Nevertheless, the Blairising of clause four in 1995 was hugely symbolic. Socialism was declared dead. By sacrificing the old clause four in the full glare of publicity, Blair and his clique sought to appease the establishment, the City, the Murdoch empire, the global plutocracy. Capitalism would be absolutely safe in their hands.

Riding high in the opinion polls, Blair inaugurated a series of internal ‘reforms’. Conference was gutted. No longer could it debate issues, vote on policy or embarrass the leadership in front of the media. Instead the whole thing became a revolting rubber-stamping exercise.

Demands for a return of the old clause four are perfectly understandable. But why go back to a Fabian past? Instead we should persuade members and affiliates to take up LPM’s implicitly Marxist alternative:

Objectives

1. Labour is the federal party of the working class. We strive to bring all trade unions, cooperatives, socialist societies and leftwing groups and parties under our banner. We believe that unity brings strength.

2. Labour is committed to replacing the rule of capital with the rule of the working class. Socialism introduces a democratically planned economy, ends the ecologically ruinous cycle of production for the sake of production and moves towards a stateless, classless, moneyless society that embodies the principle, “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”. Alone such benign conditions create the possibility for every individual to fully realise their innate potentialities.

3. Towards that end Labour commits itself to achieving a democratic republic. The standing army, the monarchy, the House of Lords and the state sponsorship of the Church of England must go. We support a single- chamber parliament, proportional representation and annual elections.

4. Labour seeks to win the active backing of the majority of people and form a government on this basis.

5. We shall work with others, in particular in the European Union, in pursuit of the aim of replacing capitalism with working class rule and socialism.
__________

Original agreed in 1918 and subsequently amended in 1959

Objects

1. To organise and maintain in parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.

2. To cooperate with the general council of the Trades Union Congress, or other kindred organisations, in joint political or other action in harmony with the party constitution and standing orders.

3. To give effect as far as possible to the principles from time to time approved by the party conference.

4. To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

5. Generally to promote the political, social and economic emancipation of the people, and more particularly of those who depend directly upon their own exertions by hand or by brain for the means of life.

6. To cooperate with the labour and socialist organisations in the commonwealth overseas with a view to promoting the purposes of the party, and to take common action for the promotion of a higher standard of social and economic life for the working population of the respective countries.

7. To cooperate with the labour and socialist organisations in other countries and to support the United Nations and its various agencies and other international organisations for the promotion of peace, the adjustment and settlement of international disputes by conciliation or judicial arbitration, the establishment and defence of human rights, and the improvement of the social and economic standards and conditions of work of the people of the world.
__________

Blairite version agreed in 1995

Aims and values

1. The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that, by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

2. To these ends we work for:
* a dynamic economy, serving the public interest, in which the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and cooperation to produce the wealth the nation needs and the opportunity for all to work and prosper, with a thriving public sector and high quality services, where those undertakings essential to the common good are either owned by the public or accountable to them;
* a just society, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong, provides security against fear, and justice at work; which nurtures families, promotes equality of opportunity and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice and the abuse of power;
* an open democracy, in which government is held to account by the people; decisions are taken as far as practicable by the communities they affect; and where fundamental human rights are guaranteed;
* a healthy environment, which protect, enhance and hold in trust for future generations.

3. Labour is committed to the defence and security of the British people, and to cooperating in European institutions, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other international bodies to secure peace, freedom, democracy, economic security and environmental protection for all.

4. Labour will work in pursuit of these aims with trade unions, cooperative societies and other affiliated organisations, and also with voluntary organisations, consumer groups and other representative bodies.

5. On the basis of these principles, Labour seeks the trust of the people to govern.

Democracy and the Labour Party, The left, The right

TIG: Getting trigger happy

What does the formation of the so-called Independent Group and the suspension of Chris Williamson tell us about the balance of forces? William Sarsfield gives his view

The Independent Group (TIG) has the potential to grow, despite its initial small numbers, its chaotic launch and the absence of policy. Over the coming weeks and months, we can expect money to flow its way, major news outlets to corral behind it and further defections from the venal majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party, who have attempted unsuccessfully to thwart and derail the leadership of Corbyn from day one.

TIG currently stands at around 8% in some opinion polls – not huge, but not statistically insignificant either. Moreover, we hear murmurs from Chuka Umunna that up to a third of Labour MPs have expressed some sympathy for the venture. Others may well be in political solidarity in the abstract, but are holding back for fear of the damage a split from Labour may do to their own parliamentary careers.

That said, it is worthwhile underlining just how poor this launch was. Despite the obvious fact that this small splinter from Labour (plus its even smaller Tory cohort) had been quite some time coming, there has been glaring lack of basic spadework. So, despite its relatively long gestation period, there are no books, pamphlets, recruitment videos that let us into the Weltanschauung of these intrepid mould-breakers. Indeed, journalists at the group’s launch reported it was a struggle to find coherent ideas strung together coming from the individual TIGers, let alone the group as a collective.

This underlines that this new organisation has little in the way of political gravitas. It is responsive, short-termist and very much of the political moment – specifically, Brexit; the ‘anti-Semitism contagion’ that apparently continues to rip through Labour’s ranks; and the intensely uncomfortable fact of who the current Labour leader is – his history, links, his ‘unpatriotic’ baggage, etc. For the three Tory TIGers – Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen – the key issue was obviously Brexit, of course.

The response from the Labour leadership has once again been extremely disappointing. Publicly, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have bent over backwards to conciliate – and not just by jumping onto the ‘second referendum’ bandwagon. There has been talk of not enough support offered to Luciana Berger MP – effectively putting two fingers up to the rank and file of her Constituency Labour Party, Wavertree, who were threatened with suspension by Labour deputy leader Tom Watson for having the temerity to discuss two motions of no-confidence in the woman.

It may seem a paradox, but objectively the TIG departure reflects the growing strength of the left in the party. The Labour right views the past three-plus years of Corbyn’s leadership as a disaster. Frustration levels have mounted, as every ploy to get rid of this turbulent priest have come to naught.

Early on, we had the plotting of the unctuous Hilary Benn to organise mass resignations from the shadow cabinet following the EU referendum, which came to nothing. Then the wretched Margaret Hodge and sidekick Ann Coffey (a founding member of TIG, of course) tabled a motion of no confidence in the Labour leader in June 2016 – again over his performance in the EU campaign. It was carried by the PLP by 172 votes to 40, but, when it came to the membership, Corbyn was re-elected with an increased majority.

Below

For Camilla Cavendish – a former advisor to Cameron and now a Financial Times columnist – the establishment of TIG is to be warmly welcomed, primarily as it precipitates the disintegration of the rigid, class-based political architecture of the two-party system. This is regarded as an especially necessary corrective, given what she sees as the appalling rise of runaway ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘bullying’ in today’s Labour Party. Despite this all this, she huffs with an impressive degree of faux incomprehension that Corbyn still has the temerity to make “claims” to have the membership on his side.

Of course, there have also been (partially successful) attempts to tame Corbyn – a stratagem that sporadically ran alongside the ‘anti-Semitism’ provocation. All too frequently, both Corbyn and McDonnell have buckled under this pressure and made important – and totally unprincipled – concessions to the right. The latest example being, of course, the suspension of left Labour MP Chris Williamson. After putting up some token resistance Corbyn caved in to the demands of the Labour Parliamentary Committee (made up of 3 Labour peers, five senior Labour MPs, Tom Watson and John Cryer, chair of the PLP). Meeting on the Wednesday afternoon it unanimously demanded his scalp.

However, the right wing of the PLP will now calculate, correctly, that the real danger emanates not from the leader’s office, but from below, in the form of an overwhelmingly pro-Corbyn left in the CLPs, invested with new powers to hold their MPs to account and challenge their assumed right to a ‘job for life’. Specifically, delegates scored an important, if partial, democratic victory at last year’s Labour conference in Liverpool, which enhanced the ability of members to pursue successful trigger ballots to replace sitting MPs. Constituency parties now have far more leeway to call their recalcitrant rightwing MPs to order and get shot of them if needed. The simplified and more democratic provision of trigger ballots could well turn out to be the biggest recruiting tool for TIG, as more MPs jump before they are pushed.

The threat of deselection was clearly the deciding factor for some of the TIG founders … and it is a nightmare scenario that will be playing on the minds many rightwing MPs still parked on the Labour benches. The hoi-polloi – the chumps who should be content with knocking on doors and handing out the leaflets – now have the potential to put an end to the glittering careers of these professional politicians. The nerve of it!

Inevitably, there are qualifications to this good news. It would not be a shock if the central Labour apparatus – in keeping with the quite wretched conciliatory culture promoted by Corbyn and McDonnell – put pressure on local CLPs to drop trigger ballots aimed at replacing local rightist MPs. According to The Guardian, “Labour could delay the start of deselection battles that party sources fear may prompt further resignations.” After all, “We don’t want to further antagonise” (February 26).

For an indicator of the way the political wind blows on this, we must wait for the appearance of a document outlining how and when the newly reformed trigger ballot provisions can be fired up in local CLPs. General secretary Jennie Formby was commissioned at Labour’s January 22 national executive committee meeting to produce a ‘trigger ballot manual’, with the recommendation that it is produced in short order. NEC member Darren Williams confirmed that this was supposed to be published in February. The delay is worrying.

The overwhelming majority of active Labour Party members are now quite clearly to the left and – although there has been a worrying lack of detail from the central apparatus around Jennie Formby – these new provisions are at least somewhere in the pipeline. Across the country, groups of eager left CLP members are keen to get cracking. So, we anticipate more ‘centrists’ bailing out or being given the heave-ho by their members – either way, fingers crossed that their days are numbered …

The key problem for the Labour left is that this objective strength on the ground has yet to translate into a coherent form as a united, national organisation with an ambitious political programme – not simply to purge the existing pro-capitalist right, but for the root-and-branch remaking of the Labour Party, the abolition of the bans and proscriptions on working class organisations, and the radical refounding of Labour as a genuine party of the working class, influenced by the world view of Marxism.

This fight is still hampered not simply by the left’s lack of vision, but also by the fact that Momentum (for the moment) still ‘squats’ the space where a fighting organisation ought to operate. Undoubtedly, Momentum’s lustre faded pretty damn quick and recent scab comments from the organisation’s CEO – Jon Lansman – will no doubt further disillusion many members, if not the few who rely on the organisation for employment. Disillusionment is not a mobilising force, however. (As numerous comrades have commented, Momentum itself is essentially an online mobilising tool these days, as well as a flag of convenience for Lansman to run up when he wants to spout crap.)

Left organisation

The Labour left needs to build a national organisation which embodies a political independence from the current leadership of our party, not simply forms of organisational autonomy as the vast majority of the existing left organisations in Labour restrict themselves to. Perforce, such an organisation would be an open, multi-tendency alliance. Thus, transparency and democracy would be vital components (as it should be in all working class formations) and this culture would demand an explicit statement of our aims and clear perspectives on how to fight the battle. This would find expression in our attitude to Corbyn, McDonnell and their team – we offer them support to the extent that they fight for the interests of our class as a whole; we would criticise and censure them when they renege on that duty.

As an aside, Labour Party Marxists supporters are putting forward exactly such an amendment to the AGM of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy. Motion 1 – the “work programme” put forward by CLPD secretary Pete Willsman – states: “Full support to the party leader at all times.” This is a crass and misguided approach that smacks of religion. Instead, we think this should be changed to: “We will defend Jeremy Corbyn from any further coups and acts of sabotage. We will support him where he fights for the thorough democratisation of the Labour Party and wider society. But we will also criticise him when and where necessary – for example, over his silence when it comes to the witch-hunt against his supporters in the Labour Party.”

Meanwhile, and paradoxically, Emily Thornberry has launched the most vociferous attack on TIG, telling a Labour rally that she would “rather die” than leave the party, that the quitters are “cuddling up to the Tories” and if they ever found the courage to stand in a by-election, Labour would “crush” them. This might be little more than an exercise in positioning – a chance for Thornberry, the Zionist, to buff up her left street-fighting credentials, perhaps. We can make educated guesses, but we really do not know ….

The right

Crush the saboteurs

Theresa May’s decision to call a snap general election looks more of a no-brainer with each day that passes. The prime minister might have been tempted to let Labour’s right wing continue their wrecking activity until 2020, but that always carried the risk of events intervening at some point – so go for it. Rather just play safe and take advantage of the Labour Party’s weakness – denuded as it is in Scotland, riven by civil war and dogged by dismal poll ratings. It is hard to imagine any Tory prime minister doing anything different.

Of course, various factors affected her decision. One of them being the growing realisation that the Brexit negotiations with the European Union are going to be extremely gruelling. Any delusions about them being a shoo-in have evaporated – reports of the ‘frosty’ No10 dinner with Jean-Claude Junker confirms it.

Another possible, and related, consideration is that Donald Trump seems ready to do a trade deal with the EU ahead of any agreement with Britain following discussions with Angela Merkel – where she purportedly reminded the US president a number of times that he would not be allowed to conduct a unilateral trade deal with Germany. Obviously, Britain is small fry compared to the EU bloc, with the US exporting $270 billion in goods to the EU last year, making it America’s major trading partner – whilst exports to the UK were only worth $55 billion. If Britain does find itself at the “back of the queue” – or not near the front, as Barack Obama warned during the referendum campaign – then the Brexit self-image of Britain as a newly liberated global player cutting ‘free trade’ deals here, there and everywhere is severely punctured. That would put Theresa May in a tricky situation, meaning she needs a solid parliamentary base to weather the inevitable political and economic storm.

At the end of the day though, the prime minister’s calculation was simple – now is the chance to convert a slim majority into an overwhelming one. Don’t dither or dally like Gordon Brown in 2007. Naturally, no-one knows what the exact size of the majority will be. But in betting shop terms, the odds of a Labour victory are pretty slim (perhaps rather generously, William Hill has it on 12 to one).

Some polls suggest that the Tories are on course for a 150 – seat Commons majority – notching up a 17% lead in marginal seats, where Labour have a majority of 15% or less, which would see Labour losing 65 seats to the Tories (representing a swing of 130 seats between the two parties). Other polls put the Tories ahead of Labour in London, Scotland and even on course to win a majority of seats in Wales. The last time that happened was 1859. Another poll has the Conservatives winning 12 seats in Scotland, taking 10 from the Scottish National Party. But one thing we can say for sure is that Theresa May did not call an early election out of “weakness” because she was facing a “rising tide of anger” from the British working class, as suggested by Paula Mitchell of the Socialist Party of England and Wales – maybe she lives on a different planet (The Socialist April 18 2017). Unfortunately, the exact opposite is true – the Tories are going from strength to strength, politically and electorally.

Civil war

As for the Labour Party, the civil war continues. Even though there is an election campaign going on. Tony Blair has refused to endorse Corbyn as potential prime minister and calls for voters to back any candidate willing to oppose “Brexit at any costs” – including “reasonable” Tories and Lib Dems. Peter Mandelson’s think tank, Policy Network, warns that a bad election result for Labour might strengthen Corbyn. Not to be outdone, John Woodcock and Neil Coyle have been talking about the damage being done by Corbyn’s leadership to Labour’s election chances. And, embracing cross-class liberalism, Jon Cruddas, Clive Lewis, Helena Kennedy, Hilary Wainwright, Tulip Saddiq, Paul Mason and Owen Jones have been calling for Labour to step aside for the Greens in Brighton Pavilion and the Isle of Wight (Letters The Guardian April 30 2017).

Meanwhile, rightwing Labour candidates are running campaigns which claim that they put their constituents before their party. Jeremy Corbyn does not get a mention. But that hardly applies to the Tories. They will bang on and on about Corbyn. The idea that you can somehow uninvent Corbyn, make him disappear, is for the birds – people will be asking you about him regardless. The fact of the matter is that Theresa May says she is calling this election not because she wants to massively increase her parliamentary majority (though she is and probably will), but by claiming it is a choice between stability and chaos – between a strong Conservative government and a “floundering, weak and nonsensical Jeremy Corbyn that will put our nation’s future at risk” – essentially making this a rerun of the 2015 election, in which David Cameron campaigned relentlessly about Ed Miliband being in the pocket of Alex Salmond, and so on.

Displaying their confidence, Philip Hammond said that the May government will not be tied to David Cameron’s pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. So tax rises are on the horizon. Earlier, infuriating rightwing Tory backbenchers and grassroots activists, Theresa May said she would retain a pledge to allocate 0.7% of national income to international aid and – more significantly – would not commit her government to the so-called triple lock for pensioners, which ensures that the state pension rises by the higher of the inflation rate, average earnings or 2.5%.

Of course, the daft Cameron-Osborne ‘promise’ to achieving a budget surplus by 2020 was ditched long ago – but the recent comments, or non-comments, by both Hammond and May represent another scrubbing away of the past: Cameron and Osborne seem like distant memories now. The distinct message from today’s Tory government is that pensioners are far too well off and should be made to feel guilty about the fact that their pensions have been going up each year – obviously it is their fault that young people cannot get jobs and houses. Therefore punish ‘rich’ pensioners and help out young people.

Utterly idiotic from any rational, economic point of view – if not downright deceitful, though some people might fall for it. But the calculation is that most pensioners who traditionally vote Tory will continue to vote Tory. Who else are they going to vote for? Not the Lib Dems, as most of them voted ‘leave’- definitely not Corbyn’s Labour Party. After all, the Labour right seems to have persuaded the majority of Labour voters – reinforced endlessly by the colluding media – that, although Corbyn may be a thoroughly nice bloke, he is completely incompetent. Not a devil, but more a fool – a bit like Ed Miliband, who could not even eat a bacon sandwich properly. If his own party, or at least the Parliamentary Labour Party, do not think Corbyn should even be the leader, never mind prime minister, then why should you trust him or vote for him? This is the story so far.

Our own expectation, for what it is worth, is that the media and the Tories have plenty of things up their sleeves to use against Corbyn if necessary – multiple examples of his ‘anti-Semitism’, statements on the Soviet Union, pro-IRA sympathies, etc. Pictures of him alongside whoever at some rally, demonstration or meeting. They are just waiting to be deployed if he appears to be making tangible progress in the run-up to June 8.

Stay or go?

Yes, of course, it is possible that Labour will not do quite as badly as we fear – but we strongly suspect that things will turn out badly. We have been going on for some time about the likelihood of some sort of repeat of 1931 and the national government – when Ramsay MacDonald joined a coalition with the Tories and Liberals because at least some in the Labour cabinet refused to sanction cuts, especially to unemployment benefit. As a result, Labour was hammered at the polls, because they faced not only Tories, but Liberals too – who were still a significant force at the time. It is interesting to note that MacDonald did not want to go for an early election, but the Tories forced his hand – wanting to crush Labour, which they did.

What is most crucial is not the actual election result, but what happens after June 8. In other words, will Jeremy Corbyn stay or will he go? History, for about the last 30 years, has been of leaders falling on their sword to make way for someone fresh. We are no wiser than anybody else about what Corbyn will do, but the left should be urging him to stay on and fight the right. But if you look at the Owen Jones version of events, apparently there is a bright younger leftwinger ready to take over from Corbyn. Well, he or she might be bright and younger than Corbyn – but leftwing? Clive Lewis, Rosie Winterton, Jon Cruddas? You must be kidding. There is no-one obviously credible in terms of a sustained history of principled leftwing politics.

Anyhow, replacement candidates for sitting Labour MPs who stand down are being chosen by the national executive committee – so there has been a bias towards safe rightwingers rather than dangerous leftwingers.

Having said all that, the chances of Corbyn staying on as leader has increased due to the recent Unite election – which saw Len McCluskey beat the right’s candidate, Gerard Coyne, albeit on a depressingly low turnout of 12.2%. McCluskey won 59,067 votes (45.4%) and Coyne got 53,544 (41.5%), with Ian Allinson – a member of the Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century split from the Socialist Workers Party – on 17,143 (13.1%).

In our view, it was a wrong call by RS21 to stand a candidate against McCluskey. The fact that Allinson was backed by other sections of the left, including the SWP, shows that they are incapable of strategic thinking. Clearly, the election was far less about actual internal Unite politics and far more of an overspill of the Labour civil war – that was certainly how the Labour right saw it and the media too.

For instance, look at the response to the election result by The Economist. It ran the instructive headline, “The tragedy of Len McCluskey’s re-election as head of Unite” (April 22). The article touchingly claimed that McCluskey’s narrow victory is a “tragedy for the British left”, as it “condemns Unite to another five years of incompetent leadership, while significantly increasing Mr Corbyn’s chances of holding onto the leadership of the Labour Party after losing the general election” – which, of course, is the real point.

Naturally, various MPs and grandees of the Labour right have lined up in the media to attack McCluskey for being far too close to Corbyn – exactly why Allinson’s participation in the election was so mistaken, as he could have been responsible for McCluskey’s defeat. Not that we should have any illusions in the left bureaucrat, Len McCluskey, it goes without saying, but it is far more likely that he will urge Corbyn not to fall on his sword post-June 8.

McCluskey’s Unite – as opposed to Coyne’s Unite – could provide an organisational base for the left to do what they ought to be doing: that is attacking the right for losing the election. Ever since it looked likely that Corbyn was going to win the leadership, the right has conducted a civil war that has continued all the way through. Corbyn’s re-election on an increased mandate did not stop the civil war – no, they just toned it down a bit whilst plotting away.

But once the election is over we should expect an explosion of anger from the right, magnified by the enemy media, the likes of which we have not seen before – more no-confidence motions, more parliamentary harassment and scheming, more attempts to give Jeremy Corbyn a nervous breakdown, and all the rest. Full of vindictiveness, rage in their heart, the right will get the really sharp knives out and fight to retake the party, guided by the slogan, ‘Never again’.