2018 Council Elections: Inconclusive results, dishonest interpretations

(Most of the contested seats in yesterday’s council elections were last contested in 2014.) 

Facts
Labour made several gains, particularly in London and Trafford, and were close to success in Wandsworth and Barnet.  In areas where Labour did not gain as much as they hoped, the sitting MP is a Progress MP.

The only gains made by the Tories were from UKIP.  In some areas, these gains were sufficient to take control of a council.

Liberal Democrats did quite well in south-west outer London middle-class areas.

Green Party won some seats from the tree-felling Labour council in Sheffield.

UKIP disappeared.

Interpretations
The Tories are celebrating that their racism regarding Windrush helped them to grab the UKIP votes.

Liberal Democrats are celebrating.  The party regained a small part of its vote loss over the last four years and it remains (no pun) a small party in Britain.

Progress MPs, who have relentlessly attacked the Labour party leadership in the build-up to the elections, are complaining that the party should have made more gains.  Perhaps, Progress should look in the mirror.

Most of the media, having viewed the results in detail, are discussing them as if the results are entirely different to what they actually are.

Consequences
Tories will keep pushing their far-right agenda.

Liberal Democrats will focus on opposing Brexit because that is all they have.

Progress will keep attacking the Labour leadership while simultaneously blaming the latter for any decline in Labour’s support caused by criticism from, for example, Progress.

UKIP will have another “leadership” election.

2018 Council Elections: Inconclusive results, dishonest interpretations

Policy Network

The single objective of Policy Network is to obstruct, shout down, stifle and strangle genuine opposition to the status quo of capitalist exploitation.  It exists as fake opposition as a ruse to vacuum up time and energy that should be applied to real opposition.  It pretends to express opinions on a variety of issues and pretends to offer solutions to a variety of problems, but it is all purposefully hollow centrist tripe.

A couple of examples of Policy Network methodology
1) In a bizarrely titled article, Can Labour rally progressive Britain? (16th April 2018), Matthew Laza’s concern was how can the vacuous centre cling onto the coat-tails of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour.  Through gritted teeth, he acknowledged Labour’s electoral improvement following Corbyn’s election as leader, but repeated the oft-refuted claim of a limit to the appeal of socialist politics.  As the Corbynistas and Momentum concentrate on winning total control over the party machine there is no fizz of new ideas,” he declared.  The ideas – a socialist challenge to capitalist exploitation – may not be new, but they are new as a force in mainstream parliamentary politics in Britain and there is a lot more to come.  Laza’s suggestion of a limit being reached is deliberate dishonesty.  

Laza’s disdain for left-wing politics and his supercilious view of socialists punctuated the article.  He spoke from a separated viewpoint: “Even if you don’t always agree with the way they [Momentum members] vote in internal elections no one should be anything other than pleased that Labour has gained new members and new traction” and no one should be churlish in celebrating the extra Labour votes.”  This theme defined his objective: He perceived Labour as a vessel where he and his fellow “progressives” can con their way in and asphyxiate everything in the party that is useful.  

The only way Labour can win a majority is by winning over some of the record numbers of electors who voted Tory last year” was a repetition of the dual con trick of the centrists that belittles the electoral potential of a left-wing party while suggesting that only a partnership with “progressives” can keep out the Tories.

Laza’s article elucidated the opportunism of Policy Network and its intrinsic dishonesty.

2) Progress MP Wes Streeting is a vicious opponent of Jeremy Corbyn and of Momentum.  He stands for nothing.  He is the template for suffocation politics.  His history as an MP and his earlier role as president of the NUS are both full of resistance to genuine challenge and are dominated by con tricks.  In his We need a centre-left revolution, not patching (22nd September 2017), Streeting wailed that “our politics is under assault from a centre right, stealing our clothes, a populist right, stealing our core voters; and a sectarian left, laying claim to our party structures.”  By “our politics” Streeting meant some imaginary “centre-left” anti-ideology that he aligns with. 

For too long, in too many parts of the world, the centre left have been out of office and out of answers, ” he bemoaned.  Yes, the politics of nothing, of crumb-grasping, of confidence tricks has been given the massive boot up the arse it needed to receive.

Streeting concluded his empty words by stating “we [the progressives] need to provide centre-left answers to this revolutionary moment.”  No, the meaningless “centre-left” has no answers to anything and certainly cannot partake of any “revolutionary moment” in a positive way.

Mandelson
Policy Network’s president is Peter Mandelson.

Peter Mandelson, Labour Party Conference Bournemouth.

Related blogs
Progress
Centrism is a con trick

Links to brief descriptions of other right-wing think-tanks

Policy Network

Tory cowards voted against revealing Windrush correspondence

WindrushArrival

Today, Labour submitted a Humble Address Motion (1) in the House of Commons that demanded that government correspondence related to the Windrush scandal be released to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

The motion was necessary because of the deluge of lies, misdirections, obfuscations and contradictions in the government’s account of its actions related to Windrush.  The prime minister, the resigned Home Secretary, the new Home Secretary, the immigration minister and others had indulged in deliberate dishonesty and deceit when questioned by opposition MPs and by the media, and they continue to do so.

Faced with the prospect of the publication of facts and truth, two concepts that are kryptonite to a Tory, the Tory MPs voted down the Humble Address Motion. 

The refusal to allow inspection of government correspondence related to Windrush is an act of COWARDICE by the Tory MPs.

(1)
WindrushMotionMay2nd

Tory cowards voted against revealing Windrush correspondence