Read on Twitter
Starting a new thread - for reference I am reading through the Pogrund/Maguire book and giving thoughts and paraphrases of interesting bits. So far it is fairly even-handed and I would encourage people to buy it and read it for themselves rather than only reading other readings. https://twitter.com/thatinterlace/status/1301499423248261121
We're on Chapter 4.
Lots of stuff about Gavin Shuker. Interesting bit about his secret away day with seriously Corbynsceptic MPs to a nice bed and breakfast in Sussex for profiteroles and plotting.
Can't really endorse the plotting but who doesn't love a good profiterole? (page 65-67)
In many ways it sounds like more of a group therapy session than anything - I mean that sympathetically. I'm highly politically opposed to many of these people but it was a difficult time and I'm never going to begrudge people leaning on colleagues for support.
Although it would be good if the Labour Party had less of a drinking culture... "We're all members of the Labour Party, so there was nothing else to do but drink." (mentioned page 68)
This seems to have been the "we can't go on like this" moment for a lot of them, though they wouldn't all end up in TIG I think?
The account of this meeting is genuinely interesting from a neutral "how to do political plotting" view - obviously in some sense their ultimate goals failed but there's some interesting stuff about how Shuker brought together disparate groups.
Reminds me a bit of plotting in larp, I remember a meeting in a small marquee where I was dressed as a giant spider where the mood was much as described here.
I often think that one of the interesting things about "gossip books" - not a fantastically complimentary name for this genre - is that they give you a decent sense for how politics actually is. Now, you can believe it ought to be not be like that - but you've to start from "is".
If you are someone trying to effect political change in a political culture, whatever your ideology, it is usually sensible to understand how that has been done before, and then (I think?) decide for yourself what you will do.
I say this like I'm experienced but I'm a late-twenties ingénue really: but these are just my ponderings where I am right now. Anyway, back to the book.
I will admit that here in the fag-end of 2020 I don't care much about Brexit but it is relevant. Discussion of the fabled six tests and reports of their critics. Starmer described them as a "tool of opposition" which seems to chime with his general style so far as LOTO.
More Brexit-focused MPs described them as very much a commitment to the status quo. So we move on to Andrew Fisher's involvement.
Fisher was pushing for Corbyn to commit to leaving the single market and customs union (no state aid rules).
Milne not directly involved in Fisher's drafting of a plan but the tone suggested o/w. Quite dismissive of those with an emotional attachment to the EU.
Milne felt emboldened by internal polling which claimed most voters would prefer a deal that protected British jobs over FoM.
Basically the idea was that Labour could present its own distinct plan for Brexit, move the conversation on, and not get embroiled in a culture war.
Narrator voice: But this was a fantasy. (Enter, say Pogrund and Maguire, one Keir Starmer.)
(Feel genuinely torn over this never-happened possibility. There is an interpretation of reality that says that free movement was never actually savable. Could Labour have got a better deal for migrants by committing to the above, getting into power, and being in a...
... position to reform the Home Office and hostile environment? Sort of question that keeps one up at night - but one can't live in the never-was.)
So basically Corbyn, nominally presenting "his plan", reads it but isn't very familiar with it (it's been written by Fisher, JC is the messenger). Starmer is apoplectic - it is described as "basically Johnson's deal" by someone close to him now - and he hadn't seen it beforehand.
This is to the ShadCab Brexit subcommittee.
Starmer looked like he might quit, this spooked John McD, and as a result Fisher was directed back to the drawing board - this time with Starmer having input.
Essentially the attempt to cut Starmer out ended up only giving him more power and influence. I wonder if there would be any future incidents where the left-left of the party underestimated him?
Ah! But in fact Starmer had seen the plan before the meeting by one Mark Simpson, who was employed by LOTO but had bonded with Starmer's team over summits in Nando's.
Who I believe still works for LOTO under the new management. https://labourlist.org/2020/05/what-does-the-new-leaders-office-say-about-keir-starmer/ Funny how that works out.
There's a degree of high drama about whether or not the customs union made it in - cameo appearance from Ben Nunn being pressed by Tim Shipman - and some interesting stuff about Starmer talking up a custom's union on Marr in advance of Corbyn's speech.
But down to the wire whether it would actually be in there - but in the end it was.
Unfortunately (as we know) it didn't make PLP remainers or your AEIP types happy, and of course it wasn't what your Milney lexiteers wanted (page 74). This is again sort of exposing that Fisher had chosen a pragmatism that was at odds with other parts of the project.
Now onto a discussion of a Wiltshire city with a cathedral spire 123m high.
I'm not really in a mood to relitigate Sailsbury. Some interesting stuff about RT though: McD decides pragmatically when questioned that he's going to endorse a boycott; LOTO (Milne) disagrees.
It's striking how little the divisions in the party here are on the right, who as we move away from the McNichol Southside era are mostly irrelevant.
The stuff about Milne and anti-imperalism being strictly anti-Washington, which has been widely reported, appears. Though his views on Putin are described as nuanced: he's not /quite/ what his critics credit about him.
This is a bit where the book does a decent job, I think, of trying to be fair-minded to at least some degree.
This is all very exciting - pg 81-83. Thornberry and Nia Griffith go excessively off-piste with LOTO lines on Skripal, Griffith essentially writing policy on the fly on air, supporting government. They're going to get a bollocking from LOTO, possibly Griffith will resign...
And then out of nowhere McDonnell appears, fully supports the government and gazumps LOTO (pg 83). No bollocking.
There really is a running theme here of "and then John McDonnell appeared out of nowhere, executed a tactical strike, and disappeared". He's the Macavity of this story.
the second Shuker rebels meeting happens and the meal is again discussed: a Nigel Slater recipe of smoked mackerel, panzanella salad, and chicken supreme.
Whoever P&M have as their source for this, they are someone who really likes their food - first the profiteroles then this.
Themed party idea: The Independent Group meals! Profiteroles, Nando's, mackerel: looking forward to finding out what's next.
"Polished off a cheeseboard and drained several bottles of Tesco Finest Argentinian Malbec, gin and prosecco" - who remembers to this detail? (This is all page 87.)
Just loving the anonymous source who clearly took copious notes on the excellent dinner Shuker served. Sounds like an excellent dinner party host tbh.
Labour pants up the local elections - as that's mostly outside Westminster not loads of time is given to this. But it does segue into a Lavery initiative to recapture the spirit of 2017 - Labour Live. Time to take a big sip of coffee and read how that went.
"In 2017 we had so many celebrities endorsing Jeremy - I think people just thought that would translate into them wanting to perform for free." (page 91) Shocked that something run by Ian Lavery might end up not spending money effectively.
Unite had an ice-cream van at Labour Live which played the Red Flag and whose Mr Whippy machine was manned by Len McCluskey. Again this is a politically irrelevant fact but an amazing image.
Basically LabourLive was kinda alright on the night, is the conclusion, but of course it had already become a joke. More significantly says the book: anti-Brexit protest highlighted that Brexit was beginning to isolate some of the project's supporters (page 94).
Richard Burgon exhibits some quite cunning nous where he correctly identifies that the party membership is not ideologically Bennite. Good analysis of why JC got elected in the first place. (page 95)
For all that he gets rancour, and I don't like him for a number of reasons, this is just a neat little bit of political observation from Burgon here: credit where it's due.
Discussion of the selection as to who would replace Heidi Alexander. I can't remember who did in the end so this is a fun surprise reading. Splits in the left's choices.
McDonnell again keeping options open and potentially going rogue (page 95) (but when you reach the scene of crime, Macavity's not there).
In the end the leadership choice doesn't get on and Janet Daby gets the selection (she's now an MP). She supported Corbyn - but she's also anti-Brexit and this gets her on. So this is the weakness of the Project - and what the Corbynsceptics are going to use to go for it.
Interesting to reflect that this is probably when my casually political friends started to be more negative on Corbyn due to Brexit, too.
How much was all this predictable at the time? It's easy to see a narrative after the fact but was it clear then where all this will lead? I don't think so - but I think those who had the most instinct for what was to be were often right.
Of course, using Brexit to destroy the project was a Pyrrhic victory for Corbynsceptic remainers... so their instincts weren't that good.
Also, as 2020 has shown, ability to anticipate political events only gets you so far.
Alright. End of that chapter and now we're onto chapter 6, which I think is going to be the antisemitism chapter. This is going to be heavy and I need to get lunch, so I'm going to take a break for now. New thread in a bit I think.
(I'm sure most people aren't reading this far but I'm finding this a useful exercise for myself.)
