Source: Counterfire

This is a battle about the future of the Labour party. The right is trying to regain control, with the support of the whole establishment.

Some people, including the Shadow Chancellor, have speculated that a Corbyn-led government would face concerted opposition from all wings of the establishment should it ever make it to office. As if to confirm these worries, the security services initially refused to meet Corbyn.

Soon after he became Labour leader a general was quoted anonymously in the Observer threatening a mutiny if Corbyn became prime minister. The Financial Times has reported that city opinion ranks Corbyn as a much greater threat than Brexit, and Corbyn-supporting economic experts have long worried about the possibility of non-co-operation from the financial sector in the event of a Labour victory.

But it is now clear that the soft coup has started before Corbyn could make it to number 10. After the announcement that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has taken the first step in the process of investigating the Labour Party over claims of antisemitism, it is no longer plausible to see the events of the last few weeks as a series of accidents.

Consider the sequence of events. First, following antisemitic attacks on Luciana Berger by right-wingers there was a media storm about unconnected no confidence resolutions in her constituency. Shortly afterwards a group of Labour MPs left to set up The Independent Group. They famously had no policies but focused their public pronouncements on attacking Corbyn’s leadership, particularly over Europe and antisemitism, but dwelling as well on what they regarded as Corbyn’s ‘problematic’ attitude to foreign policy and security. The attacks included suggestions that he was not fit to be leader.

They immediately received the support of Tony Blair but more seriously, they were backed by Tom Watson, whose video, released the same day, threatened further defections if Labour did not change course. In the media firestorm that followed, Watson too suggested that Corbyn’s antisemitism disqualified him for Labour’s leadership. That weekend the Mail on Sunday carried an attack on Seumas Milne, one of Corbyn’s key advisors, written by the former head of the security services, Richard Dearlove. The following week begun with an onslaught on Corbyn ally Chris Williamson who had been filmed making a speech saying that Labour had been too defensive about the attacks over antisemitism.

Emboldened by the retreat over the second referendum and the suspension of Chris Williamson MP, the right have stepped up their attacks. Last weekend the Observer targeted another Corbyn advisor, Andrew Murray. On Monday, Aberavon MP Stephen Kinnock, a long term Corbyn opponent, suggested disciplinary action against Welsh NEC member Darren Williams for merely circulating an email arguing that Chris Williamson’s remarks had been wrongly interpreted.

The hysteria around antisemitism is such that commentators and an MP have felt able to claim that anti-capitalism is antisemitism. Now Tom Watson is openly setting up a centrist organisation within the party.

All the claims against Corbyn have been enthusiastically taken up by the whole of  the media, not just the usual right-wing suspects, but perhaps most vociferously by the BBC and the Guardian, two outlets with big influence in liberal and left politics.

Their bias has been breathtaking. You can disagree with him, you can quibble with his use of words, but it is a simple fact that nothing Chris Williamson said in the ‘offending’ video clip is anti-semitic. And yet the spurious claims against him were reported as proven by most of the media from the start. The absurd coverage of Darren William’s complaint about the treatment of Chris Williamson have forced statements like ‘there is no place for anti-Semitism in Welsh Labour or in Wales’ from the Welsh Labour leadership.

This is one of the remarkable things about this whole sequence of events. There have apparently been few, if any, new cases of antisemitic incidents in Labour over the period. Any level of antisemitism is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with decisively, but the facts show that while antisemitism in wider society is growing, in Labour it has gone down since Corbyn was elected, and that it is significantly higher in the Tory Party than in Labour.

Meanwhile, as James O’Brien brilliantly explained on his radio show, the furore can’t really be about racism in politics, because the proven and public racism of some Tory Party leaders and commentators is so much more serious and blatant than anything Labour members are even accused of.

The crisis then is fundamentally artificial. It has been generated by relentless attacks from current and former members of the Labour right with the backing of Blair and his ‘team’, aided and abetted by the media and encouraged by Tories. The involvement of the EHRC marks a significant escalation of operations intended to give the extra authority of a ‘neutral’ apparently liberal wing of the state to the case against Corbyn.

This is not to claim some special conspiracy. Different parts of the state and the wider ruling class co-operate in various undertakings to defend their interests as a matter of course. This is why the state exists. Establishment hostility to Corbyn as the most left-wing leader of Labour has ever had is both understandable and on record.

Plans for a breakaway from Labour have been being discussed semi-publicly for some time. Discontent amongst some members over Corbyn’s opposition to a second referendum and claims of antisemitism presumably provided the pretext that overcame hesitation. Maybe the organisers felt they couldn’t wait any longer given the proximity of Brexit. Whatever the reasons for the timing, when it happened it was almost inevitable that it would be siezed on by the media, the rest of the Labour right and other elements of the establishment as the moment to create a crisis for Corbyn.

This is how soft coups happen, through the manoeuvring and collusion of different establishment forces inside and outside the state. This one can of course be resisted. Thousands of activists and Labour supporters know what is going on. Millions of people will struggle to believe the bizarre claim that Corbyn is an antisemite. But the problem is that so far the Labour leadership has responded by making concessions and much of the left seems in a state of denial, accepting all the claims of anti-semitism for example to be in good faith. Few have been clear enough about what is going on and how high the stakes are. The left urgently needs to get organised and address this situation.

First we have to be much more robust in our defence of those being attacked. There is no way that Chris Williamson’s comments warranted suspension. Giving in to hysterical and unsupported demands contravenes natural justice and implies guilt where there is none, so encouraging the offensive against the left. We must also be much more combative against the plotters.

How is it that Tony Blair for example can still be a member of the Labour Party when he has publicly supported colleagues who have left Labour and joined with Tories in setting up a new party? Why is Tom Watson being allowed to voice support for defectors and organise a party within the party without challenge?

And we need to go onto the offensive ideologically. This means making the incontrovertible case that Jeremy Corbyn’s record on fighting racism in general and antisemitism in particular is second to none and that all forms of racism including anti-semitism are mainly problems of the right.

But it also means being open and honest about the fact that we are involved in a battle about the future of the Labour party. The right is trying to regain control. With the support of the whole establishment they are trying to destroy any possibility of a Corbyn-led Labour government.

The majority of the membership and millions of voters want to see such a government come to office. This support from both inside and outside the Labour Party now needs to be mobilised in rallies and mass meetings up and down the country just like it was against the ‘Chicken Coup’ of 2016 and during the general election the following year. Only an open fight against the right can do this and the fight has to start now.

Source: Counterfire

Hundreds of thousands of Labour Party members, Corbyn supporters, activists and voters sense that these attacks are disingenuous and dishonest.

There are two misconceptions that can hold people back. First is the idea that the whole antisemitism controversy only really has traction inside the Westminster bubble and that it is having no effect on wider public opinion. This seems unlikely. However surreal they may seem to people who know Corbyn’s record, the relentless attacks are at a minimum going to be raising questions in some peoples’ minds, the more so because they are going largely unanswered. But the crucial thing is that the attackers are not mainly concerned about the wider public. They are in fact focussed on Westminster and official politics, the arena in which Corbyn has fewest supporters and is at his weakest.

The whole point is to embolden his enemies there and intimidate his friends, to force Corbyn to beat a retreat on one of his defining political positions and preferably make life in Westminster impossible for the leadership.

This leads to the second misconception. Many seem to think that our plan should be to close down the whole debate so that politics can move on. The idea is that by conceding on the IHRA code, with caveats introduced in the Labour Party code of conduct, the whole discussion about antisemitism will be wrapped up and normal politics will resume. Where is the evidence for this?

Corbyn himself has apologised on numerous occasions – unnecessarily in my view – for remarks or actions that could apparently have been construed as antisemitic. The idea was to draw a line under the discussion. Each time such tactical retreats have only encouraged his enemies. Each time, sometimes with a pause for breath, sometimes not, the attacks have simply been taken to a new level.

The mistake is to believe things can’t get more serious still. If the NEC does accept the IHRA definition with all the examples, even with the caveats of a rewritten code of conduct, this will almost certainly greenlight a new phase of attacks. Changes to the code of conduct will most likely be treated as a footnote to the main story: a major retreat from a political position central to Corbyn’s whole project.

From that point on, statements and actions of solidarity with Palestinians that have become part of the DNA of the movement and the left here will be open to challenge. The unions and all sorts of other bodies will immediately be looking to their own rulebooks and their members’ conduct. A chill wind will blow through the whole movement and of course Jeremy Corbyn’s behaviour past and present will be under even heavier scrutiny.

Any other prediction is to misjudge the nature of the assault that’s taking place. It is absolutely necessary to be concerned and vigilant about antisemitism. But as many people have documented the current hysteria is completely disproportionate to the problem that exists in the Labour Party. Comments like that made by Johnathan Sacks comparing Corbyn to Enoch Powell are so palpably absurd that they can only be understood as part of a wider agenda. The aim is both to roll back support for the Palestinian cause and to damage the Corbyn leadership, and, if that is the case, success will only embolden the attackers.

Underlying all this no doubt is a sense that the attacks are so relentless they simply can’t be resisted, and that the die is anyway already cast. This is to miss one essential factor in the situation.

There are hundreds of thousands of Labour Party members, Corbyn supporters, activists and voters who sense that these attacks are disingenuous and dishonest and who are deeply worried about what will happen to Corbyn and the Palestinian cause in the case of a retreat. These are the people that have rallied to Corbyn’s defence when he has been under attack a number of times already. Successfully. These are the people who got Corbyn elected in the first place. These are the people who got the vote out in the general election last year.

Every single voice that is raised against the witch hunt now, every clear statement about what is at stake, every vote for the NEC code next Tuesday will give that bit more confidence to the people who make up the movement anyway. It’s only this movement mobilised that can keep the Corbyn show on the road. It’s time to stand up and be counted.

• If you are a Labour member, use the 1-minute lobby tool to tell the NEC to defend freedom of speech in the Labour Party
• Join the NEC Lobby Tuesday 4 September at 10.30am

Source: Morning Star

Donald Trump is a hero to the growing number of Islamophobic and fascist leaders and movements in Europe and beyond.

Why Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely right to urge restraint, to insist on dialogue and to demand an end to the sabre-rattling.

Source: Stop the War

Despite promises to respect due process, Theresa May is talking and acting as if attempted Russian state murder is beyond reasonable doubt. But it​ is not just the refusal to wait for facts that is so alarming, but the hyped-up, confrontational nature of the response. May delivered an absurd​ 24-hour ultimatum to Russia to explain the events without even allowing access to the evidence. Meetings of the emergency COBRA committee have been followed by a national security council summit, even though it is clear that Britain faces no security threat.

The media is in a frenzy. No surprise perhaps ​that the​ right-wing tabloids are raising the stakes but the ‘liberal’ press has been equally​ gung-ho. On Wednesday, The Guardian listed deploying armed forces to directly threaten Russia as one of the possible responses and went on to suggest:

“NATO can also step up the strategic pressure on Moscow by speeding the process of granting Ukraine provisional membership through agreeing a membership action plan. Similar encouragement can be offered in the Balkans, a key area of conflict with Russia.”

​Cold Calculation

​This astonishing ​return to Cold War posturing has international and domestic roots. Tensions between the West and Russia have been rising steadily over the last couple of decades. The most important driver of this has been the Eastward expansion of NATO. Thirteen Eastern European or Balkan countries have joined the Western military alliance since 1990, ten of them in the last fifteen years.

As recently released documents show, this is in direct contradiction to promises made by US Secretary of State James Baker to Russian President Gorbachev, that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward” at the time of German reunification.

Two events in the last few years in particular have sharply increased the sense of confrontation. One was the crisis in Ukraine which erupted in 2014 and the other is Russia’s involvement in the war in Syria which has challenged what the Western powers believe is their rightful role as the main foreign power in the region. Clearly all foreign intervention in the country has only served to exacerbate the continuing agony of the Syrian people.

A​ new foreign office video outlining the threat posed by Russia to ‘the international rule-based system’ – complete with threatening martial soundtrack – shows just how conscious and concerted the effort to present​ Putin as a real and present danger is. ​

The idea that Russia presents an immediate threat to Western security is absurd. The US has greater military firepower than the other nine top military powers put together. It has bases in 76 countries, 40% of the world’s total, spread across the world, as opposed to Russia which has them in nine countries, mostly immediate neighbours. If you add in the rest of NATO’s military weight, Russia is outgunned by a factor of around twenty to one.

​The Home Front​

​The present furore is also driven by domestic concerns. Theresa May is presiding over one of the weakest governments in British history, and her minority administration is slowly sinking in the quagmire of the Brexit talks. She has a huge credibility problem within the establishment. More widely her government is under attack over the NHS, public sector pay, housing and a host of other issues.

In these circumstances ​May has seized on the attempt on Skripal’s life to ​reheat cold war catchphrases about the Russian threat. She hopes it will make her look strong and statesmanlike. It reminds the population of Britain’s traditional role at the hawkish leading edge of the trans-Atlantic alliance. ​Even better, she believes it puts Jeremy Corbyn on the spot and makes him look soft on security in general – and Putin’s Russia in particular. ​

​This line that has been dutifully reproduced by ​the national media. The Sun calls Corbyn ‘Putin’s puppet,’ the Mail a ‘Kremlin stooge’ and the BBC has focussed large amounts of its coverage on Corbyn’s refusal to accept May’s rush to judgement. What has made things considerably worse is that senior Labour figures, including Shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffiths have backed the Tories and attacked Corbyn’s position and many on the soft left are demanding Corbyn joins the rush to judgement.

This mix of domestic intrigue and geopolitical brinkmanship is deeply irresponsible. It is encouraging anti-Russian hysteria in Britain at a time when there are real risks of confrontation between nuclear powers. Corbyn is absolutely right to urge restraint, to insist on dialogue and to demand an end to the sabre-rattling. The movement urgently needs to respond with reasoned and principled arguments, demonstrating we can resist the drift to war.

Source: Stop the War Coalition

Given her dreadful election result a May-led government, if it gets off the ground at all, is likely to be way too weak to pursue any more foreign wars. She may try to do so using her unholy alliance with the DUP, but her fatal weakness makes this much easier to oppose. What is more, the fact that Trump has been forced to call off his planned visit in October for fear of demonstrations is an unprecedented blow against the special relationship as well as being more proof that protests work. Trump says he won’t visit if there are going to be demonstrations and while people do not welcome his visit, so we can safely assume he won’t be coming over any time soon.

This is more than a matter of movement self-congratulation. Britain has been the US’s key political and military ally throughout the ‘War on Terror’. The removal of Britain at least as a public champion of the US is a big foreign policy setback for a regime whose serial aggressions are isolating it further and further on the world stage.

But there is more heartening news to be extracted from the experience of the election. First, the concerted attack on Jeremy Corbyn over his refusal to promise to ‘press the nuclear button’ failed to make an obvious difference to the election campaign, despite the fact that an ambush was staged against him on the high-profile Question Time ten days before the election.

Reeling from her manifesto blunders, it was felt by some that the two appalling terrorist attacks in the election campaign would allow Theresa May to play the security card and re-establish her ‘strong and stable’ credentials but this was clearly not the case. In the days after the attacks the media went on a co-ordinated rampage against Corbyn’s record on war and peace. The day before the election the Sun led with a so-called expose on ‘Jezza’s Jihadi Comrades’, the Telegraph claimed ‘Corbyn Ducks Terror Challenge’ and the BBC obediently followed suit with a photomontage of Jeremy Corbyn next to Osama Bin-Laden.

All this appears to have failed to make much of an impact on the general public. The surge to Labour continued right up until election day and beyond. Jeremy Corbyn had responded to the dreadful attack in Manchester by calling a press conference at which he explicitly argued that Western foreign policy has been one of the drivers of the spread of terrorist attacks and organisation. Despite the media onslaught an opinion poll taken days after showed that the overwhelming majority of the population agreed with him. The ORB survey found 75 per cent of people believe interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have made atrocities on UK soil more likely. Even 68% of Tory voters agreed.

This underlines the growing sense that despite the fact that 70% of the newspapers backing the Tories, the print media is losing what ability it ever had to shape popular opinion. Partly no doubt it was a product of the novelty of a party leader breaking the taboo on discussing the causes of terrorism and putting a coherent and clear argument against the record of the War on Terror. But partly it revealed something deeper. Despite the failure of the media to engage in a real debate, despite the refusal of the establishment to accept the findings of the Chilcot report and at least four parliamentary investigations into the wars that we have been dragged into, popular opposition to foreign aggression has only deepened over the years. A largely unreported YouGov poll which came out during the election campaign showed that between 43% and 55% of the population disapproved of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya with less than 25% in favour and that more people opposed than supported even the first Gulf war in 1991.

All this is important for a number of reasons. It is a reminder that we mustn’t make the mistake of reading public opinion off from the people who claim to be opinion formers in British society almost all of whom regard criticism of Britain’s war record as being beyond the pale. It tells us too that those siren voices in the Labour Party who believe that anti war policies are too radical for the British electorate are plain wrong.

It indicates in fact that it is now time to launch a concerted campaign for a fundamentally new foreign policy. Such a new direction is a necessary counter to the right wing vision of a world of more security, surveillance and international retribution.