Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I'm tending towards a lover-level explanation.

IMHO Labour's conflict is less leader vs. MPs than members vs. MPs, and the members vs. MPs conflict is the ultimate result of party reforms which gave the leadership a strong hand in selecting MP candidates. These reforms started at least under Kinnock, and I read Angela Eagle, the first failed anti-Corbyn candidate, is a prime example: she was made candidate when her local party's first choice was dumped by the leadership for going against the party line, and the leadership ignored more than half of the local party members' protest in the form of blank ballots. But this vetting from above got truly fully developed under Bliar, with the end result that the parliamentary Labour Party and the membership are like two different parties.

The Guardian, although it was critical of Bliarism a decade ago (at least much more so than its Sunday partner The Observer, which was gung-ho on the Iraq War) comes into the picture because its contacts are in the PLP. Also, its ownership structure shifted.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jul 26th, 2016 at 03:35:43 PM EST
yes, that's in in a nutshell. The plp was hollowed out by Blair to represent his own agenda of corporate acquiescence. they're all lovely tory boys and girls without a thoght in their heads for the consequences of their actions on the working classes.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jul 26th, 2016 at 03:54:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series