Indeed... But he has a stance rather than a fence up his arseHe's pro-Brexit.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
But he isn't going to be calling out Corbyn on Europe, however you want to spin it.
He Voted against the labour party on the issues several times...for sure he will speak out against their policy again
Though admittedly he will be calling out corbyn for his inept handling of the anti Semitic issues much more
Pesky grown-ups, ruin all the fun. Nobody chanted your name in a field, Gordo!
That's the genius of this whole endeavour. Coming out against anything Corbyn does, is the Men In Black memory eraser of British politics.
Yvette Cooper is no longer the architect of 'tougher' Work Capability Assessments, David Miliband is no longer complicit in torture, John Woodcock's allegations miraculously disappeared and now Frank Field is a woke moderate, champion of the disabled and an enormous loss to the Labour party.
Last edited:
Brilliant post.
Nail on the head, it's like they realised coming at Corbyn from the centrist position of "we're just being sensible, the left can't win elections" has failed so now they're re-branding themselves as bonafide right-on lefties and coming at Corbyn on issues they know his base care about, but which they individually didn't give a shit about in government or opposition until now. It's transparent and only convincing if you a) hate Corbyn and b) don't know anything about the last 20 years of British politics. Thus why somehow Oscie reckons Blair's government was progressive on immigration, whilst Corbyn is basically channelling UKIP.
literally Enoch Powell if recent headlines are to be believed
Worse than Enoch Powell, who was on the right side of history, according to Dan Hodges today.
Not what Hodges said. But that article was full of hyperbole. I'm not sure that the judiciary and security services will fall under the grip of the hard Left if Corbyn is elected, which is what Hodges predicted.
I am hesitant to delve back into this thread. Especially as the Left are so adept at eating their young (the Spanish Civil War is the best example but by no means the only one).
But to be honest I am worried about the future of Labour.
In my CLP I have seen the positive and negative impacts of Corbyn winning the leadership. After Miliband, it was clear that the membership felt that the Party was not left enough. And Corbyn's leadership has coincided with a shift to the left in UK politics (And a shift against austerity which is welcome).
What disturbs me about Labour is first, the reification of Corbyn. He is seen as a messiah figure which is both wrong and self defeating ( Corbynism as a movement cannot think beyond Corbyn).
Second, in my CLP, as well as many others, Corbyn's leadership has enabled mass entryism from the hard left. Middle aged, middle class members who were in TUSC or Militant or the AWL have dominated branch meetings and have pushed far left shibboleths (deselection, party "democracy" and in my CLP endless motions denouncing Blairites).
Third, this entryism and defending of Corbyn has meant that very real problems with the left (such as anti-Semitism) have been turned into left vs right issues. You either defend Corbyn and deny there is a problem or somehow support the undermining of the leader. These issues haven't been helped by anti-corbyn MPs jumping on them and using them to criticise the leader. Gordon Brown showed the way to deal with these issues whilst not trying to bring down the leader.
Fourth I worry about the changes that will be made to the Party to ensure the left retain power for the foreseeable. Many moderate members have left my CLP in the past few months over the tactics of the left locally. The party needs to remain a broad church. That was how we have won majorities in the past and in my opinion will do so in the future. There simply aren't enough votes on the Left to win an election.
That being said, I want a Labour Government. I have huge concerns about the ability of Corbyn's ability to effect his plan for Government, especially given his principles stances in the past (I actually wonder whether this would be a hindrance in Government- can he make the necessary compromises? Will he not deal with issues such as defence and national security?)
I also think that the anti-corbyn movement (if it can be called that) is made up of many disparate elements and is not coherent. If Corbyn is removed, it could lead to a mass exodus of members. The vast vast vast majority of these members are not entryists and have been inspired to engage in politics by Corbyn and the Party in its current state.
Given my experiences at General Elections, the mass membership made such a huge difference in 2017. If we lose this as a Party we are in trouble. There were not the numbers in 2015 and that cost us in many constituencies. There is no alternative to Corbyn's leadership or to his policies. Another leadership election or forcing him out would be damaging to the Party. As damaging as a split in my view. And it would have the impact of turning very many people off of politics.
I always considered myself on the Left of the Party but since 2015 I find myself on the centre right. I'm not going to leave. I'll keep making my arguments and of making the point that we need to be a broad church. I'm just very sceptical about whether we will win the next Election.
But to be honest I am worried about the future of Labour.
In my CLP I have seen the positive and negative impacts of Corbyn winning the leadership. After Miliband, it was clear that the membership felt that the Party was not left enough. And Corbyn's leadership has coincided with a shift to the left in UK politics (And a shift against austerity which is welcome).
What disturbs me about Labour is first, the reification of Corbyn. He is seen as a messiah figure which is both wrong and self defeating ( Corbynism as a movement cannot think beyond Corbyn).
Second, in my CLP, as well as many others, Corbyn's leadership has enabled mass entryism from the hard left. Middle aged, middle class members who were in TUSC or Militant or the AWL have dominated branch meetings and have pushed far left shibboleths (deselection, party "democracy" and in my CLP endless motions denouncing Blairites).
Third, this entryism and defending of Corbyn has meant that very real problems with the left (such as anti-Semitism) have been turned into left vs right issues. You either defend Corbyn and deny there is a problem or somehow support the undermining of the leader. These issues haven't been helped by anti-corbyn MPs jumping on them and using them to criticise the leader. Gordon Brown showed the way to deal with these issues whilst not trying to bring down the leader.
Fourth I worry about the changes that will be made to the Party to ensure the left retain power for the foreseeable. Many moderate members have left my CLP in the past few months over the tactics of the left locally. The party needs to remain a broad church. That was how we have won majorities in the past and in my opinion will do so in the future. There simply aren't enough votes on the Left to win an election.
That being said, I want a Labour Government. I have huge concerns about the ability of Corbyn's ability to effect his plan for Government, especially given his principles stances in the past (I actually wonder whether this would be a hindrance in Government- can he make the necessary compromises? Will he not deal with issues such as defence and national security?)
I also think that the anti-corbyn movement (if it can be called that) is made up of many disparate elements and is not coherent. If Corbyn is removed, it could lead to a mass exodus of members. The vast vast vast majority of these members are not entryists and have been inspired to engage in politics by Corbyn and the Party in its current state.
Given my experiences at General Elections, the mass membership made such a huge difference in 2017. If we lose this as a Party we are in trouble. There were not the numbers in 2015 and that cost us in many constituencies. There is no alternative to Corbyn's leadership or to his policies. Another leadership election or forcing him out would be damaging to the Party. As damaging as a split in my view. And it would have the impact of turning very many people off of politics.
I always considered myself on the Left of the Party but since 2015 I find myself on the centre right. I'm not going to leave. I'll keep making my arguments and of making the point that we need to be a broad church. I'm just very sceptical about whether we will win the next Election.
I think part of the issue here for a lot of people is quite where that broad church should lie. To some Corbyn and his allies are far-left infiltrators who are largely anomalies within the party, but through who appealing to the membership have managed to steer the party in a new, dangerous direction. To others he's a fairly standard social democrat who is steering the party back to where it should be, occupying an economic position that most of its members who'd have been moderates would have occupied before the Thatcher era.
In that respect I think we're dealing with two hugely different ideologies that distrust each other greatly. Naturally some moderates will be concerned with influxes of new members who threaten to change the party into something they don't recognise; by the same token, I suspect many of those on the left will say that suspicion is merely the unwillingness of the centre/moderate party figures to lose their once dominant influence to the left. I suspect that this largely comes from the left because for decades, a 'broad church' has essentially meant the centre ruling the party with occasional, vague gestures to the left that became almost patronising when Corbyn was allowed onto the ballot just so he could sort of be there as an option, and when - after his election - the automatic assumption was that he'd be dethroned at the first convenient opportunity. In this sense, I don't think the left trust the centre-ground to give them anything resembling even respectable representation in a 'broad church' party controlled by the centre. And so both sides are largely doomed to continually try to undermine the influence of the other whenever they find themselves in power.
Overall, I do see your point: I think deselections are a dangerous route to go down to an extent for reasons you've yourself stated in the thread, and because the focus should be on attacking the Tories instead of allowing internal issues to eat the party up, but at the same time I'm not sure someone like Frank Field really has any business being an MP within a party that's trying to describe itself as even resembling left-wing. And so there's a natural suspicion that claims of sense and a need for compromise and cooperation from the moderates are really just a means for them to disguise their own desire for power.
And so the purge begins
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45389424
Can see it bckfiring big time as there will No doubt be plenty of the deselected who stand as independents... Oh well another 5 years of Tory rule but no doubt it's all Blair's fault
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45389424
Can see it bckfiring big time as there will No doubt be plenty of the deselected who stand as independents... Oh well another 5 years of Tory rule but no doubt it's all Blair's fault
Israel's Arab MPs back Corbyn in antisemitism row
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/02/israels-arab-mps-corbyn-antisemitism-row
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45389424
Good news.Clear out that dead wood.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/02/israels-arab-mps-corbyn-antisemitism-row
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45389424
Good news.Clear out that dead wood.
Last edited:
I adore the 'broad church' argument. Especially when it comes from the same people who tried to keep Corbyn off the last leadership ballot and took members to court.
So, if these 'independents' win, they're going to be voting with the Tories? Are they finally admitting it?
I'm not sure why mandatory reselection is any less fair than the system which has shaped the current PLP, i.e - the leader basically hand-picking loyal, well-connected people and parachuting them into (often safe) seats in towns they'd never visited before the election. I suspect the majority of people who voted for my Labour MP couldn't tell you her name and I doubt many people who vote for her do so because of her personally. She's in parliament primarily because she represents Labour, in this case because she was parachuted in as a Blair loyalist in 2005, and because she represents Labour I went out and delivered thousands of leaflets to get her re-elected last year despite the fact that I disagree with her politics. Ultimately Labour MPs gain enormously from having 'Labour' next to their name on the ballot paper. As an MP you represent and are accountable to the people who elected you. When you wear that red rosette and gain the support of the party you become accountable to the party as well, especially those in your local party that do the leg-work to get you elected.
The broad church stuff has always been a one-way street. When centrist MPs want left-wing members of CLPs to put hours in to get them elected it's the broad church in action, when left-wing CLP members want a say as to which person they put in hours to get elected it's a 'purge'.
The broad church stuff has always been a one-way street. When centrist MPs want left-wing members of CLPs to put hours in to get them elected it's the broad church in action, when left-wing CLP members want a say as to which person they put in hours to get elected it's a 'purge'.
I can see that must have been very frustrating for the left over the years. The other side of the coin is that although the left clearly despise the rest of the party, and you only have to read this thread to know that, they still want centrist votes when it comes to election time.
For me the broad church has to end, let the people choose at the ballot box whether they want a centrist MP, a left MP, or something else of course. Who knows, if it ends in coalition the far left might actually get some things done at least, that they would never achieve as permanent opposition.
erm probably voting in line with their conscience / whatever their manifesto says... I would suspect most would vote broadly in line with labour (as most will have represented the party for years) though dismissing some of corbyn / mcdonalds more batshit crazy and unworkable ideas...
There are certainly people who have rejoined having left in the Blair years who openly want 'revenge', but the majority of people who've joined since 2015 did so on good faith, having never been a member of a political party, because they were genuinely enthused by the idea of a left-wing Labour Party. The right of the party have no-one to blame but themselves for being unpopular with that second group, who they treated like scum from day one, attempted to block from voting in the leadership elections and called Trots/cultists/entryists. I honestly believe that if the right of the party had been magnanimous in defeat and agreed to work for Corbyn instead of throwing their dummies out, most Labour members would have let bygones be bygones and we wouldn't be talking about mandatory re-selection. The current deselection squabble has only come about because there are MPs who openly talk about how they don't want Corbyn to be PM, shit-talk the party's electoral opportunities at every turn, launch a new assault on the leader whenever Labour are looking handy in the polls and sneak around trying to form new parties instead of trying to oppose the Tories and win elections. Not unsurprising that a lot of those people wouldn't be missed by the majority of Labour members.
The party splitting would be a disaster for everyone but the Tories in our electoral system. If I was a centrist I'd work my arse off to get Labour into power and then push for a switch to some version of proportional representation. At that point they can fanny about trying to build new parties, because at least then a coalition government would be possible and it wont just be handing over power to the Tories forever. Funnily enough, Blair actually included a promise for a referendum on PR in his '97 manifesto but dropped it because at the time FPTP was giving Labour huge majorities.
I think these are fair points. I was tearing my hair out during the New Labour years at the machinations and politicking which was carried out by the Blairites and Brownites against one another. They made Conference and local politics all but pointless.
And there has been throughout Labour's history tensions throughout the different interest groups - the unions, Tribune, Militant, the centrists. And I do accept that the 'broad church' argument has been abused in the past, just like the 'party democracy' argument is being twisted now by many on the left.
Again I can only speak for the CLPs I have engaged with but sadly it seems like those who attend meetings and pass motions the most are the 'rejoiners' who want to push ideas about reselection and, yes, revenge. Mandatory reselection has been a hobby horse for decades and was always going to be on the table when and if the Left took power. They also couch it in the language of democracy and choice to appeal to as many Party members as possible. Now there is nothing wrong with that at all. That's politics.
The tension comes when MPs and their supporters feel threatened and then 'hit back', but this ends up looking like a broad attack on the left and enthusiastic members rather than a targeted attack on the very few entryists and hard left members that are causing friction. I have seen many MPs fall into this trap.
I have also seen other MPs genuinely reach out to the membership and build bridges. Quite a few have done this in London. This magnanimity (and shutting up about Corbyn) has helped their CLPs become effective campaigning tools and has also marginalised the few trouble-makers, if we put it that way.
I would go further - we pick our council candidates in a similar, backroom way. In my ward we have seven candidates for two positions, but because it was a fight between Momentum and the centre of the Party for the seats people kept tactically dropping out and we were left with two candidates for two positions. A pointless waste of time.
Anyway I would have less of an issue with mandatory reselection if electronic voting was permitted and advertised to all members. Currently it would involve different factions packing a venue with supporters for as couple of hours and trying to out-vote each other. Party members are not reflective of the electorate, and thre 5-10% of members who turn up to meetings are even less representative. They would be the hardcore of the hardcore and would guarantee a candidate on the far left. Plus such meetings usually mean that commuters or anyone with a caring responsibility cannot attend.
The JC9 have won their seats on the NEC overwhelmingly. Ann Black is out, despite achieving the highest vote last time, and the members have voted Pete Willsman in.
Of course they have. They do like a good antisemitic headline, does Labour.
What's the point of a huge membership if you can't win an election with it? It's a serious question. Everyone assumes this vast membership is automatically a Good Thing, but if it prevents you from formulating policies or leaders that can win you power, what's the point? You aren't Oxfam.
Corbyn has been a lifelong supporter of the Palestinian struggle for justice. A witch hunt on Corbyn has been ongoing for years due to his opinions on the state of Israel. He wanted an arms embargo on Israel, boycott, divestment and sanctions. He also pledged in his election manifesto to immediately recognize the state of Palestine.
Obviously, this goes against the wishes of Israeli group within the party, hence the charges of anti-Semitism and exaggerated accusations pushed by a hostile anti-labour media, the establishment, and Israeli lobby groups. Labour's Friends of Israel group coordinates its activities with the Israel embassy, which has provided funding to win lawmakers over to Israel's cause.
To label him an anti-Semite is frankly convenient and absurd. He has always been a supporter of any oppressed people or state regardless of race, religion or caste. It's his most endearing virtue.
Obviously, this goes against the wishes of Israeli group within the party, hence the charges of anti-Semitism and exaggerated accusations pushed by a hostile anti-labour media, the establishment, and Israeli lobby groups. Labour's Friends of Israel group coordinates its activities with the Israel embassy, which has provided funding to win lawmakers over to Israel's cause.
To label him an anti-Semite is frankly convenient and absurd. He has always been a supporter of any oppressed people or state regardless of race, religion or caste. It's his most endearing virtue.
If a split becomes a reality you might as well write off having elections with no chance of beating the Tories. Democracy in the UK would be just in name for the foreseeable future.
Last edited:
The large membership has been and can be very important. If it wasn't for the large membership turnout in terms of canvassing and leafleting we would not have won Canterbury, Portsmouth South, Kensington and Ipswich, amongst others.
But I agree that it cannot be the be all and end all of the matter. The Party has to be electable and communicate electable policies in order for that membership to make the difference. The policies are not that much removed from Miliband in many respects. Whether the electorate will vote for Corbyn as PM is unclear, as is the question of the next leader and the future of Corbynism.
Agree with you in both those replies to my posts @Frosty. The frustrations about meetings are ones I share, in the 3 years since I moved back to my hometown and it's CLP I've not been able to attend meetings because then were on Saturdays, when I work, and now they're on weekday evenings, which I work in my new job. I don't do a job which has shiftwork, but a lot of the people my age who have joined Labour since 2015 do and that basically precludes them from being able to attend meetings regularly. I definitely agree all voting should be available online or by post, because at the moment most of the people with the time to attend meetings are retired middle class folks who are still arguing New Labour/Old Labour after 30 years.
This is the only bit I'd argue with. The attacks on the incoming left-wing membership were pretty blanket from the start, they weren't pointing at the aggressive minority of new members and saying 'these are a few bad eggs', they were saying 'this is what they're all like'. The idea that basically all the new members were entryists was an early line from centrist MPs and it was used as a pretext to bar thousands of people from voting in the leadership election.
I'm especially glad to hear this. The mass membership is a huge boon and will be key in future elections if we can all pull in the same vague direction. In my local party the MP doesn't really engage with the members outside her core group, I've leafleted for her on many occasions (dab hand at it as an ex-postie) and the only time she's ever spoken to me outside of the context of me picking up leaflets from HQ was to call me to ask me to vote for Owen Smith in 2016.
This is the only bit I'd argue with. The attacks on the incoming left-wing membership were pretty blanket from the start, they weren't pointing at the aggressive minority of new members and saying 'these are a few bad eggs', they were saying 'this is what they're all like'. The idea that basically all the new members were entryists was an early line from centrist MPs and it was used as a pretext to bar thousands of people from voting in the leadership election.
I'm especially glad to hear this. The mass membership is a huge boon and will be key in future elections if we can all pull in the same vague direction. In my local party the MP doesn't really engage with the members outside her core group, I've leafleted for her on many occasions (dab hand at it as an ex-postie) and the only time she's ever spoken to me outside of the context of me picking up leaflets from HQ was to call me to ask me to vote for Owen Smith in 2016.
I can agree with most of this. Which is part of the problem.
The Israel-Palestine discussion is generally quite a hot potato that many mainstream politicians prefer to either be sitting on the fence of or at least avoid having strong views on. And Corbyn has done the opposite of that. It doesn't take more than a show of sympathy towards Palestinians to be branded a terrorist sympathiser and an anti-semite and similarly it doesn't require much to be branded a zionist-sympathising, apartheid-endorsing stooge of Israel. There's little middle ground, sadly.
It's indispituable though that the Israeli lobby is very strong and far more influential than any opposite lobby. So being a vocal pro-Palestinian comes with more pressure from press and persons of subtle power. This is what's happening to Corbyn atm.
As a critique of Corbyn what I would say is that what you describe in the last paragraph ("always been a supporter of any oppressed people or state regardless of race, religion or caste") is why in my opinion he wouldn't make a good PM or last long. Being a politician is not really about supporting justice at every on-going conflict in the world. He's in the wrong job for that. A UK politician is there to deliver the best possible results for his electorate, not for the whole world. He's not there to be "just" or "moral" really, he's there to make the best decisions on hour behalf even if they're morally dubious.
A Prime Minister who openly sides with and supports Palestine, is a Prime Minister who most likely falls out with the UK's biggest ally and partner (the US) and their President. One who scorns the biggest ally in the Middle East region, which is Israel. And one who takes a different stand from most our allies and partners in Europe. And while you could argue that it's the moral thing to do (debatable, but I can accept it as a POV) it almost certainly is the wrong thing to do in terms of foreign politics from the UK's perspective.
And that's aside from the subject of whether he is an actual anti-Semite. Because I've read the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism and I can't say I really find any faults with it, though he refuses to accept it for reasons not yet clarified. So there's a question mark there.
Yep, same for me. My MP is wildly popular in the constituency and thinks that is enough and doesn't need to engage with the wider membership. Which is a mistake on so many levels.
I agree with the points about pragmatism vs idealism. Even on domestic matters the Labour Government will have to make difficult decisions. Health or education? Social care or transport? I remain sceptical that Corbyn has the ability to compromise his principles. I think McDonnell would.
I also don't think he is an anti-Semite. I think he is an anti-imperialist and that leads to odd positions - anti-NATO, anti-Western intervention, and by extension if you oppose an imperialist power you can be seen as an anti-imperialist power (Russia? Iran? Even though they are not...)
Frank Field has decided he will not trigger a byelection following his decision to resign the Labour party whip citing the issues of antisemitism and bullying.
The Birkenhead MP said he had huge support from people in his constituency, who had “stressed I should simply get on with the job of representing Birkenhead. Therefore, I will not be calling a byelection.
“The whole of my time will continue, as in the past, with trying to serve Birkenhead to the best of my ability and spearheading a whole series of major projects in the town.
“I also look forward to contributing further to the development of the Labour party's programme of social and economic reform.”
Field also pledged to fight any attempt to expel him from the party.
“I now have what may become a major legal dispute with the Labour party over my continuing membership of the party,” he said. “I shall fight any attempt at expelling me in every way I can and, if need be, in the courts. This interpretation of Labour's rulebook could last a long time.”
Earlier, Jeremy Corbyn said he was sorry Field had resigned the whip.
Speaking in Liverpool on Monday as he prepared to travel across the north of England campaigning on transport issues, the Labour leader said: “I'm sorry he's resigned and I thank him for all the work that he's done as an MP and for the party, but I don’t see why he had to resign.”
Asked about Field's claims of bullying in the party, the Labour leader said he did not know what the claims were, adding: “I invite all MPs to take part in the discussion and the debate.
“Obviously, bullying and intimidation have no place whatsoever in any political party, particularly the Labour party, but there has to be democratic debate within the party."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/03/frank-field-i-will-not-trigger-a-byelection
The Birkenhead MP said he had huge support from people in his constituency, who had “stressed I should simply get on with the job of representing Birkenhead. Therefore, I will not be calling a byelection.
“The whole of my time will continue, as in the past, with trying to serve Birkenhead to the best of my ability and spearheading a whole series of major projects in the town.
“I also look forward to contributing further to the development of the Labour party's programme of social and economic reform.”
Field also pledged to fight any attempt to expel him from the party.
“I now have what may become a major legal dispute with the Labour party over my continuing membership of the party,” he said. “I shall fight any attempt at expelling me in every way I can and, if need be, in the courts. This interpretation of Labour's rulebook could last a long time.”
Earlier, Jeremy Corbyn said he was sorry Field had resigned the whip.
Speaking in Liverpool on Monday as he prepared to travel across the north of England campaigning on transport issues, the Labour leader said: “I'm sorry he's resigned and I thank him for all the work that he's done as an MP and for the party, but I don’t see why he had to resign.”
Asked about Field's claims of bullying in the party, the Labour leader said he did not know what the claims were, adding: “I invite all MPs to take part in the discussion and the debate.
“Obviously, bullying and intimidation have no place whatsoever in any political party, particularly the Labour party, but there has to be democratic debate within the party."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/03/frank-field-i-will-not-trigger-a-byelection
Having a series of Tory governments wouldn't make us any less of a democracy, because people would still have voted for them. I would suggest however that the best way to avoid such an unpleasant outcome would be to have an alternative party that Tory voters might actually switch to, and whatever that might be, it won't be a Corbyn/McDonnell led Labour party.
Last edited:
The fecking coward
In a different thread you wrote the following:
"Until very recently in the UK you would not be eligible to contest a Parliamentary seat unless you signed a "friends of Israel" declaration."
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/middle-east-politics.433633/page-4#post-21812549
Do you still actually believe this?
I was actually told this by my MP on my dining table.
Edit: Her husband is Jewish and he's been barred from entering Israel due to his anti-Israel views.
Ok, but do you believe it? You think Corbyn signed this declaration?
I doubt he did. He entered Parliament in 1983 and did so because he paid his dues to the Bennite wing of the Party. His route into Parliament was via inner London councils. His was Haringey. Camden is the main route into a safe seat for prospective Labour MPs (just check out how many were Camden councillors, it is more than you think). It wouldn't surprise me if there has been a requirement to sign a declaration for certain purposes. Many MPs do this - many join a union or do a union's bidding to climb the greasy pole for example.
I guess I am not madly surprised by people being asked to pledge to join LFI in exchange for a winnable seat. The Party has always had its own machinations and backroom deals.
Indeed. The party that wins the centre-ground is almost always the largest. The centre-ground can be moved of course, but not as much as you need I'm afraid.