|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Jeremy Corbyn out?
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Then my reply could have made sense.
Because it didn't seem to fit and didn't answer the question I had and I'm not fully familiar with the left wing spectrum anyway.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Thanks - that's really helped me understand what it is that's winding me up about this whole thing. It's the holier than thou attitude and the fact that dissent is treated as heresy. Really annoys me.
Plus the way any criticism of Mr Corbyn is instantly dismissed on the grounds that the speaker is right-wing. Perhaps could follow that line of argument to its logical conclusion, dismiss his supporters' defence of him on the grounds that they are social democrats, and decide the whole issue by throwing Messrs Corbyn and Smith into the Mersey and seeing which one floats.
[ 21. July 2016, 19:52: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Then my reply could have made sense.
Because it didn't seem to fit and didn't answer the question I had and I'm not fully familiar with the left wing spectrum anyway.
To be fair, Corbyn is the conclusion of Benn and Heffer, by other means, as it were. Not a communist as such but certainly further to the left than most of the British electorate. My recollection is that Peter Shore was on the right of the Labour Party but he was opposed to the EEC, as it was then, and would have undoubtedly have been in favour of the Leave campaign, although, to be fair he would have been honest about this.
I was mildly surprised when Jolly Jape contended that Corbyn's policies were indistinguishable from those of Hugh Gaitskell (hated by Labour's left), Harold Wilson (ditto), Ted Heath IA pro-EU Tory) and RA Butler (WTF?). Given Corbyn's general position on the defence of the realm, his work for Press TV and Russia Today, and his somewhat complicated relationship with the Jewish Community there was a gag that immediately occurred to me but as a discreet friend of Butler's memory I will let the occasion pass.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
And he hasn't threatened his MPs with deselection? Not sure what you're objecting to here.
Well that sort of inaccuracy actually.
I happened to see JC's campaign launch this lunchtime.
One of the journalists asked a question about compulsory reselection, and Corbyn gave a detailed answer about how that might be triggered due to boundary changes, where, clearly, if there was a substantial redrawing of the constituency map, the right and proper course would be for there to be a selection process in which the standing member would be eligible to stand. In addition, he, very graciously, I thought, left the door open for any MPs to rejoin his front bench if they so wished, underlining his point by saying that he was blessed with a very short memory for personal insult.
Is that what you mean by threatening MPs with deselection?
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
One of the journalists asked a question about compulsory reselection, and Corbyn gave a detailed answer about how that might be triggered due to boundary changes, where, clearly, if there was a substantial redrawing of the constituency map, the right and proper course would be for there to be a selection process in which the standing member would be eligible to stand. In addition, he, very graciously, I thought, left the door open for any MPs to rejoin his front bench if they so wished, underlining his point by saying that he was blessed with a very short memory for personal insult.
Is that what you mean by threatening MPs with deselection?
Labour's current rules state that if a new constituency encompasses at least 40% of an old constituency's territory, the MP for the old constituency may seek selection as a matter of right. Mr McDonnell stated last year that this rule would not change.
It's hard, therefore, to see how Mr Corbyn's apparent volte-face on this issue is anything other than a veiled threat of reselection.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably the fact that the Wallasey Labour Party has recently been suspended for intimidation and homophobic abuse directed at the local MP was also entirely due to the roughness of the local neighbourhood and the disgruntlement of tenants whose landlords have been less than prompt in fixing the bog?
You mean the homophobic abuse that the CLP chair and her married lesbian daughter have seen neither hide nor hair of? There have been a number of instances recently where CLPs have been suspended over alleged concerns about abuse to save the blushes of right wing MPs, in this case because there was a strong possibility of Eagle being deselected. Where is the evidence that this alleged abuse took place and that it involved members of the CLP?
Well, there is this. I heard a member of that group who was at the meeting state in a TV interview, quite specifically, that Angela Eagle's sexuality had indeed been denigrated by homophobic remarks as a part of the "heated meeting". No doubt these complaints have formed a part of the evidence provided which led to this.
Now of course these are allegations. But they must have carried enough weight to justify an investigation. And no doubt they have been supported by evidence from Angela Eagle.
I heard other interviews in the TV programme with others in the CLP whose hostility to Angela Eagle was quite open. The contents were disquieting. There is a case to answer here.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's hard, therefore, to see how Mr Corbyn's apparent volte-face on this issue is anything other than a veiled threat of reselection.
I have to assume you know how candidates are selected to stand for parliamentary seats, and are engaging in a bit of hyperbole.
Where did the other 60% of new constituency come from? Narnia? Or might there have been a standing candidate for that too? Given that there are significant boundary changes and 50 fewer constituencies, might you possibly consider that there would be a democratic contest for the PPC in that case?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
As I understand the current rules (based on this site), if you have a situation where (for example) four MPs' constituencies are folded into three, then at least one constituency could see a selection battle between two MPs, but the selection would not automatically be open to anyone other than those two MPs.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
It seems from what I've just read to be a 'gentlemen's agreement' that there'll be no trigger ballot. Not that a trigger ballot can't happen, and that said trigger ballot is outwith the party's higher apparatus to invalidate.
There may be a lot of constituencies which will hold trigger ballots in the event of a Corbyn win. Obviously, what Corbyn says will influence the members one way or another, but if you give people the power to do something, it seems (certainly in the current climate) unwise to reel it back in in case they exercise that power.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
To paraphrase a late, much lamented shipmate, that is bollocks. You appear blissfully unaware of the realignment in British politics that has seen the Labour left of Tony Benn, Peter Shore and, say, Eric Heffer relabelled as Communism and J Enoch Powell brought into the political centre.
Sorry, but if you don't mind my saying this, that is rhetorical twaddle. I'm in my late 60s and have followed UK politics as an interested spectator since my mid teens. Tony Benn swung noticeably to the left during the seventies, about the time he shortened his name. Thereafter he regarded as being on the extreme end of the Parliamentary left by almost everybody, including his own supporters. Enoch Powell was regarded as a dangerous right winger and, to use the phrase from those times, racialist, from the mid-sixties and has been so regarded ever since.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The real realignment was over the 'grotesque spectacle' of Militant Tendency. New Labour was the child of that realignment. The underlying shift was all about electability and getting floating voters from the centre. Received wisdom was that the Old Labour agenda just made the Party unelectable.
BTW that is still received wisdom. Certainly Theresa May believes it which is why she hoped to see Jeremy 'for many years' over the Despatch Box in the House of Commons.
While I admire those who who believe in the electability of Jeremy Corbyn and essentially Old Labour agenda, and the persuasive power of that agenda, I think you are whistling in the dark to keep your spirits up. The big enemy is the increasing influence of ultra right policies amongst the disaffected. That's the Zeitgeist that is truly scary. I think it scares sufficient people to make more moderate centre right or centre left mixed economy policies the way to go to defeat such shit.
Which is why the suspension of CLPs because of abuse allegations is so dangerous. It just adds to the impression that something akin to Militant Tendency is screwing up the Labour Party again. Which will screw up electability for several years to come.
That's what the majority of the PLP think. Sure, moves can be made to deselect them, replace them with True Believers. The replacements will learn that getting into government in the UK is a pragmatic process. And the wheel will turn again. Meanwhile we'll get a further '13 years of Tory misrule'.
Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
John Smith's death was a tragedy for Labour in many ways. But he was a reformer too, just a tad more cautious than Blair or Brown about how far reforms had to go in order to get elected.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The big enemy is the increasing influence of ultra right policies amongst the disaffected. That's the Zeitgeist that is truly scary.
It is fear, fear moves people rightward. Conservatives have always played the minor chords well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
It was disappointing to see on the news last night that journos were still banging on that Corbyn was threatening his MPs with deselection. That this was based on the question about what might happen in those few constituencies which might or might not be amalgamated under boundary reforms. Really, a grotesque distortion of what Corbyn said.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was disappointing to see on the news last night that journos were still banging on that Corbyn was threatening his MPs with deselection. That this was based on the question about what might happen in those few constituencies which might or might not be amalgamated under boundary reforms. Really, a grotesque distortion of what Corbyn said.
I know you are claiming that Corbyn didn't threaten the MPs with deselection. OK - that is a credible reading of what he said, from my limited knowledge. But that isn't the question for me - clearly some of his supporters are very happy to look for revenge. The atmosphere within the Labour party is toxic at the moment.
I got the distinct impression that some Momentum supporters would really like to deselect their MPs. Is this not possible? The few I have spoken to would love to have that hanging over the heads of the MPs, at the very least. Even if the threat can only be realised in 2020.
Surely that is a viable threat?
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
If the proposed boundary changes go through, then I believe there will have to be a selection process for most constituencies.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Of course Jeremy was just stating the rules. No sitting MP has the absolute right to be chosen as the party's election candidate. Nor is there anything to stop a local CLP passing a vote of no confidence in a sitting member. The sitting member can remain as an MP whether or not they have lost the confidence of their local party, since the local party doesn't elect them.
But of course the rules are not the story. The story is "who will rid me of these rebellious 'priests'". Is that Jeremy's position? Can it be read into anything he says?
Modern politicians have to live and work with modern media. So the wise ones choose their words with care.
Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.
I wonder what Seamas Milne's advice was. Maybe there was none, maybe that was just Jeremy? Who knows? But either way, I'm not impressed with Seamas Milne. If he wasn't savvy enough to see it himself (and in my book he should have been) somebody should have warned Jeremy about that bloody silly open-goal job insecurity PMQ. And somebody should have warned him about reselection hypotheticals.
Being media savvy is part of the leader's job.
[ 22. July 2016, 08:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.
The "bygones be bygones" was the message, but one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.
The "bygones be bygones" was the message, but one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
I think "he always answers questions honestly" is a bit of a myth. He frequently avoids answering questions directly. And so he should do to!
Any halfway competent politician knows that some questions are traps and to answer them straightforwardly will give a hostage to fortune and possibly even more importantly a misleading impression. You want to give accurate impressions not inaccurate ones so you answer a slightly different question to the one you were asked. For example, when you are given a binary choice that is absurdly simplistic.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.
The "bygones be bygones" was the message, but one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
If you want to make "bygones be bygones" your main message, then you spend more time talking about that than you do about a "hostage to fortune" hypothetical. You turn reselection questions around. "My immediate concern is 'heal the wounds'. I urge all members of the Party to give that top priority."
It really is a test of leadership competence. Do you see the trapdoor which has just been opened by that question?
Heck, I wish that were not the case as well. I like people who give straight answers to straight questions. It would be nice not to have to calculate what the news cycle will be about. But that's not our world. It's easy to confuse effective news management and the sins of "spin". You can be both candid and smart. It's a necessary political craft.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Personally I'd have gone hard for the "happy to let bygones be bygones and work in the future for party unity" line. He could have made that his message. But he chose to talk extensively about party rules and hypothetical situations. The usual rule is "always duck hypotheticals". That way you avoid creating hostages to fortune.
The "bygones be bygones" was the message, but one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
If you want to make "bygones be bygones" your main message, then you spend more time talking about that than you do about a "hostage to fortune" hypothetical. You turn reselection questions around. "My immediate concern is 'heal the wounds'. I urge all members of the Party to give that top priority."
It really is a test of leadership competence. Do you see the trapdoor which has just been opened by that question?
Heck, I wish that were not the case as well. I like people who give straight answers to straight questions. It would be nice not to have to calculate what the news cycle will be about. But that's not our world. It's easy to confuse effective news management and the sins of "spin". You can be both candid and smart. It's a necessary political craft.
Yep - exactly! On a more general level being diplomatic is incredibly important when dealing with many competing positions. Sadly it is a skill that he appears to be somewhat lacking in.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You turn reselection questions around.... It's a necessary political craft.
Exactly. I think Corbyn is being treated incredibly unfairly by the press. The Independent had some data which appeared to be compiled by an outside group without a particular axe to grind that suggested he was regularly misquoted, not quoted when a right of reply would be usual, and caricatured in the press. But he isn't helping himself by being so credulous.
If, in the setting of a toxic parliamentary party split, a journalist asks you a question about deselection it isn't because they are giving you a helpful pointer to clarify technical details of the parties functioning, it's because they want a story. And the story is obviously "Corbyn talks about deselection".
"I don't think it's helpful to talk about that, my focus isn't on deselection of anyone and I'm not changing any rules. My focus is on bringing us together" would be an answer to the question that isn't slippery but isn't as crass as wading into a long discussion.
If a Doctor is asked "Am I dying?" then a technical answer on the ways in which one might be dying ending with the conclusion that we are all dying in one way or another is technically correct but is in (small p) political terms missing the point. And unfortunately so was Corbyn (big P too).
[ 22. July 2016, 10:38: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Arethosemyfeet re homophobic remarks at a CLP meeting.
Here is another Liverpool Echo link.
It contains this quote which applies to wider issues as well.
quote:
The MP (Angela Eagle) had earlier welcomed the investigation by party bosses and today said: “I can’t anticipate what will happen, that’s a matter for the party’s compliance department – but the party does have strict rule about threats misogyny, homophobic comments and disorder in meetings and they need to be properly respected.”
She said there are signed letters from “about 17 or 19 people who were at that meeting and saw what was going on”.
If your primary aim is to let bygones be bygones, then perhaps it would be a good idea to remind CLP members of the strict rules re "threats, misogyny, homophobic comments and disorder in meetings" rather than take the bait on reselection. That would seem to be a matter of much more immediate concern, given the increasing number of complaints from MPs over various forms of harrassment.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
He doesn't have the political and diplomatic nous needed in a potential prime minister. Neither does he have the necessary charisma.
He comes across to me as bumbling, he dithers and stutters, he's even disengaged when he should be engaged.
Just heard him on the BBC morning news: he talked about the attack on Angela Eagle's office (so he accepts it happened unlike some people, it seems) and he said that he had 'APOLOGISED for' .... stutter .... 'he was sorry'. A simple and silly mistake which he should not have made. (I don't think he was behind the attack BTW.)
He's been in the game for many years, he's had time to learn how to answer awkward questions and not get trapped by journalists.
The man isn't suitable prime ministerial material and should have the humility to accept that he does not command the support of his MPs and therefore needs to go. If he won't go, then Labour Party members must have the sense to vote for another leader.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
one of the things people like about Corbyn is that, when asked a question he answers it. He doesn't give a soundbite, or a dodge, he answers the question.
This is beginning to remind me of Archbishop Rowan Williams who would give very good, well thought out and honest answers to questions without having thought through how the journalist would use what he said.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was disappointing to see on the news last night that journos were still banging on that Corbyn was threatening his MPs with deselection. That this was based on the question about what might happen in those few constituencies which might or might not be amalgamated under boundary reforms. Really, a grotesque distortion of what Corbyn said.
Do you have a transcript of the exchange? Because according to this report, he was asked about reselection in 2018, and instead answered by saying every candidate could face reselection in 2020 as a consequence of boundary changes.
Meanwhile the Labour Chief Whip, who is actually responsible for deciding Labour's response to the boundary changes, has denied that the changes will cause mass reselections. Which appears to be another example of Mr Corbyn making policy statements without reference to the people responsible for those policies.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I have just reread the report and I accept that the question was indeed about boundary changes. I would still draw attention to the word 'every' in Mr Corbyn's response, plus the implication that it would be an open contest rather than a battle between the two amalgamated MPs.
[ 22. July 2016, 11:24: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was disappointing to see on the news last night that journos were still banging on that Corbyn was threatening his MPs with deselection. That this was based on the question about what might happen in those few constituencies which might or might not be amalgamated under boundary reforms. Really, a grotesque distortion of what Corbyn said.
Do you have a transcript of the exchange? Because according to this report, he was asked about reselection in 2018, and instead answered by saying every candidate could face reselection in 2020 as a consequence of boundary changes.
Meanwhile the Labour Chief Whip, who is actually responsible for deciding Labour's response to the boundary changes, has denied that the changes will cause mass reselections. Which appears to be another example of Mr Corbyn making policy statements without reference to the people responsible for those policies.
That's not my recollection of what he said, but I don't have a transcript. I'll search on iPlayer. The actual questions weren't caught on mic, but I certainly don't remember JC referring to "all constituencies'
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
All of of the above may (or may not) be very true.
But i for one would rather like a non-point-scoring leader of the Labour Party for a while. Someone who is not all smarmy or out-talking others. Some of us Like the steady approach
And isn't the Labour party supposed to be opposing the Tory party? Right now, the alternative leaders are sounding all too similar to the Tories.
[and his from someone who is Not a member of the Labour party]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Sorry, Ricardus, cross-posted.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A link to what he said.
Scroll down to the video link.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Following this post, the issue is growing in significance.
See here.
BTW I think mdijon has a point about the way the media treat Jeremy Corbyn, but he's not exactly being helped by his friends. And I repeat something I said earlier. What the hell is Len McCluskey playing at?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Another way Cornyn is like Trump. Trump just views his negative media attention as free publicity. He got the media to find his primary campaign.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Following this post, the issue is growing in significance.
See here.
BTW I think mdijon has a point about the way the media treat Jeremy Corbyn, but he's not exactly being helped by his friends. And I repeat something I said earlier. What the hell is Len McCluskey playing at?
I wonder what Owen Smith thinks he should do ? He's repeatedly condemned it, and issued a guide on expected conduct - I mean literally, what are these other things Angela Eagle and Owen Smith think he is able to do ? All the party meetings are currently suspended - what are they expecting, he can't police Twitter.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
"I speak to some of my supporters here. I regret the need to do this, but I have seen the evidence and cannot keep silent about your actions. Listen up. Whatever you may think, you are no friends of mine if you abuse, threaten and intimidate Labour MPs who do not support me. I disown such actions. They are repugnant to me. They are no part of what membership of this party means. You are doing me no favours. You are bringing the party into disrepute. Where sufficient proof of any of the abuses outlawed by our rules is forthcoming, your membership of the party will be cancelled forthwith. Where prosecution is believed to be in order, the evidence will be handed over to the police for further action. You have been warned"
Something like that, anyway.
[ 22. July 2016, 22:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
He's already said as much several times.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I wonder what Owen Smith thinks he should do ? He's repeatedly condemned it, and issued a guide on expected conduct - I mean literally, what are these other things Angela Eagle and Owen Smith think he is able to do ? All the party meetings are currently suspended - what are they expecting, he can't police Twitter.
I agree with this, but put it differently.
JC's presence at the helm has let loose forces he is powerless to stop.
They believe in using aggression, viciousness, the power of the angry mob and even violence. Milliband, Brown and Blair were too centrist for them, so they didn't get involved. Now they have something to get nasty for, and get nasty they will. The enemy will be bullied into silence.
This will continue at least while JC is in charge.
They may act in Corbyn's name, but he has no control over them.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He's already said as much several times.
I found this
quote:
Embattled party leader Mr Corbyn today said it was “extremely concerning” that Ms Eagle had been the “victim of a threatening act” and that other MPs had received threats.
He added: “As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement.
“I utterly condemn any violence or threats, which undermine the democracy within our party and have no place in our politics.”
That is not the same as addressing his own supporters specifically. I may have missed it but I haven't seen that. Nor have I seen any mention of consequential action.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He's already said as much several times.
I found this
quote:
Embattled party leader Mr Corbyn today said it was “extremely concerning” that Ms Eagle had been the “victim of a threatening act” and that other MPs had received threats.
He added: “As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement.
“I utterly condemn any violence or threats, which undermine the democracy within our party and have no place in our politics.”
That is not the same as addressing his own supporters specifically. I may have missed it but I haven't seen that. Nor have I seen any mention of consequential action.
I would have thought that most people reading Corbyn's condemnation with an open mind would be pretty clear what he thought of threatening or bullying behaviour, whoever was the source: a clear and unequivocal condemnation. I'm assuming that you, Barnabas, as an intelligent and fair minded person, believe that this is a true reflection of what JC actually thinks. So why the desire to make him jump through hoops? Don't you think a specific condemnation of those who are his supporters would lend creedence to the media agenda of portraying the bullying as being confined to his supporters with everyone else being whiter than white? Because that's how the daily heil would portray it: "see, even Corbyn accepts that his supporters are thugs and bullies". How is that a smart move?
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
There are unruly elements in Jeremy's supporters, JJ, and there is clear evidence that they have taken aggressive and abusive use of social media to a different level. The extent to which this is concerted or conspiratorial is not yet clear. The sheer volume of abuse is new, and the reports of intimidation by other means are coming from serious, reliable sources.
Jeremy has a problem with some of his supporters which is on a completely different scale to anything seen previously. I've looked at some of the recent Facebook entries and twitter feeds involving a number of dissenting MPs and needed brain bleach afterwards. With such "friends" who needs enemies?
Do I think Jeremy condones this abusive behaviour? No. Do I think that at least some of it is being orchestrated by folks who support his position as leader? Yes. Do I think enough positive action (suspensions of memberships, effective CLP checks and curbs on behaviour which contravenes the code of conduct) has happened yet? No. Do I think it will now happen? I hope so but there may be some CLPs whose local leaders are part of the problem, rather than prepared to be part of the solution. Wallasey may not be an isolated case.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
If John Paul II, having decided to apologise for the Crusades, had in fact said something on the lines of 'of course We condemn the violence on both sides of the conflict, and did We mention the Almohad persecutions in Spain and the martyrdom of Isidore of Seville?' - then I think the Muslim world would have been justified in regarding his words as a non-apology.
To put it another way: Mr Corbyn has no need to condemn abusive behaviour towards his supporters because it is not being done in his name. Bringing it up in the context of an apology comes across as whatabouttery.
[ 23. July 2016, 09:56: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It does seem slightly reminiscent of the hoops that Muslims have to jump through to distance themselves from extremism. Did they condemn violence? Well did they condemn this specific instance of violence? Did they use the phrase "radical Islam"? And so on.
The press is again being unfair. However such has been the treatment of every Labour leader excepting T Blair. I suppose the difference is that the Guardian is joining in this time.
But having said that it seems the same themes continue to play out in this instance - of vitriolic unfair press, Corbyn apparently being very reasonable and technically correct, but not very inspired, communicative or media-savvy.
I think there are dangers in what Barnabas proposes along the "see, he admits it!" line that JJ says, but there would be a middle ground between a rather bland almost platitudenous statement about bullying and a more personally impassioned plea to end this. And an impassioned plea that acknowledges real things have taken place would be more helpful than one that doesn't acknowledge and real bullying and carries an overtone of "well I've had it too".
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Actually, I think it is a "smart choice" by Jeremy to slam directly and threaten disciplinary action against those JC supporters who are crossing the line "in his name". (That's the closing phrase in the open letter from 45 female MPs in the PLP.) And remind CLP leaders of their responsibility to ensure the code of conduct is applied locally.
If he takes a small hit from that now, that would IMO be better than the much larger hit he will get later if he doesn't do that before some of the investigations (e.g. Wallasey) come to book. Oh sure, that is second-guessing those investigations, but in Wallasey the evidence of abuse already in the public domain is impressive, along with the critical reports of unacceptable behaviour at local CLP meetings. Leadership includes the courage to grasp painful nettles, and take effective action to uproot them.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
FFS Jeremy Corbyn MP on Twitter: "I've just launched Respect & Unity: Our Code of Conduct for the Labour leadership election. Please read and RT → https://t.co/gpWHSQMEQD"
This has been out for days, plus about five other formal statements.
The idea he hasn't condemned abuse is just a lie.
(And every single time he has been asked directly, immediately, and without ambiguity.)
You might remember he also went into bat for Laura Kuenessberg, stating the petition for her to be sacked was unacceptable and that people should treat her with respect.
[ 23. July 2016, 11:32: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I also note though the press covered the 'keep it comradely' thing they've let that go virtually unreported.
[ 23. July 2016, 11:36: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think it strikes not quite the right note though to simply say keep it comradely and condemn all abuse when some abuse is being done in one's name, or by people that one has managerial responsibility for.
Like the Pope condemning all sexual abuse when asked about scandals in the Church.
If one genuinely is the leader of a party riven with abuse and bullying in several directions tweeting a code of practice may not be enough.
(I don't doubt that bullying is a normal part of political life in our country, by the way).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Doublethink
I had read the Code of Conduct. What is the operational connection between abuse of the code and pre-existing disciplinary procedures? I can see shoulds, expects and tolerance limits. Classically, these are "warm words".
Codes of conduct normally do not have teeth and this one doesn't seem any different to me. Maybe I'm missing something?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If one genuinely is the leader of a party riven with abuse and bullying in several directions tweeting a code of practice may not be enough.
This.
He claimed the issue was 'accountability', but he knew perfectly well what he was doing when he opposed the NEC vote being in secret. There were some very scared people on the NEC, and he was happy to have them thrown to the mob:
“He endorsed bullying, threats and intimidation, by the fact of that vote.”
Somehow I doubt his latest statement on protocol will have much actual effect. His leadership qualities are poor with his supporters, as well as his opponents.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
