dAVe80 Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) You're the leader of a party set up to be the political wing of trade unions, and in opposition to the current government. A number of trade unions in a particular sector express major concerns about the government's plans for their sector. Do you: A. 100% unquestionably back the trade unions. B. Pledge public support for their cause, but also suggest there may be a better way forward that could be negotiated, and that you'd be willing to help. C. Rubbish any suggestions that their plans are reasonable, back the goverment, and further hint that they're lazy and should work more. D. Abstain. Edited February 23, 2021 by dAVe80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 E. Notice that the Labour run government next door is operating a more cautious phased approach and suggest that could be a model worth looking at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: E. Notice that the Labour run government next door is operating a more cautious phased approach and suggest that could be a model worth looking at. With the Easter holidays coming 3 weeks after the return, I'd have thought it was a no brainer to bring some kids back to school on the specified date, but monitor things over the enxt 2-3 weeks before committing to bringing more back after easter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted February 23, 2021 Move along now, nothing to see here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2021 6 minutes ago, Chindie said: Move along now, nothing to see here. It's all a bit of a mystery tbh. The one rumour doing the rounds is that all three were at one time or other in Joe Anderson's cabinet so are tainted by association. And there is an element of truth in that they too may become part of the corruption probe. They may be looking for a candidate from outside the current council so as to avoid that scenario. Alternatively, it could be that Labour has decided they can't have a candidate committed to abolishing the position they are standing for (all three are) I'm not sure jumping to the conclusion of right vs left is the correct assumption. There really are different balls being juggled in Liverpool right now. And as always Liverpool Labour Politics are a totaslly different ballpark to the national, quite often there are different fights going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmygreaves Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 16 hours ago, ml1dch said: Not hugely appealing. But looks like heaven compared to the offensive, alt-right culture war in Government form that we actually have. I guess so...... Not sure I'm too comfortable with the centre moving gradually to the right. Give it 20 years and it'll be as batshit here as it in the US. Every man for themselves "**** you" society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted February 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, jimmygreaves said: I guess so...... Not sure I'm too comfortable with the centre moving gradually to the right. Give it 20 years and it'll be as batshit here as it in the US. Every man for themselves "**** you" society. Tories, countrywide - 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2021 Quote And today an email to members states that Labour is taking the unprecedented move of re-opening the whole application process. The email states: "The role of Liverpool Mayor is a high profile and hugely important figure. The people of Liverpool deserve a Labour Mayor and the Labour Party needs to select the right candidate who can deliver an election win, stand up against the Conservatives, lead Liverpool out of the coronavirus crisis and fight for the regeneration and the resources that the city desperately needs. The Echo Story by Liam Thorpe (AKA Thom Thumb - 6.2 cm tall) who generally has the ear of Councillors That bit in bold might be the clue as I was saying in the above post. All three candidates are committed to abolishing the post they are standing for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 There are reasons to prohibit someone from standing as a candidate that most might accept as reasonable (if there was good reason to think they might defect shortly after the election for instance). There are other reasons that some might find reasonable, and that others might not, but which we could have a debate about. But what we can't do is say whether this decision is reasonable or not if no evidence is given or reasons provided. Instead, the unavoidable impression is of an undemocratic stitch-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2021 5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: There are reasons to prohibit someone from standing as a candidate that most might accept as reasonable (if there was good reason to think they might defect shortly after the election for instance). There are other reasons that some might find reasonable, and that others might not, but which we could have a debate about. But what we can't do is say whether this decision is reasonable or not if no evidence is given or reasons provided. Instead, the unavoidable impression is of an undemocratic stitch-up. Agree with the first paragraph not the last sentence. If it were a stitch up, they wouldn't have binned all three candidates. Being as one was from shall we say the right (in Liverpool terms, still more left than a lot of Labour) another was from what we can deem a sort of left but in between the two extremes of the other two candidates and the third was the most left of the three. In a straight left / right fight, the two furthest left candidates were looking like splitting the left vote and possibly allowing the most right of the left (if that makes sense) in. Then most right of the candidates represents a good chunk of the traditional Labour Party member's votes in Liverpool (Hence why Joe Anderson keeps getting elected) The stitch up theory whilst it's the obvious first reaction seems to make no sense at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2021 I've had a good scan of some prominent Twitter accounts from Liverpool Labour and quite frankly, no matter what political hue people are from, not one of them has a clue what is going on, nor do they even appear to have a theory. None of the binned candidates appear to have issued a statement yet either. EDIT: This is a fairly typical tweet (No Idea on the lads actual leanings) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 38 minutes ago, bickster said: Agree with the first paragraph not the last sentence. If it were a stitch up, they wouldn't have binned all three candidates. Being as one was from shall we say the right (in Liverpool terms, still more left than a lot of Labour) another was from what we can deem a sort of left but in between the two extremes of the other two candidates and the third was the most left of the three. In a straight left / right fight, the two furthest left candidates were looking like splitting the left vote and possibly allowing the most right of the left (if that makes sense) in. Then most right of the candidates represents a good chunk of the traditional Labour Party member's votes in Liverpool (Hence why Joe Anderson keeps getting elected) The stitch up theory whilst it's the obvious first reaction seems to make no sense at all I take your point, but I suppose I'm not just getting at the idea of an ideological stitch-up; they can also be based on eg personal patronage or union membership/allegiance or whatever. Maybe it's not the right word, I don't know. Maybe 'completely undemocratic administrative intervention' is more accurate. Whatever it is, I think it's a poor look for the Labour party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: I take your point, but I suppose I'm not just getting at the idea of an ideological stitch-up; they can also be based on eg personal patronage or union membership/allegiance or whatever. Maybe it's not the right word, I don't know. Maybe 'completely undemocratic administrative intervention' is more accurate. Whatever it is, I think it's a poor look for the Labour party. Agree with that too. My personal current theory is that all three want to abolish the position they are standing for and somewhere up the food chain (most likely Labour HQ) do not want the wheels being set in motion to abolish the Elected Mayor's position, especially with an incumbent supporting the move. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, bickster said: Agree with that too. My personal current theory is that all three want to abolish the position they are standing for and somewhere up the food chain (most likely Labour HQ) do not want the wheels being set in motion to abolish the Elected Mayor's position, especially with an incumbent supporting the move. That theory sounds plausible; your other theory that it was to do with the ongoing criminal investigation into Mr Tits also sounded plausible. I also think it's plausible that David Evans thought the 'wrong' person was going to win from the field, and wanted to prevent that without singling that person out. Whatever the real explanation is, I doubt we'll have to wait too long to find out. It's the Labour party, surely there will be some vicious leaking soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2021 14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Whatever the real explanation is, I doubt we'll have to wait too long to find out. It's the Labour party, surely there will be some vicious leaking soon enough. I'm amazed something hasn't leaked already! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2021 FIrst one to break ranks and make a statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 There's always a tweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2021 The current rumour sweeping the Rothberry faction, many of whom appear to be now convinced its true is that.... Luciana Berger will be swiftly readmitted to the party and will be the only candidate in the rerun process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted February 23, 2021 Local party members should select the correct candidates for every election. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2021 The absolute radio silence on this from ANY elected Labour councillor or local MP is astonishing, can't find a single comment. Closest I got was a retweet of the Echo Story from earlier by a Councillor Brandt, no comment was added to that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts