The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Dr_Pangloss]

Speaking of 'troll-farms', I'd say that accurately describes Momentum.

[peterms]

On 11/02/2019 at 11:01, blandy said:

You ask "And with involvement from Israel?

It's a reasonable inference.  We know that Israel spends a lot of money and employs a lot of people to post internet propaganda (our own ironically named "Integrity Initiative" is miniscule in comparison).  We know they run troll farms which are prepared to interven in politics.  Israeli embassy staff were caught out proposing "taking down" UK politicians whose views on Palestine they found unhelpful.  We know they have energetically pushed the "Labour antisemitism" line.  To think it unlikely that they are involved would seem, shall we say, touchingly generous.

On 11/02/2019 at 11:01, blandy said:

an anti-semitic mural, showing Jewish bankers getting rich off the backs of the poor,

Just picking this out as an example of how the narative is constructed.  The mural portayed several bankers, real people, recognisable from their portraits.  Some were Jewish, some weren't.  And yet by constant repetition, people like Berger try to pretend that it was a portrayal of Jewish stereotypes based on exaggerated and cliched physical features, to suggest that Jews and bankers are one and the same.  Her misrepresentation should be challenged.  And her attempt to insinuate antisemitism on that basis should likewise be challenged.

 

On 11/02/2019 at 11:01, blandy said:

 She shouldn't be told "pledge your loyalty and it'll go away"

Faced with a motion of no confidence on the basis of disloyalty, because of incidents like repeatedly attacking the leadership, and refusing to say that the election of the party you represent would be a good thing, then suggesting someone express loyalty seems not only the minimum that could be expected, but so blindingly obvious that it's hard to see why anyone could reasonably object.  To call for her to be supported against the motion would be to say that her behaviour is proper and reasonable, and I really can't think of any political party which would find it so.  Not just political parties - I think most firms, and vol orgs, would take a similarly dim view of behaviour like that.

[magnkarl]

11 hours ago, peterms said:

It's a reasonable inference.  We know that Israel spends a lot of money and employs a lot of people to post internet propaganda (our own ironically named "Integrity Initiative" is miniscule in comparison).  We know they run troll farms which are prepared to interven in politics.  Israeli embassy staff were caught out proposing "taking down" UK politicians whose views on Palestine they found unhelpful.  We know they have energetically pushed the "Labour antisemitism" line.  To think it unlikely that they are involved would seem, shall we say, touchingly generous.

Just picking this out as an example of how the narative is constructed.  The mural portayed several bankers, real people, recognisable from their portraits.  Some were Jewish, some weren't.  And yet by constant repetition, people like Berger try to pretend that it was a portrayal of Jewish stereotypes based on exaggerated and cliched physical features, to suggest that Jews and bankers are one and the same.  Her misrepresentation should be challenged.  And her attempt to insinuate antisemitism on that basis should likewise be challenged.

 

Faced with a motion of no confidence on the basis of disloyalty, because of incidents like repeatedly attacking the leadership, and refusing to say that the election of the party you represent would be a good thing, then suggesting someone express loyalty seems not only the minimum that could be expected, but so blindingly obvious that it's hard to see why anyone could reasonably object.  To call for her to be supported against the motion would be to say that her behaviour is proper and reasonable, and I really can't think of any political party which would find it so.  Not just political parties - I think most firms, and vol orgs, would take a similarly dim view of behaviour like that.

I'd love if you'd show some sources that compares Israel and the UK's propaganda spend please, since you write "we know" how many people the UK employs to do digital propaganda I'd also like to know how many we employ compared to Israel. 

Since you so clearly seem to think that the mural did not have racist insinuations - what is the difference between the Jewish bankers and the non-Jewish bankers in it? Have a think and let us know what you see. Let me give you a clue - it's one of the racial stereotypes people often describe Jews by. 

By your own words does McDonnell say to i.e. Diane Abbot that she should shut it when she rightly complains about racist abuse? There's a double standard that Labour are applying to members who bend the knee to the glorious leader and those who don't. Luciana Berger doesn't, hence she clearly has to stand on her own when she gets bombarded with vile abuse, and you're trying to rationalise this.

Luciana Berger is a thorn in Corbyn's side as she's got support in Liverpool and keeps calling out Corbyn's latent antisemitic past and circle of associates, why deal with the issues when you can get rid of the problem by some backhanded political games instead?

Edited February 13, 2019 by magnkarl

[snowychap]

12 hours ago, peterms said:

The mural portayed several bankers, real people, recognisable from their portraits.  Some were Jewish, some weren't. 

You tried this line last March and it wasn't particularly convincing then.

Link:

On 31/03/2018 at 22:13, peterms said:

It portayed six real people, all of whom were bankers and two of whom were Jewish.

Edited February 13, 2019 by snowychap

[blandy]

14 hours ago, peterms said:

Just picking this out as an example of how the narative is constructed.  The mural portayed several bankers, real people, recognisable from their portraits.  Some were Jewish, some weren't.  And yet by constant repetition, people like Berger try to pretend that it was a portrayal of Jewish stereotypes based on exaggerated and cliched physical features, to suggest that Jews and bankers are one and the same.  Her misrepresentation should be challenged.  And her attempt to insinuate antisemitism on that basis should likewise be challenged.

Jeremy Corbyn (eventually)

Quote

I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic.

Even Catweazle (when called out) had to 'fess up. It is, as @snowychap classily understates "not particularly convincing" to claim otherwise.

[peterms]

10 hours ago, magnkarl said:

since you write "we know" how many people the UK employs to do digital propaganda

No, I didn't.  In fact we didn't know about the Integrity Initiative until recently.  There's no reason at all to suppose that is the total of it.  We do know that Israel spends a lot and recruits a lot of people for this purpose.

10 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Since you so clearly seem to think that the mural did not have racist insinuations

Lots of people find it racist.  The artist says it wasn't intended as such.  I think the consensus view is that whether he meant it to be racist or not, if it's caused offence then it looks like a clumsy and inappropriate piece.  My objection is the people who try to use Corbyn's comment as evidence of Corbyn being antisemitic, an accusation which I find tenuous and contrived.

10 hours ago, magnkarl said:

does McDonnell say to i.e. Diane Abbot that she should shut it when she rightly complains about racist abuse

Do you not see why this is a false comparison?  No-one is telling Berger that she should not complain about racist abuse.  They are telling her that she shouldn't display disloyalty to the party on whose platform she stands, and that if people express a lack of confidence in her for that, then she could address it by not acting in that way.

[bickster]

12 minutes ago, peterms said:

They are telling her that she shouldn't display disloyalty to the party on whose platform she stands, and that if people express a lack of confidence in her for that, then she could address it by not acting in that way.

This is the broad church that is lead by none other than St Jezza that we're talking about?

I thought we were talking  about a party that was lead by a lifelong party loyalist for a minute, not the most disloyal Labour MP in the history of the party

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

I thought we were talking  about a party that was lead by a lifelong party loyalist for a minute, not the most disloyal Labour MP in the history of the party

If his local party had wished to express no confidence in him at any point over the last few decades, they would have been perfectly at liberty to do so, and you wouldn't have had senior party figures calling for the suspension of the local party, or complaining that he was being bullied.  Similarly, he's had no special protection from any disciplinary measures the parliamentary party might have wished to take against him.

His past record of voting against the whip obviously gives ammunition to his critics, whereas voting for things like the Iraq war wouldn't, even though it would have been very much the wrong thing to do.  But it doesn't have any bearing on whether any MP can claim immunity from being criticised by their local party.  If they reflect the views of the local party (as for example I suspect John Mann probably does), then they are not going to get a VONC proposed because they disagree with Corbyn.

[blandy]

27 minutes ago, peterms said:

They are telling her that she shouldn't display disloyalty to the party on whose platform she stands, and that if people express a lack of confidence in her for that, then she could address it by not acting in that way.

That's a different interpretation to mine, which is that she complained, as the recipient of racist abuse from inside and outside Labour, that Labour and Corbyn as leader wasn't doing nearly enough to address the Labour internal stuff. That's not disloyal, it's a specific complaint about a situation where she has been an absolutely clear victim of horrible behaviour and abuse, by Labour people and Labour isn't sorting it. It's an opportnity she's highlighted to improve. It's constructive in that sense towards making the party better and fairer and nicer.

It's true she doesn't (like many others in Labour) agree with their Brexit policy, but that's not unique to her by a very long way. It's woeful what she's had to put up with, from outside and inside Labour and then the response.

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, peterms said:

it doesn't have any bearing on whether any MP can claim immunity from being criticised by their local party

No one's suggested she should be immune from criticism. She's been singled out because of the anti-semitism thing.

[blandy]

35 minutes ago, peterms said:

No-one is telling Berger that she should not complain about racist abuse

By their actions, they were saying "don't complain about our response to racist abuse from within the party" and the proposers of the motion have voiced some pretty strident and off key comments about her and Zionists and such like. It's linked.

[peterms]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's a different interpretation to mine, which is that she complained, as the recipient of racist abuse from inside and outside Labour, that Labour and Corbyn as leader wasn't doing nearly enough to address the Labour internal stuff.

I mean things like being repeatedly asked by Eddie Mair to say whether she would be happy with Labour winning the election, and refusing to say yes.  Expectations of MPs are often pretty low, but I really don't see how anyone can think that someone can do something like that and expect to be exempt from criticism.  It's just unreal.

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, peterms said:

I mean things like being repeatedly asked by Eddie Mair to say whether she would be happy with Labour winning the election, and refusing to say yes.  Expectations of MPs are often pretty low, but I really don't see how anyone can think that someone can do something like that and expect to be exempt from criticism.  It's just unreal.

when do politicians ever answer interview questions

But seriously, you have a point there on one interview, I accept. Not sure such a thing warrants deselection, myself. I mean I can think of a few other MPs who've let themselves down in interviews by undermining credibility, the basics of mathematics and such like.

Just seen the exchange

Quote

Luciana Berger dodged the question multiple times after being pressed by Eddie Mair.

It’s as she told the LBC presenter there “isn’t an appetite for a general election” despite the Labour leader pushing for one.

On Thursday, Mr Corbyn demanded Theresa May call a snap vote to break the Brexit deadlock.

But, Ms Berger said a so-called People’s Vote was the way forward instead.

“Would a Jeremy Corbyn government be brilliant news for Britain?” Eddie repeatedly asked the MP for Liverpool Wavertree.

And when she didn’t answer, the LBC presenter added: “You can’t bring yourself to say it”.

“A Labour government would be better than a Conservative government, yes,” Ms Berger eventually replied.

Eddie asked again: “Even a Corbyn-led government?”

The Labour MP finished: “I want a Labour government.”

 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

But seriously, you have a point there on one interview, I accept. Not sure such a thing warrants deselection, myself.

It's a VONC, not deselection.  But on the point whether parties should discuss such motions, this is quite a good discussion.

Quote

In 2017, I was the candidate for Labour here on the Isle of Wight. One day I may share some anecdotes, but to be honest, John O’Farrell got there first, and he’s much funnier than me. Since the election, I’ve been the main spokesperson for the CLP, and since June last year, the Chair, trying to maintain our profile in the local media, and to keep the Tory council and Tory MP honest. Or at least as honest as Tories get. If Theresa May were to go for another walk and call an election, then I may well throw my hat into the ring to be considered as Labour candidate once more.

I may not be selected by the CLP though. They may choose someone else to try and topple the Tories.

The last two years have not been without difficulty. I’ve been the target of some fairly horrible abuse from some individuals on social media and email. Nothing which would make an actual MP bat an eyelid in terms of quantity, obviously, but when someone publicly calls you “a cancer”, your first reaction isn’t “oh well, at least it’s not as bad as what Jeremy Corbyn gets”. We’re all human. Except Jacob Rees-Mogg. Although there have been some threats, they’ve been relatively unthreatening threats, if that makes sense: I’ve not taken to checking under my car. Nonetheless, it’s fair to say I haven’t had this much anglo-saxon directed towards me since the last time I refereed a rugby league game.

 
Some of that abuse, and rather more non-abusive criticism, has come from local Labour Party members or supporters. It turns out that, in a church as broad as the Labour Party, sometimes people on the far side of either aisle aren’t so much singing out of time with each other, but are warbling different hymns altogether. Throw in intensely emotive issues like the anti-semitism storm last summer, or binary identity politics like Brexit, and trying to adopt a nuanced position can, rather than introducing the harmony you intended, instead quickly see you adding a third discordant tune to the two clashing songs already shattering the stained-glass windows, much to the irritation of both sides.

 
I’ve had criticism for being too dictatorial. I’ve had criticism for not directing people enough. I’ve been criticised by Remainers for being insufficiently enthusiastic about stopping Brexit, and by Lexiters for being too critical of Brexit. Some of the Labour Right in the CLP assume I must be an idiot because I voted for Corbyn. Some of the Left assume I’m a Blairite because, well to be honest, I haven’t quite cracked why for that one, but I’m sure they have their reasons. Some would oppose my selection because they would prefer a different person, even though they also like me. Some might support my selection just to stop a different person, even though they also dislike me. It is, as many have said, a funny old game.

 
Now the picture I painted above suggests a party riven with tiny factions. But actually that’s not remotely accurate. Or perhaps I should say that for much of the time, the various factions rub along well, united by more than they are divided. In 2017, I campaigned alongside Lexiters and Remainers who were both equally enthused by the manifesto. I count amongst my stronger personal supporters, local members from the Marxist Left and Blairite Right, and all points inbetween.

 
In my experience, CLP members from across the spectrum are quite capable of disagreeing about a range of issues without considering any of those issues to be a red line which prevents them from supporting whoever they think stands the best chance of getting a result for the Party as a whole. I count myself amongst those pragmatists: if Nye Bevan or Clem Attlee were reincarnated in Ryde and joined the local CLP, I’d vote against myself to get them selected.

 
Nearly all members hold it as an article of faith that the ultimate goal is to kick out the Tories, and to install a Labour government, and nearly all of us will swallow personal dislikes, policy disagreements and tone-deaf hymn-singing from the other side of the aisle, in order to elect any Labour MP who is working towards that goal. If that means supporting and campaigning for someone as candidate when you really wanted someone else, then so be it. I was aware in 2017 that some people would have much preferred a different candidate, but those same people still put in a shift to support me in that campaign, and some of them have even been won round to my dubious charm. Well, I like to tell myself that. Don’t disillusion me.

Some members will swallow political views they dislike, as long as the result is more likely to be a Labour government – for many on the left, that describes the entire period between 1997 and 2010. There are many current Labour MPs who are not particularly sympathetic to the politics of either the leadership or members, yet few have faced motions of no confidence, because their members will accept their lukewarm enthusiasm for socialist politics as long as they are seen as working hard to bring about a Labour government.

Some members will swallow opposition to the party leadership as long as that opposition comes from a political perspective with which they have sympathy, which explains why Jeremy Corbyn himself survived the Blair years. It’s also why plenty of MPs who have criticised the leadership’s stance on Brexit have gone unchallenged by members, because most members tend to have sympathy with more pro-Remain views.

Where members tend to draw the line, in my experience, is when a representative is seen as both politically unsympathetic and not helping to obtain a Labour government. If an MP ever crosses a line to be seen as actively helping to prevent a Labour government, then members will almost always move against them. If one looks at those Labour MPs who have faced motions of no confidence – and it is a relatively small number – one finds that it is inevitably the case that they not only have serious political differences with the leadership, but they are seen by members as making a Labour government less likely through their public provision of ammunition to the hostile media and the Tories.

That’s the explanation for why some members in some CLPs are tabling motions of no confidence in their MPs. But ultimately, whether you believe MPs such as Chris Leslie are damaging the party or not, is irrelevant.  Whatever the reasons, whatever the accuracy or otherwise of the motives of the CLP members, one thing is very clear to me: they have the right to choose whether I’m the person who represents them, as chair, as spokesperson or as candidate.

If they decide they don’t want me any more, and would prefer to select someone else, then obviously I’d be disappointed. I might even be hurt. I may think the decision unfair (you’d hope so, because if I thought it was fair, then why would I be standing in the first place?). But they do have that right. Because ultimately, they ARE the local Labour Party, and I’m not standing as an independent, but as a Labour candidate.

 
That seems to me to be an unarguable principle. Labour candidates can never be separate from the CLPs they represent. And if those CLP members choose candidates based on personal preference, political alignment, ancient Balkanesque blood feuds (this is the Isle of Wight – memories go back a long way here), or just because they don’t like the candidate’s dress sense (yes, I have taken flak for that), then that is their right. The moment we start telling them they can’t, or shouldn’t, exercise it any more, then we’re no longer a democratic party.

 
That principle, it seems to me, applies whether I’m an aspiring MP or an actual MP. It’s particularly important in our broken electoral system, which guarantees hundreds of MPs jobs for life in safe seats. If an MP doesn’t have to work to be re-elected in a constituency which weighs one party’s vote in tons and the other in grams, and they don’t have to work to be reselected by their CLP, then who are they actually accountable to? How do we get rid of any candidate or MP in a safe seat? To suggest that we can only kick them out if they are actually convicted of a crime seems to me to be setting the bar rather low in terms of our expectations of accountability.

 
Which is why I am so uncomfortable with seeing MPs attacking members for tabling votes of no confidence. It’s my CLP’s right to select their representative. They don’t owe me their loyalty no matter what I do. Rather, I owe them MY loyalty, because I am the beneficiary of their work and their votes in selecting me as candidate.

 
I’m even more uncomfortable with suggestions which I’ve seen from MPs that tabling such motions is “bullying”. It is not bullying to disagree with someone. It is not bullying to say “we don’t want you to be our representative any more”, as long as that is done in a clear and open process, and without personal abuse. Those who would support a different candidate at the next election are not bullying me, they’re exercising their democratic right. If I believed my own right to remain in position no matter what, trumped others’ right to remove me, then I’d have lost sight of what democracy is.

 
It’s also wrong, and deeply unfair, to see the conflation of any abuse which a candidate may have received from any quarter, with any attempt to deselect them or express a vote of no confidence. The fact that I’ve received some fairly unpleasant abuse from some members doesn’t negate the right of all members to choose someone else. Nearly all those CLP members who would vote for a different candidate here have never been abusive towards me. The idea that they should be criticised for exercising their right to choose someone else, because another member once abused me, is ridiculous. Even if members voted against me for their own reasons in a vote of no confidence put forward by an abuser, then that would still be their right, and it would not make them abusers themselves.

 
Those MPs who criticise CLP members because motions of no confidence, or reselection, are tabled or passed, are thus completely out of line. Ironically, in so doing, they make the case rather well for those who believe some MPs are contemptuous of their local party members, or even of the party membership as a whole. Little would make me more likely to vote FOR a motion of no confidence than if I were to have a candidate who criticised members for the act of exercising their right to call one – even if we sat on the same side of the church and sang the same hymn in perfect harmony. Democracy is my non-negotiable. I can put up with a lot, but I can’t put up with a candidate who believes they shouldn’t be accountable to the members who gave them their position.

 
It is an arrogant and contemptuous position for MPs or candidates to attack an entire CLP for simply having members who dare to suggest they might like to choose to a different representative. It is even worse when MPs accuse those CLPs of having malign motives, or of “bullying”. Even if some members did have malign motives, it would require a majority to pass a vote of no confidence. Do we really have MPs arguing that a majority of any CLP – hundreds or thousands of individuals – are motivated by malignancy?

 
The only correct response to a motion of no-confidence, or an attempt to deselect, is to politely contest it. If it happens to me, then I would set out why I believe I deserve to retain the confidence of local members. An even better approach would be to avoid having the vote of no confidence in the first place (or at least to be confident that such a vote would never get a majority), by treating as many local members as possible with the respect they deserve, and by representing their views effectively. MPs in particular benefit from the advantages of a high profile, paid staff, the deference which often accrues to any kind of authority or incumbency, access to the media, and experience of politics. If they can’t retain a majority of their own local party members willing to support them, then in what sense do they deserve to continue to represent those party members in elections?

 
To make a case that local members should not exercise their right to express their views is to demand an exemption from all accountability to the party. It is to state that the MP owes no loyalty or service to the members who selected them, campaigned for them and are represented by them. In which case, it is an argument not to be a Labour MP at all, but to be an independent. Which is fine, but don’t expect Labour members to support you – they would rather have a Labour MP, thanks.

 
I see all over social media this morning, Labour MPs taking to social media to condemn a CLP for the fact that some members have tabled a vote of no confidence. I have seen that motion conflated with abuse. I have seen it ascribed abhorrent and malign motives. I have seen multiple demands for solidarity with the MP in question (although not solidarity with the members of the CLP).  What that comes across as is a privileged parliamentary group demanding that members should shut up and accept what they’re given, without question, and with no expectation of accountability. If they don’t shut up and accept what they’re given, they will be deliberately labelled as abusers, racists and cranks in a hostile media by MPs whose voices are far louder than ordinary members. That’s so very wrong.

CLPs will contain many hundreds, or thousands, of members. Some will support a vote of no confidence. Some will oppose. Some will be indifferent. Some motives will be factional, some personal, some tactical and, yes, some malign. But whatever their reasons, no matter how much I may or may not agree or disagree with their motives, they have an absolute right to express those views. It is my responsibility – if I want to represent my CLP in any post, from bottle-washer to MP – to retain their confidence. If I don’t, or can’t, then democracy demands that I accept that decision and allow them to choose someone in whom they do have confidence.

 
The best defence against motions of no confidence is not to attack your members, or to complain about “bullying” or to demand an unchallenged job for life in which members serve your needs irrespective of your contempt for them. It is to retain the confidence of your members.

If you can’t do that – if I can’t do that – then we deserve to go.

 

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

when do politicians ever answer interview questions

But seriously, you have a point there on one interview, I accept.

As I think we discussed previously, it isn't just one interview; last week she was 'refusing to deny' that she plans to join a breakaway party. 

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

As I think we discussed previously, it isn't just one interview; last week she was 'refusing to deny' that she plans to join a breakaway party. 

Refused to be drawn on the issue would be more accurate

[HanoiVillan]

13 minutes ago, bickster said:

Refused to be drawn on the issue would be more accurate

Going back to the quote from the Observer, both wordings are present:

'On Saturday night, three of the MPs widely rumoured to be involved in the plans for an initial breakaway – Angela Smith, Chris Leslie and Luciana Berger – refused to be drawn into talk of a split, and insisted they were focused on opposing Brexit. But they did not deny that moves could be made by the spring or early summer.'

[bickster]

26 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

both wordings are present:

I’m really not sure what you think that proves.

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

I’m really not sure what you think that proves.

Not really trying to 'prove' anything. Just going back to the source to clarify. 

[blandy]

8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Going back to the quote from the Observer, both wordings are present:

'On Saturday night, three of the MPs widely rumoured to be involved in the plans for an initial breakaway – Angela Smith, Chris Leslie and Luciana Berger – refused to be drawn into talk of a split, and insisted they were focused on opposing Brexit. But they did not deny that moves could be made by the spring or early summer.'

Nor did they deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Clearly pastafarians.  Look, on the narrow issue of her being singled out, in my opinion the evidence against her is not strong enough to pass my personal threshold for seeing the action as justified  others are different. That’s fine . Add in the comments by her accusers regarding her being a rampant Zionist or whatever the exact accusation was, and again, to me, the action looks again like being motivated by personal animus, rather than her performance.

on the wider issue of labour splitting, anti-semitism, brexit,  corbyn.  As with the tories, a bunch of bellends are steering the party and a lot of the members and MPs are appalled, so yes a split is likely.  Any MPs talking about a split though would be accused of disloyalty etc. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t.

The Labour Party is in a mess. It’s badly run, badly led, performing awfully, losing members rapidly, MPs are aghast at Corbyn’s ineptitude, his duplicity and his silence (again) on anti-semitism and victimisation of a Jewish MP . Of course, he’s not anti Semitic, it’s just by chance that so many of his friends are. The bloke is a wrong ‘un in a superficially appealing persona.