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

[bickster]

7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

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

• it wasn't the source
• the last line is the opinion of a journalist and not an accurate portrayal of the event

hopefully, you now have clarity

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, bickster said:

• it wasn't the source
• the last line is the opinion of a journalist and not an accurate portrayal of the event

hopefully, you now have clarity

Of what event? 

I have less clarity than before. I assume that Toby Helm rang up Berger and/or other MP's planning to leave the party (or met them in the lobby or whatever), and is reporting the conversation. I don't know about an event. What are you referring to?

The article I'm referencing (which can be found here) doesn't mention any event. 

Edited February 14, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Of what event? 

I have less clarity than before. I assume that Toby Helm rang up Berger and/or other MP's planning to leave the party, and is reporting the conversation. I don't know about an event. What are you referring to?

The interview was by Robert Peston on ITV

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

The interview was by Robert Peston on ITV

'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.'

Were all three interviewed by Peston then? Or were they interviewed in different places on the same night?

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

 I assume that Toby Helm rang up Berger and/or other MP's planning to leave the party, and is reporting the conversation.

If that is so, then he actually isn’t reporting the conversation. They didn’t say this, they didn’t deny the other. That’s a journo “reporting” that he didn’t get a story he wanted/ hoped for.

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

'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.'

Were all three interviewed by Peston then? Or were they interviewed in different places on the same night?

Leslie and Smith were "interviewed" using the term loosely by the Observer but we were specifically talking about Berger and your quote was also specifically referencing Berger

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, blandy said:

If that is so, then he actually isn’t reporting the conversation. They didn’t say this, they didn’t deny the other. That’s a journo “reporting” that he didn’t get a story he wanted/ hoped for.

The bog standard response to 'are you planning to start or join a new political party' is 'no, of course not' and any response which deviates from this (absolutely including 'no comment') is newsworthy. It seems to me that it doesn't much matter whether her response was 'no comment' ('refused to be drawn') or 'not saying yes, not saying no' ('refused to deny') because on some level they are all going to be perceived as disloyal. 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

It seems to me that it doesn't much matter whether her response was 'no comment' ('refused to be drawn') or 'not saying yes, not saying no' ('refused to deny') because on some level they are all going to be perceived as disloyal. 

it was neither of those

[blandy]

11 hours ago, peterms said:

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

That's a good article from a general perspective. It's hard to argue with any of it in terms of general situations and principles and such like.

Where I differ is that the last little bit

Quote

"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".

Isn't what's actually the case with Luciana Berger. She hasn't attacked her CLP members, she hasn't complained about bullying, or demanded an unchallenged job for life or shown any contempt for her CLP members - so as a "defence" of what's happened in her case, it would be an utterly risible distraction attempt, because it just doesn't apply to her situation. SHe was racially abused and threatened by Labour anti-semites. She complained, rightly, about it. We don't know if she has the support of her CLP members (I suspect she does, as she's good local MP) but we do know two aquaintances of the Labour leadership who are in that CLP tabled VONC motions against her, and one of those two has said some unsavoury and innaccurate things about her. When the poo hit the fan, these motions were withdrawn. SO while the article by whoever it is, is good common sense, it's not something that Berger would argue with, I'm sure, but it's not what's happened here.

[HanoiVillan]

41 minutes ago, bickster said:

it was neither of those

I'm really not sure what you're quibbling about. My point here is simple: she didn't offer a full-throated declaration of loyalty to the party. The exact words that she used are irrelevant. People feel that she is disloyal because she didn't offer a full-throated endorsement of the party, which is what is expected by members of that party of their elected representatives. 

Edited February 14, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[magnkarl]

24 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm really not sure what you're quibbling about. My point here is simple: she didn't offer a full-throated declaration of loyalty to the party. The exact words that she used are irrelevant. People feel that she is disloyal because she didn't offer a full-throated endorsement of the party, which is what is expected by members of that party of their elected representatives. 

This is fairly rich considering the whole party leadership consistently voted against the same party for roughly 20 years. Diane Abbot\McDonnel\Corbyn has a looooooong history of being 'disloyal' if that's the case. 

What the normal bloke sees yet again from labour in this case is that some antisemitic idiots tried to oust a very popular MP because she's Jewish, Corbyn did nothing and the circle continues. The only ones who's said anything here is Tom Watson and Keir Starmer.

The silence from JC says a thousand words, just like with all his other silly inactions on this issue. Jenny Formby who said her "top priority" when taking on the job of general secretary was to purge this from the party even failed to attend the party parliamentary meeting on the issue. 

What could rebuild trust here is if Labour actually let us see what it's doing to deal with the issue. It's not enough if Labour tells us that it's "expelled" people if there's no insight. It's also not a deterrent to the rest of the people doing such things if these people are expelled and their cases are broomed under the carpet.

Edited February 14, 2019 by magnkarl

[blandy]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

it doesn't much matter whether her response was 'no comment' ('refused to be drawn') or 'not saying yes, not saying no' ('refused to deny') because on some level they are all going to be perceived as disloyal. 

"no comment" isn't refused to be drawn - that's a quote for a journo to print along with the question he asked. There's no quoted question from him, so you have to take a wider look at what might have been the discussion. For example - 

Journo :"Luciana, the Labour party looks like it's about to split, Labour's a mess isn't it"

LB: "The Labour party and me as a Labour MP working hard for my constituents are doing all we can to make lives better for my constituents"

Article: "Berger refused to be drawn on Labour party splits"

some CLP members :"Hang the disloyal Zionist Witch"

McDonnell: "All she has to do is pledge loyalty to Jezza" 

Commenters: "Democracy"

(yes I've exaggerated to make a point)

 

[bickster]

Jennie Formby is the puppetmasters assistant

[dAVe80]

So what is the new break away centrist party going to be called? The Democratic Liberals?

[cyrusr]

13 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

So what is the new break away centrist party going to be called? The Democratic Liberals?

The People's Front of Judea?

[dAVe80]

17 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

The People's Front of Judea?

Splitters!

[blandy]

46 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

So what is the new break away centrist party going to be called? The Democratic Liberals?

"I can't believe it's not Corbyn"

[blandy]

or "I can't believe it's not Labour", perhaps

[peterms]

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Jenny Formby who said her "top priority" when taking on the job of general secretary was to purge this from the party even failed to attend the party parliamentary meeting on the issue. 

She had indicated a week previously that she was unavailable that date, and she has received an apology from Bob Cryer for the misunderstanding.  Another speaker was arranged instead.  People who are complaining know this, but it's another little smear to add to the catalogue, and it just gets repeated by others as in your post.  Constant, unremitting repetition is the name of the game.

[magnkarl]

38 minutes ago, peterms said:

She had indicated a week previously that she was unavailable that date, and she has received an apology from Bob Cryer for the misunderstanding.  Another speaker was arranged instead.  People who are complaining know this, but it's another little smear to add to the catalogue, and it just gets repeated by others as in your post.  Constant, unremitting repetition is the name of the game.

Sure, valid point. However you'd think that the person put in place to do a job which mainly was to clean up this issue would find time in her diary when this was announced well in advance.

I'm sure she'd find it horribly stressfull though, just like her staff who is terribly stressed by the fact that people are questioning why they're so slow and not going back further than April 2018. If they went back a few more years they'd probably have to deal with a lot of JC's inner circle - which of course would be horribly stressful for the cult of Corbyn.