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

[Davkaus]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Well, in my (perhaps jaded) experience the thing is that hiring good people and having an environment where these people naturally communicate and are free and able to be left largely alone to get on with it doesn't need a management buzzword name appending to it, nor does it need some kind of template introduced, nor does it require codifying. It absolutely ends up being a layer of stuff imposed by management, because if they don't, they haven't "rolled out" "agile".

If your plan includes (and it should) hiring good people, that's called "hiring good people". If your plan involves not micromanaging, but setting targets, giving them the tools to do the job and then getting out of the way, unless help is asked for  - that's called "good management".

 

Couldn't agree more with this, but the full set of principles (which are not themselves a template or a framework) were essentially written by some very high-performing techies as an outline of some shared values that they agreed would lead to having good teams that built good software, in an industry that mostly was not doing that. It's been usurped so much by management clowns, especially in contexts outside of software development, so I can understand your frustations though.

Very much off topic so I'll take my agile evangelism elsewhere  

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Very much off topic so I'll take my agile evangelism elsewhere  

Make sure you get there easily in a speedy fashion

[darrenm]

20 hours ago, bickster said:

If you genuinely believe that, then you really should step out of your political bubbble a bit

You realise of course that his wife and children are Jewish.

No I don't genuinely believe that. I find the continued targeting of left Jewish members extremely troubling and the narrative that Starmer is tackling antisemitism while this is happening being accepted by many without question even more troubling. I don't really have a bubble thanks for the concern anyway.

[Jareth]

Labour is ****. 

If this is how internal debate is conducted then what future does the party have? I almost think this is a comedic bit of fake news, it's beyond absurd - someone please tell me it's made up and is not real. And as for denying there is a complete and utter divide in being left or right and Jewish, sucker please - the right are **** the left constantly, and any reply is immediately labelled antisemitism. But in the end what does it matter - the managers are in charge and they'll soon realise the staff and the customers have **** off for good - then they will blame anybody but themselves. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Jareth

[bickster]

12 hours ago, darrenm said:

No I don't genuinely believe that. I find the continued targeting of left Jewish members extremely troubling and the narrative that Starmer is tackling antisemitism while this is happening being accepted by many without question even more troubling. I don't really have a bubble thanks for the concern anyway.

Do you believe they are being "targetted" because they are Jewish or that they hold views that are incompatible with membership of Labour Party?

If you look at the 4 "banned" organisations. Two of them are Resist (AKA the Chris Williamson fanclub) and Labour against the Witchunt. Both of whom claim the accusations about antisemitism in the Labour Party are politically motivated despite the EHRC report saying otherwise. It's exactly the same thing as the former leader not being a current Labour MP. That view is incompatible with a Labour Party that wants to take on board what the EHRC said. Fundamentally incompatible

The other two banned orgs were the Labour in Exile Network,  these people were already hoofed out so hardly a shock here and Socialist Appeal, a Trotskyite Party (that bit is important) formed by Militant founder Ted Grant when he was booted out of Militant

I don't see what some people's ethnicity has to do with this, it's about incompatible opinions and ideas

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Do you believe they are being "targetted" because they are Jewish or that they hold views that are incompatible with membership of Labour Party?

If you look at the 4 "banned" organisations. Two of them are Resist (AKA the Chris Williamson fanclub) and Labour against the Witchunt. Both of whom claim the accusations about antisemitism in the Labour Party are politically motivated despite the EHRC report saying otherwise. It's exactly the same thing as the former leader not being a current Labour MP. That view is incompatible with a Labour Party that wants to take on board what the EHRC said. Fundamentally incompatible

The other two banned orgs were the Labour in Exile Network,  these people were already hoofed out so hardly a shock here and Socialist Appeal, a Trotskyite Party (that bit is important) formed by Militant founder Ted Grant when he was booted out of Militant

I don't see what some people's ethnicity has to do with this, it's about incompatible opinions and ideas

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labour-antisemitism-accused-purging-jews-over-claims

"A new report says that Keir Starmer’s Labour “is purging Jews from the party” - with Jews almost five times more likely to face antisemitism charges than non-Jewish members. "

"Jenny Manson, co-chair of Jewish Voice for Labour, who is herself under investigation by the Labour Party, told MEE: “For the first time in my life as a Jew living in the UK I feel persecuted, hated and shunned by the apparatus of the Labour Party and the loud voices of some sections of the Jewish community. The weapon used too often is to call us JVL activists antisemitic. Bizarre and wicked.”"

It told the EHRC: "Our Jewish members do not feel safe in the Party and this is experienced agonisingly like the persecution our families have experienced over centuries"."

if you read that Jewish people are saying they feel persecuted and unsafe and you still seek to denigrate their experience through factionalism then I don't know what to say to you.

Oh and this:

"Approached by Middle East Eye, the Labour Party did not respond to the JVL’s claims."

is particularly egregious. The Labour Party under Starmer is choosing which groups of Jewish people to listen to and which to ignore. Does the McPherson principle and the EHRC not rule this out of order?

This is Naomi Wimbourne-Idrissi it's worth listening to what she has to say:

 

she was suspended from Labour for saying this, nothing to do with the proscribed groups:

""I feel bloody uncomfortable seeing damned good comrades and friends of mine being suspended from this party for doing nothing more than trying to discuss the questions which led to Jeremy Corbyn’s unjust suspension - we know it was unjust because he was readmitted - and then the question of the whip being taken from him which is almost certainly unconstitutional in the party.”"

From https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labour-senior-member-jewish-pressure-group-suspended

The whole thing stinks. I have solidarity with all Jewish people, not just those with whom I agree politically. To only have solidarity with one group because it's politically expediant to do so is weak and cowardly. This is one of the major reasons I have such disdain for Starmer and Evans.

[OutByEaster?]

11 hours ago, bickster said:

I don't see what some people's ethnicity has to do with this, it's about incompatible opinions and ideas

I am fully in favour of removing people whose opinions and ideas are incompatible with the Labour party.

When does he leave?

 

[bickster]

50 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I am fully in favour of removing people whose opinions and ideas are incompatible with the Labour party.

When does he leave?

 

Dunno he’s lost the whip already 

[darrenm]

It's all getting a bit silly isn't it?

 

 

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

15 minutes ago, darrenm said:

It's all getting a bit silly isn't it?

 

 

As much as I disliked the way Labour went about the whole proscribing issue, that guy seems to be massively misrepresenting what actually happened. Said meeting was uploaded to YouTube by LIE about two days later, a meeting which had quite a few anti-semites in it, and in which he spoke for a few minutes and mentioned that the Labour Left should set up a rival Conference to the official Labour Conference, so not just attending it. Although the video barely has any views, it's not unreasonable to think that someone at Labour HQ went through all their videos when they were going through the proscribing process and got a screenshot from there.

To use his analogy, it would be like getting annoyed that someone thought you were a Leyton Orient fan just because you celebrated them scoring.

[darrenm]

25 minutes ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

As much as I disliked the way Labour went about the whole proscribing issue, that guy seems to be massively misrepresenting what actually happened. Said meeting was uploaded to YouTube by LIE about two days later, a meeting which had quite a few anti-semites in it, and in which he spoke for a few minutes and mentioned that the Labour Left should set up a rival Conference to the official Labour Conference, so not just attending it. Although the video barely has any views, it's not unreasonable to think that someone at Labour HQ went through all their videos when they were going through the proscribing process and got a screenshot from there.

To use his analogy, it would be like getting annoyed that someone thought you were a Leyton Orient fan just because you celebrated them scoring.

Few thoughts about that.

He's still being expelled by attending a meeting before the group was proscribed.

Quite a few antisemites? Who? Charged by the police and convicted of a hate crime?

Not sure what's wrong with suggesting an alternative Conference. You already have parallel events and surely there's nothing wrong with discussing how to reform or evolve the party?

I don't think it really matters how the screenshot was obtained, the facts are still correct. This person was auto expelled by being on a zoom call with a group that was proscribed after the call.

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

On 21/08/2021 at 13:49, darrenm said:

Few thoughts about that.

He's still being expelled by attending a meeting before the group was proscribed.

And if he isn't a member, it should be fairly easy to appeal against, but it's not exactly a stretch to think someone is a member of LIE if they attended an event called "LIEN's first fightback meeting", especially when they had a speaking slot.

Quote

Quite a few antisemites? Who? Charged by the police and convicted of a hate crime?

Pam Bromley, named as an example of unlawful harassment in the EHRC report, and Tina Werkmann, vice chair of Labour Against the Witchhunt, who told people not to report holocaust deniers to the party.

Quote

Not sure what's wrong with suggesting an alternative Conference. You already have parallel events and surely there's nothing wrong with discussing how to reform or evolve the party?

I suppose there isn't anything particularly wrong with that, but I found it odd he spoke about a rival conference, which wouldn't even include left wing MPs, exclusively for suspended members. Personally I don't see how giving a platform to everyone with an axe to grind against the party would help the Labour party at all. But then to claim you're being expelled just because you attended the meeting even though you were an active participant is straight up lying about it, which was more the point I was getting at.

Quote

I don't think it really matters how the screenshot was obtained, the facts are still correct. This person was auto expelled by being on a zoom call with a group that was proscribed after the call.

One is claiming the party committed a crime to expel you, the other is suggesting the party reviewed information you freely allowed in to the public eye. Also, from what I've seen about these letters (I could be wrong, admittedly), you're typically given a chance to explain yourself, and even from his post, he's not been expelled yet.

What seems to have happened is that this guy has been accused of being a member of a proscribed group, based on the publically available evidence of him speaking at their first meeting, and has been told that if he is a member, he'll be expelled. So it seems all he has to do is tell Labour he isn't a member and he can avoid expulsion. But instead he's accused Labour of spying on it's members and misrepresented the reasoning behind the possible expulsion. In fact, I think it's a brilliant example of why you should wait to hear both sides of an argument before making a conclusion.

Another interesting thing is that he claimed in the meeting that he was suspended in January 2020 for "Daring to stand as a Socialist candidate for the NEC", which seems surprising since the Chair of Equalities on the NEC is the NEC member for Socialist Societies, so quite how someone could be suspended just for being a socialist (whilst Corbyn was still leader), unless he's misrepresenting what happened again...

I dislike a lot about how Labour have gone about things under Starmer, but this just seems like someone with an axe to grind against the leadership trying to stir up trouble.

[bickster]

2 hours ago, darrenm said:

Not sure what's wrong with suggesting an alternative Conference.

Not sure why anyone organising an alternative conference wouldn't expect to be expelled from a Political Party

The party conference (especially for Labour) is the most important event in the non-parliamentary callendar, it sets the policy agenda. Organising an Alternative to that is tantamount to admitting that you are a different political party and there is only one other party allowed in the Labour Party (The Cooperative Party). An alternative conference would instantly say that you aren't a part of the Labour Party, you aren't prepared to be a part of its internal democracy and that you have a different agenda to the Labour Party. If you don't expect to be expelled after that then you completely misjudged the situation you got involved in

Organising it would be a very honest thing to do, Labour needs to split. If this faction have decided they've lost the battle for the brand and the machinery then doing the honourable thing an organising their own conference for their own new party is a great place to start

[Jareth]

Keir Starmer: I’ll paint a picture of my vision in primary colours

Starmer signalled he may be preparing to make a more explicit departure from the 10 pledges he signed up to during his leadership campaign, which contained many policies backed by Jeremy Corbyn and earned him significant support from the left of the party. Pledges included abolishing tuition fees, increasing tax on the richest and backing “common ownership” of key utilities. Moving away from them will mean Starmer faces anger within his own ranks.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/21/keir-starmer-ill-paint-a-picture-of-my-vision-in-primary-colours

 

[bickster]

Quote

“The 10 pledges are important statements of value that matter and therefore that is an important starting point for me,” he said. “Obviously, as we come out of the pandemic, the scale of the challenge that we now confront is bigger than even it was back in 2019. If anything, the scale of the answers has to be commensurate with the challenge. That’s what I’ll be setting out in my conference speech.”

From the above link. The actual words said by Starmer not the spin put on it by a journalist

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the two

 

 

[Davkaus]

Quote

The top priority is a Labour government. That’s the whole purpose of the Labour party. I came into politics to change lives, I didn’t come into politics to be in opposition. However much you may use social media to say what you did in a vote, if you lost the vote, you didn’t change anything. I have burned into my memory the fact that in the first 12 months, as an MP, I voted 172 times and lost 171 times. That is not changing lives. The No 1 priority is winning that election.

I guess the question is, what does he intend to compromise on, what does he percieve to be the issues that are stopping Labour winning.

[HanoiVillan]

(from: https://www.politico.eu/article/tony-blair-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-imbecilic-taliban/)

Sad to see another Labour leader lost to the morally unserious reflex anti-Americanism of the student common room. This man would put the Special Relationship - the ultimate guarantee of security in a dangerous world - at risk and abandon our American allies just to satisfy his outdated morality. It just goes to show that the Labour left are not serious about being in power [ignores crackling in ear piece].

[darrenm]

On 22/08/2021 at 10:08, bickster said:

From the above link. The actual words said by Starmer not the spin put on it by a journalist

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the two

 

 

Wow. If the Corbynite policies were the starting point and the scale of the challenge is now even greater then I'm really excited to see the proper radical stuff he'll be coming up with. Abolish capitalism? UBI? Everything government or public procured to be state owned? That's the only way it can go, from his own words.

On 22/08/2021 at 10:15, Davkaus said:

I guess the question is, what does he intend to compromise on, what does he percieve to be the issues that are stopping Labour winning.

Whatever Claire Ainsley says the homogeneous group called 'The Working Class' wants this week. Last week it was some bloke shouting "why won't you all just work together?!" in the Question Time audience so naturally that's what The Working Class wants.

[dAVe80]

Another day, another spurious attempt to purge the left.

 

[bickster]

56 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Another day, another spurious attempt to purge the left.

Socialist Appeal = Trotskyite Marxist Political Party. Formed when Militant split in two in the 1990 (the Ted Grant half of Militant). Militant split over entryism. Ted Grant maintained the need for entryism as espoused by Trotsky, whereas the other half didn't

Of the 4 banned orgs this one should actually be the least shocking. They aren't in the Labour Party to further the aims of the Labour Party, they are in the Labour Party to recruit for the Marxist Revolution they desire. The Labour Party is of no consequence to them. It is a separate Political Party with aims in conflict with the Labour Party, just like Militant were. This is the half of Militant that maintained the policies of Militant

They even come out with the same bollocks, Socialist Appeal is a Newspaper and its supporters organise around the Newspaper. (replace Militant and exactly the same was said in the 80s)