[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Pann]

He doesn’t need to be any more impartial on Twitter than Garry Lineker.

And a cursory search through the site does uncover some older articles he wrote, but honestly the more I looked the more I was wondering how anyone could actually approve some of the articles on there, some of them islamophobic and some openly transphobic. And one, now deleted, supporting no deal Brexit.

I had precious little respect for him before but being chairman of a rag like that, just nope.

More nonsense. Gary Lineker is not a BBC news employee (he is also a freelancer), Neil is.

The last article he wrote was in 2014 and of the handful of articles he has written all are pretty much politically neutral.

Neil is not the editor but no matter how much you try to deflect none of this changes the fact that there is no evidence to support claim in the article you linked.

As I said, yesterday, I am not going waste time with you.

Just about every Labour constituency group has used, or are in the process of using these new powers of selection to check and reaffirm that they have the right people standing.

'Right people standing' just about says it all.

[Jessicka]

More nonsense. Gary Lineker is not a BBC news employee, Neil is.

The last article he wrote was in 2014 and of the handful of articles he has written all are pretty much politically neutral.

Neil is not the editor but no matter how much you try to deflect none of this changes the fact that there is no evidence to support claim in the article you linked.

As I said, yesterday, I am not going waste time with you.



'Right people standing' just about says it all.

Gary Linker is a BBC employee though, one of their highest paid in fact. He’s just not exclusive to BBC, but then nor is Andrew Neil. You accuse me of lying and you manage one so bold faced as that?

Sure, Neil is not the editor of the Spectator, but I have my doubts that in 5 years, and taking that level of promotion with the company that his views have shifted much. His profile even says ‘Tweets reflect my analysis, and mine alone’, that’s not his BBC hat.

As for ‘Right people standing’, any vocal critic of their own party is going to have trouble. Boris himself already kicked 20 something of his own MPs out for that, while Dominic Grieve faced a similar vote for the Tories - though it does mean rather less when the national party has much more control over who it drops as candidates into seats to keep them safe and in Parliament.

These votes are taking place nationwide. But it only seems to be news in a Labour constituency where the incumbent is Jewish, the vote hasn’t even taken place yet whether she will actually be replaced.

[Pann]

Gary Linker is a BBC employee though, one of their highest paid in fact. He’s just not exclusive to BBC, but then nor is Andrew Neil. You accuse me of lying and you manage one so bold faced as that?

Sure, Neil is not the editor of the Spectator, but I have my doubts that in 5 years, and taking that level of promotion with the company that his views have shifted much. His profile even says ‘Tweets reflect my analysis, and mine alone’, that’s not his BBC hat.

As for ‘Right people standing’, any vocal critic of their own party is going to have trouble. Boris himself already kicked 20 something of his own MPs out for that, while Dominic Grieve faced a similar vote for the Tories.

These votes are taking place nationwide. But it only seems to be news in a Labour constituency where the incumbent is Jewish, the vote hasn’t even taken place yet whether she will actually be replaced.

I said Lineker is not a news employee. But the BBC disagree with you, '...the BBC responded by saying: "Gary is a freelance broadcaster and this is a personal Twitter account."' but what do they know? However Lineker does not work in news or current affairs and therefore is not bound by the same guidelines as Neil who does.

'The guidelines state that BBC staff and freelancers who work for BBC News and Current Affairs must not:

State or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party

Express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate

Advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other 'controversial subject'

Exhort a change in high-profile public policy'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46566574



None of this is relevant to the point that there is no evidence to support your claim.

So? What does Johnson's actions have to do with this? Johnson behaving badly does not excuse others doing the same.

ITV seem to disagree with your claim -'She is the second Labour MP to be “triggered” through the party’s new ballot procedures which make it easier for local members to force a contest.'

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-29/...ection-battle/

As do the BBC - 'She is the second Labour MP to face the party's new ballot procedures which make it easier for local members to force a contest.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49869114

The Guardian seem to think it is only her and Diana Johnson that face/have faced possible deselection.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...our-party-vote

As do many other news outlets so it is not, as you claim, nationwide.

Weird that both of them are critics of Corbyn, huh?!?

[Jessicka]

From that same BBC article:

A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Under longstanding party rules, reselection processes have to be held in between general elections."

"These are taking place in every Labour-held constituency across the country and in any reselection sitting MPs are automatically on the ballot paper," the spokesperson added.

Not all votes have taken place, but they have to, and obviously vocal critics of the leader are going to have questions asked of them. She’s not actually been deselected. It’s part of a process which would allow the local party to do so. It’s a local issue. She’s not the first, she probably won’t be the last.

As for Andrew Neil, he’s not directly expressing those views. He’s honouring the guidelines. But where he places himself and how he frames these things gives a lot away.

But then we’re talking about the same organisation that’s tried to be impartial on racism.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Oh dear, https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-29/...ection-battle/

If Lab are going to lead the government, and therefore the country, they need to get this kind of crap under control.

What kind of crap? The kind of crap where local members of the party can request a democratic process to see if the long-standing MP still has the support of local party members? The kind of process that ensures the MP is automatically on the ballot, rather than having to gather the votes to get there? Is that the kind of "crap" you are talking about?

What would you rather? That MPs were tied to the office for life once they were elected for the first time? Because if we don't have some kind of process like this, how exactly do you manage who gets put forward to represent Labour going forward?

Or are you just suggesting that you can't do this with someone that's Jewish, because it automatically makes you anti-semitic?

Please, enlighten me.

[Jessicka]

What kind of crap? The kind of crap where local members of the party can request a democratic process to see if the long-standing MP still has the support of local party members? The kind of process that ensures the MP is automatically on the ballot, rather than having to gather the votes to get there? Is that the kind of "crap" you are talking about?

What would you rather? That MPs were tied to the office for life once they were elected for the first time? Because if we don't have some kind of process like this, how exactly do you manage who gets put forward to represent Labour going forward?

Or are you just suggesting that you can't do this with someone that's Jewish, because it automatically makes you anti-semitic?

Please, enlighten me.

Maybe the title should read “Labour members want local candidate that supports Labour leader they voted for”.

_____

Anyhow, this Arcuri business gets murkier and murkier. She admits an affair, and £700k mysteriously appears in her company bank accounts. Meanwhile all her businesses are variously insolvent, collapsed, or on the verge of collapse. Obviously a great businesswoman the UK should be backing, even though she has nothing actually going on in the UK.

[Pann]

What kind of crap? The kind of crap where local members of the party can request a democratic process to see if the long-standing MP still has the support of local party members? The kind of process that ensures the MP is automatically on the ballot, rather than having to gather the votes to get there? Is that the kind of "crap" you are talking about?

What would you rather? That MPs were tied to the office for life once they were elected for the first time? Because if we don't have some kind of process like this, how exactly do you manage who gets put forward to represent Labour going forward?

Or are you just suggesting that you can't do this with someone that's Jewish, because it automatically makes you anti-semitic?

Please, enlighten me.

The kind of crap where parties seek to remove those who are seen to disagree with the leadership - you know like the kind of thing that Johnson does?

I must say that it is strange that someone who seems extremely popular with her constituents - she increased her vote share by over 10% and gained nearly 68% of the vote on 62% turnout in 2017 - would need to prove that she still has support of local party members. Weird huh?

I'm sure you'll disagree (at length) but I guess Lab are really happy being in opposition.

[Nymrohd]

I must say that it is strange that someone who seems extremely popular with her constituents - she increased her vote share by over 10% and gained nearly 68% of the vote on 62% turnout in 2017 - would need to prove that she still has support of local party members. Weird huh?

Not really. Local party members is not at all the same with local Labour voters. Give it some time, they'll drive those voters out as soon as they can.

[Jessicka]

The kind of crap where parties seek to remove those who are seen to disagree with the leadership - you know like the kind of thing that Johnson does?

I must say that it is strange that someone who seems extremely popular with her constituents - she increased her vote share by over 10% and gained nearly 68% of the vote on 62% turnout in 2017 - would need to prove that she still has support of local party members. Weird huh?

I'm sure you'll disagree (at length) but I guess Lab are really happy being in opposition.

The difference between Labour and Boris in this, is Boris is a top-down decision. Labour’s is a bottom up.

This is very important. They are not equivalent, don’t represent them as such.

I suppose it’s perfectly fair that Dominic Grieve remained a Conservative MP after his local party attempted to deselect him through a VONC?

If the local party want her to stay on, they have the opportunity to show it. Rather than have someone like Ester McVey helicoptered in as she was Tatton after losing her Wirral seat.

[Huehuecoyotl]

The kind of crap where parties seek to remove those who are seen to disagree with the leadership - you know like the kind of thing that Johnson does?

I must say that it is strange that someone who seems extremely popular with her constituents - she increased her vote share by over 10% and gained nearly 68% of the vote on 62% turnout in 2017 - would need to prove that she still has support of local party members. Weird huh?

I'm sure you'll disagree (at length) but I guess Lab are really happy being in opposition.

So you don't agree that periodic checks that they have the support of their party is correct? You think it's a job for life? That MPs should be above the members, and not subject to any oversight at all?

Is that short enough for you to actually answer the question this time? Or will it be more deflection and hand-waving?

[Nymrohd]

So you don't agree that periodic checks that they have the support of their party is correct? You think it's a job for life? That MPs should be above the members, and not subject to any oversight at all?

Is that short enough for you to actually answer the question this time? Or will it be more deflection and hand-waving?

Should success at attracting voters not be paramount? What you want is to win after all. How closely you align with the party goals is meaningless if you cannot help get the party in power.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Should success at attracting voters not be paramount? What you want is to win after all. How closely you align with the party goals is meaningless if you cannot help get the party in power.

You say that, but Labour tried the "give up your principles to get power" trick with Blair. That gave us PFI latched onto the NHS, and the Iraq war. It gave us less oversight over the city. It didn't give us the reversal of the path that Thatcher put us on. It helped to get us to the point where a large part of the country feel so abandoned that we got Brexit.

Sure, power is important. But if you have to give up your principles to get it, what's the point? You don't defeat Thatcherism by getting into government and perpetuating it.

[Nymrohd]

You say that, but Labour tried the "give up your principles to get power" trick with Blair. That gave us PFI latched onto the NHS, and the Iraq war. It gave us less oversight over the city. It didn't give us the reversal of the path that Thatcher put us on. It helped to get us to the point where a large part of the country feel so abandoned that we got Brexit.

Sure, power is important. But if you have to give up your principles to get it, what's the point? You don't defeat Thatcherism by getting into government and perpetuating it.

Here is the thing. A center wing or a left wing Labour is not going to win elections against the Tories at their worst. You need a both left and centrist politicians and you need to see what each constituency needs. The party membership is not representative of the voter base. You can have Corbyn in power and some more centrist politicians as well in constituencies were they need to be more centrist to have a chance. You have to be strategic.

[Jessicka]

Here is the thing. A center wing or a left wing Labour is not going to win elections against the Tories at their worst. You need a both left and centrist politicians and you need to see what each constituency needs. The party membership is not representative of the voter base. You can have Corbyn in power and some more centrist politicians as well in constituencies were they need to be more centrist to have a chance. You have to be strategic.

The local Labour Party choose their constituent. It has nothing to do with the national party. As it happens though usually the local party will choose someone who’s views align nationally and with the national leader.

You don’t affect change by lining up a bunch of centrist candidates, who once in power, line up and pass centrist policies. It’s either deceptive to line up candidates who aren’t going to give what the party offers, or the party is going to cease to represent its grass roots by offering what those new candidates say.

Blair ended up giving up on what the party had traditionally offered and ultimately it cost him everything.

[Pann]

So you don't agree that periodic checks that they have the support of their party is correct? You think it's a job for life? That MPs should be above the members, and not subject to any oversight at all?

Is that short enough for you to actually answer the question this time? Or will it be more deflection and hand-waving?

Oh look at you and your leading questions. Why wouldn't someone who is elected on such a strong majority have the support of the party? Has she or is she planning on deviating from Labour party policy? Isn't that the whole point of holding elections? (See I can play the silly leading questions game too)

[Huehuecoyotl]

Oh look at you and your leading questions. Why wouldn't someone who is elected on such a strong majority have the support of the party? Has she or is she planning on deviating from Labour party policy? Isn't that the whole point of holding elections? (See I can play the silly leading questions game too)

Why should anyone expect to remain in the job without the possibility of reselection? Can't you see that leads to people that are career politicians, which leads directly to the (not entirely baseless) accusations that they are out of touch with the people that elect them. It isn't about whether they deviate from policy or not; I'm of the opinion that as long as we have what is essentially a two-part state, a broad church in both those parties is desirable, even a necessity. Forcing MPs to face the possibility of reselection should at least mean that they stay on their toes. Rather than just being a red (or blue) rosette that turns up every 5 years to get confirmed in their cushy job again.

There you go, I responded to your points and questions (whether they were leading or not). I'll hold my breath while you decide whether to do the same, or fall back on your usual tactics.

[Kallisto]

What kind of crap? The kind of crap where local members of the party can request a democratic process to see if the long-standing MP still has the support of local party members? The kind of process that ensures the MP is automatically on the ballot, rather than having to gather the votes to get there? Is that the kind of "crap" you are talking about?

What would you rather? That MPs were tied to the office for life once they were elected for the first time? Because if we don't have some kind of process like this, how exactly do you manage who gets put forward to represent Labour going forward?

Or are you just suggesting that you can't do this with someone that's Jewish, because it automatically makes you anti-semitic?

Please, enlighten me.

The kind of crap that basically right now is showing to be a corbyn coup. Basically pushing out those who know that Corbyn can't win shit and try to appeal to the broarder base over thos "We must remain pure to the longest suicide note in political history." types that Corbyn is.

Quite simply it's politics 101. Do you want to be pure but useless (Opposition) or compromise a few things and actually get shit done. If you're not in number 10 you might as well 99% of the time not turn up that's how much power in normal times the government has.

[Monster Hunter]

On balance, Corbyn’s shit is less bad than the overt racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, islamophobia, and indeed anti-semitism present in the current government.

But you wouldn’t think that from the coverage.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Good thing we have more than two party's isn't it.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of the book is about Imperialism and the role of capitalist oligarchy, in fact Corbyn was quite specific about what aspect of the book he was calling "brilliant":



You can read his entire foreword here:

http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokes.../130Corbyn.pdf

Yes the author was anti-Semitic, but that was unfortunately common at the time.

If you give a pass to fiction, then what about Henry Ford, Hugo Boss or Coco Chanel? Is anyone who quotes Ford, wears a Hugo Boss suit or Chanel earrings an anti-Semite?

I'm sorry, it's fair to criticise him for the foreword and ask him to condemn the anti-Semitic parts of the book, but you're massively oversimplifying.

Sorry but you can't equate people wearing or using products made by company's that supported the Nazis and have since disavowed and apologised at length for it, with a supporting a book that still directly supports the same anti-semitism that spawned the nazi party in the first place.

That book still contains and espouses the hateful ideology and should not or ever be promoted or supported by a main stream politician, adding a foreword isn't a magic guard agaist the hateful cancer within that book.

The left has gone through great pain over the last 100 years to cut out the anti semetic elements that were common befor and for a long time after ww2 and corbyn making dogwhistles the anti semetic communist elements is no better than Boris's dogwhistles the islamaphobic far right wing.

[Shalcker]

Sorry but you can't equate people wearing or using products made by company's that supported the Nazis and have since disavowed and apologised at length for it, with a supporting a book that still directly supports the same anti-semitism that spawned the nazi party in the first place.

Are you sure it is "directly supporting" it? As far as i understand it simply follows common memes of the time - among other depictions of imperialism that have nothing to do with jews.

[tehealadin]

I can't help but laugh a little and shake my head. Corbyn's cabal trying to control the Labour party are like "We don't have a problem with Jews", a Jewish MP calls out antisemitism and the weak, dismissive response to it by the leadership, now gets targeted for deselection by said cabal. Of course you don't, course you don't. At best it is an astonishingly poor and naive view of the optics of the situation, at worse a confirmation of the claims Margaret Hodge has made about the party. I lean towards the latter.