bickster Posted May 31 Moderator Share Posted May 31 4 minutes ago, Chindie said: Starmer's head should be on a pike if he's intervened in party disciplinary matters directly. Is there any evidence of that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpabloangel18 Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 2 hours ago, magnkarl said: It's like when Corbyn would flood a constituency with momentum-activists and 'vote' Sounds awfully undemocratic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 51 minutes ago, Chindie said: Starmer's head should be on a pike if he's intervened in party disciplinary matters directly. Sounds fishy for sure 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 18 minutes ago, Genie said: Sounds fishy for sure Same thing happened with Amber Rudd for the Tories. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaoDeMings Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 3 hours ago, bickster said: I think you're confusing an awful lot of things here. It doesn’t matter what the Tories or the LibDems or any other party do, it’s not relevant to how the Labour Party conducts itself. All parties have purges to one degree or another but because the left (in general) is rather more ideological than a lot of he right they are very much more prone to a bit of Stalinist behaviour With regards to accepting Tories, that’s ok otherwise you’d be suggesting people who were once a member of one party rule themselves out from any other for life and that’s ludicrous. But once they’ve jumped ship they have to abide with the rules of that party, so you made a completely false equivalence there Which of the Labour Parties rules are you suggesting Rosie Duffield and Luke Akehurst have broken? FWIW I do think there’s a point regarding Coyle, he should have been out on his ear a long time since but it does rather mirror the Diane Abbott situation, being racist and being sent on a racism course, she should have been banned from standing (but isn’t - yet) Of the two currently deselected Labour candidates only one of those appears to relate to politics, the other seems to relate to complaints made about behaviour, his politics don’t seem relevant to the issue Am I confusing things or do we just have a different opinion? 'It doesn’t matter what the Tories or the LibDems or any other party do, it’s not relevant to how the Labour Party conducts itself.' - I agree with that. That was the point I was making. The post I was referring to was implying that factionalism/sketchy deselection is an issue with the left specifically, but clearly it's not. I accept that the second point was a false quivalence but what the original post was referring to was Faiza Shaheen liking a post by the Green Party celebrating their new candidate whom Faiza Shaheen is a personal friend of. The Labour Party used this as part of an arguement to deselect which is not legitimate imo. I suppose the broader point is the lengths they are going to to deselect left wing candidates while openly accepting ex-Tories is bizarre. It's not about Luke Akehurst and Rosie Duffield breaking rules. The concern is that they are hardly more competent or less controversial than candidates they are removing. The point is that it is clearly factional and not on. I think leadership deselecting candidates is wrong on either side. Decisions should be made democratically by local parties or by the wider membership. I don't really see what your point is and I don't really see why some will go to such effort to defend what the Labour Party are doing at the moment r.e. candidate selection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 31 Moderator Share Posted May 31 9 minutes ago, DaoDeMings said: The Labour Party used this as part of an arguement to deselect which is not legitimate imo. She also liked an extremely anti semitic tweet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaoDeMings Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 1 minute ago, blandy said: She also liked an extremely anti semitic tweet. Again, it's not even about these candidates specifically. I don't think it was an extremely anti semitic tweet personally but that's a matter of opinion. If there was a process that found wrongdoing on her part then that's fine. The problem is more that Luke Akehurst, Neil Coyle and others have said or done just as many if not more problematic things than Faiza Shaheen, but they have not been deselected because they politically align with or are loyal to the leadership. The same standards are not being applied equally and that should be concerning whatever end of the political spectrum are on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 31 VT Supporter Share Posted May 31 Factionalism is present everywhere and people are hypocrites. As someone who values honour, fairness and honour, I like to point out the hypocrisy and illogicality, and they hate it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 31 Moderator Share Posted May 31 1 minute ago, DaoDeMings said: The problem is more that Luke Akehurst, Neil Coyle and others have said or done just as many if not more problematic things than Faiza Shaheen, but they have not been deselected because they politically align with or are loyal to the leadership. The same standards are not being applied equally There’s clearly a kind of shuffling of the furniture going on for Labour (and similar deckchairs on the Titanic moving for the blue scourge). It happens every election for all the parties. It’s a dirty business. Political leaders are basically bastards like that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 9 minutes ago, DaoDeMings said: I don't really see what your point is and I don't really see why some will go to such effort to defend what the Labour Party are doing at the moment r.e. candidate selection I guess it depends on what is being defended. I think morally and on a personal level it stinks and shouldn't be happening. Not least because these are peoples' lives and livelihoods that they're playing with and they deserve more respect than they are being given. But it's perfectly defensible from a political perspective. The calculation that doing this now will make a Labour government stronger is worth the negative headlines and possible electoral risk. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaoDeMings Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 3 minutes ago, ml1dch said: I guess it depends on what is being defended. I think morally and on a personal level it stinks and shouldn't be happening. Not least because these are peoples' lives and livelihoods that they're playing with and they deserve more respect than they are being given. But it's perfectly defensible from a political perspective. The calculation that doing this now will make a Labour government stronger is worth the negative headlines and possible electoral risk. That's the problem with Westminster politics really is that the 'political rules' often allow and excuse things that most find personally and morally indefensible. There shouldn't be such a gulf. Oh well, what can you do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 31 Moderator Share Posted May 31 4 minutes ago, DaoDeMings said: That's the problem with Westminster politics really is that the 'political rules' often allow and excuse things that most find personally and morally indefensible. There shouldn't be such a gulf. Oh well, what can you do... This is politics not Westminster politics. Politics the world over is all about this grubby back room stuff There are no rules that can prevent this nor should there be. Why? Because those rules will make things worse and would in themselves be anti democratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 31 Moderator Share Posted May 31 1 minute ago, DaoDeMings said: That's the problem with Westminster politics really is that the 'political rules' often allow and excuse things that most find personally and morally indefensible. There shouldn't be such a gulf. Oh well, what can you do... Possibly, I’m not sure morally indefensible is quite how I’d phrase it, more morally dubious, or morally cruel. The nature of party politics is by definition kind of tribal. From whipped votes, to collective cabinet responsibility, to individual MPs or candidates promoting or defending stuff they don’t personally agree with, but which the party mechanisms and apparatus has decided is their policy… Apart from loathing the Tories, I’m not at all party political, in part at least because ultimately they’re all at it, they’re all ruthless and manipulative and have warring factions who hate each other more than their opponents in other parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 25 minutes ago, blandy said: She also liked an extremely anti semitic tweet. Which one was this? If it was extremely anti semitic, why would they even bother with her liking her friend’s tweet ten years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 31 Moderator Share Posted May 31 2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Which one was this? If it was extremely anti semitic, why would they even bother with her liking her friend’s tweet ten years ago? Who said they did? I thought it was her that announced this? There’s absolutely no guarantee that’s true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 What I’m a bit surprised at, is both main parties appear to have been caught unprepared when both had access to calendars and knew this was happening at some point in the next 6 months. If I was to be super critical, it’s slightly more surprising on the side of the team that chose the date and clearly took themselves by surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 31 VT Supporter Share Posted May 31 (edited) In fairness 'anti-Semetic' these days is basically a synonym for 'believes in things I disagree with'. It should be a heinous accusation, but it's been ground into the dirt by cynical parties, and it's despicable. Edited May 31 by Chindie 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaoDeMings Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 5 minutes ago, bickster said: This is politics not Westminster politics. Politics the world over is all about this grubby back room stuff There are no rules that can prevent this nor should there be. Why? Because those rules will make things worse and would in themselves be anti democratic. To some extent I agree, it's just interesting that racism and problematic behaviour only appears to be worth commenting on when it's someone with whom you don't politically align Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 31 Moderator Share Posted May 31 (edited) 5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Which one was this? If it was extremely anti semitic, why would they even bother with her liking her friend’s tweet ten years ago? She liked a tweet that had that video in it that was on here - Jon Stewart and all the Israel shouters and added that those (IRL) people were professionally organised - so basically going with the kind of Rothschild/ Jews “controlling and manipulating” libel type of thing. I’m not on twitter since about 2 years ago so dunno how to find it to embed here. Edited May 31 by blandy Kin auto complete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaoDeMings Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 1 minute ago, chrisp65 said: What I’m a bit surprised at, is both main parties appear to have been caught unprepared when both had access to calendars and knew this was happening at some point in the next 6 months. If I was to be super critical, it’s slightly more surprising on the side of the team that chose the date and clearly took themselves by surprise. I am surprised by Labour. They were pretty smooth up to this point. Would have thought they'd have it under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts