timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 24, 2019 16:45:55 GMT
The tipping point was the sheer farce of yesterday afternoon. Instead of a debate on the most important issue of our generation we had a test of loyalty to Corbyn. The stitch up vote, with Formby grossly exceeded her powers over a horrendously weak Chair (I suspect given that session because they knew how maleable she would be). And the football style chanting of Corbyn’s name after the stitch up was not the behaviour of a serious political party, it was that of a cult of personality uncaring and ignorant of politics and of winning elections. well I'm sorry youve gone Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 24, 2019 16:47:40 GMT
well I'm sorry youve gone Thanks. And me too.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,279
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 24, 2019 16:54:46 GMT
The tipping point was the sheer farce of yesterday afternoon. Instead of a debate on the most important issue of our generation we had a test of loyalty to Corbyn. The stitch up vote, with Formby grossly exceeded her powers over a horrendously weak Chair (I suspect given that session because they knew how maleable she would be). And the football style chanting of Corbyn’s name after the stitch up was not the behaviour of a serious political party, it was that of a cult of personality uncaring and ignorant of politics and of winning elections. It was hardly effective chairing but then, it wasn't the first time. However, the result was absolutely clear - 60-40 split, and why she couldn't see that is a mystery, particularly as we know that the two big unions were voting on different sides in any case.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,170
|
Post by Jack on Sept 24, 2019 17:39:37 GMT
The tipping point was the sheer farce of yesterday afternoon. Instead of a debate on the most important issue of our generation we had a test of loyalty to Corbyn. The stitch up vote, with Formby grossly exceeded her powers over a horrendously weak Chair (I suspect given that session because they knew how maleable she would be). And the football style chanting of Corbyn’s name after the stitch up was not the behaviour of a serious political party, it was that of a cult of personality uncaring and ignorant of politics and of winning elections. I'm only surprised you hadn't noticed this earlier!
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Sept 24, 2019 18:55:45 GMT
It's regrettable that you couldn't care less about the people concerned. I'd have thought that you might care about the legal costs involved and the reputational harm that key individuals and the party might suffer. All that was required (from a competence as opposed to moral perspective) was a bit of careful reflection on how to respond, with someone with even a basic legal understanding (I'm no lawyer but I instinctively winced at the language used). No sympathy for their underhand and disruptive behaviour. Truly the enemy within Quite the case I believe, but stupid the way they went about it. Too little was done for too long and then apparently poor actions were taken to be decisive, the shotgun approach to management that I had encountered far too often and predictably as a union rep over the years. FFS its the Labour Party, its not exactly at a loss of where to start to get info about employment law and how to use it (not exactly a high bar for employers v's workers!) and one would hope 'political operatives' would be aware of 'the optics'.
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Sept 24, 2019 19:09:09 GMT
I think the party underestimated just how far they were prepared to go to defend the Blairite mode of operation and ideology. They were far too nice. Should have restructured and readvertised the jobs. Being devotees of the free market they could hardly have complained.... .... that's.... that's not technically within the law.... Depends how you go about achieving the end result.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Sept 24, 2019 19:31:28 GMT
Seems like the "non-aligned" grouping is gathering force with defections from left and right Now we just need this movement to be repeated in national politics!
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Sept 24, 2019 19:37:19 GMT
Actually the reasons were nothing to do directly with the banner or with Jennie Formby. A delegate from Dulwich & W Norwood CLP spoke. She said she had never experienced antisemitism in the Labour Party. "Experienced" doesn't just mean being a direct victim of it face-to-face, it includes hearing about it, reading about it or seeing it. It is inconceivable that she has never done any of those - for that to be the case, you'd either have to be extraordinarily unobservant, or completely fail to understand what antisemitism is (it is not just genocide or actively hating Jews day-to-day - it's far more wide-ranging than that, just as is the case with any form of racism), or you'd have to be a liar. For this, she was given a standing ovation. No doubt not everyone who did this meant to cause offence. But basically what it said to me was "we don't understand what you are, we don't particularly want to understand what you are, we don't care about you". I'm not saying that everyone has to share this feeling, but it's what it spelt out to me with remarkable clarity. Irrespective of the great work that the Governance Unit is doing to get rid of some of the very worst offenders, this shows that it's a drop in the ocean. There is, and it breaks my heart to say it, a culture of hostility, ranging from implicit to explicit, towards Jewish people which penetrates much deeper into the Labour Party's membership than I had previously realised. I cannot rejoin until a very large swathe of the membership of the party starts to grasp just how unwelcoming the culture of the party is towards Jewish people who reject the politics of JVL, ranging from right-wingers who lead the JLM to hard left-wingers such as me. To those who choose to stay and fight to rid the party of this culture of hostility towards Jews, I wish you all the greatest of success and can only hope it comes sooner than I fear. Jeremy Corbyn cannot be absolved of all blame for this. But it would be a very serious mistake to assume that you kick him out, and the problem goes. It won't. Thank you for explaining your decision. I suspect she was taking a narrower view of experience than you are, and the applause would be a mixture of sentiments - clearly there's a Corbyn loyalist claque present, and there would be some who would simply applaud a Jew saying this. I'd agree that there's far more to do. I'm sorry that you will be outside the party in the process that lies ahead which I suspect will rely on some external pressure.
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Sept 24, 2019 19:43:49 GMT
The tipping point was the sheer farce of yesterday afternoon. Instead of a debate on the most important issue of our generation we had a test of loyalty to Corbyn. The stitch up vote, with Formby grossly exceeded her powers over a horrendously weak Chair (I suspect given that session because they knew how maleable she would be). And the football style chanting of Corbyn’s name after the stitch up was not the behaviour of a serious political party, it was that of a cult of personality uncaring and ignorant of politics and of winning elections. Sorry about this. The last part isn't new and has been an unwelcome part of the last few years (said as someone who has been an enthusiastic loyalist for just one leader in my 45 years membership). Presumably you objected to the vote outcome itself? While the chair was poor I think the result was correctly called in the end, although a card vote might have revealed divisions between the various parts of the party. I'd guess the platform didn't want that displayed.
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Sept 24, 2019 19:44:52 GMT
Seems like the "non-aligned" grouping is gathering force with defections from left and right Now we just need this movement to be repeated in national politics! And end up with even more political paralysis as a result! How would a government be formed in a parliament of non-affiliates, all independent of each other?
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,279
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 24, 2019 19:48:35 GMT
No sympathy for their underhand and disruptive behaviour. Truly the enemy within Quite the case I believe, but stupid the way they went about it. Too little was done for too long and then apparently poor actions were taken to be decisive, the shotgun approach to management that I had encountered far too often and predictably as a union rep over the years. FFS its the Labour Party, its not exactly at a loss of where to start to get info about employment law and how to use it (not exactly a high bar for employers v's workers!) and one would hope 'political operatives' would be aware of 'the optics'. Oh, as I said it was a cock up. But I don't have an ounce of sympathy for the people involved
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,279
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 24, 2019 19:50:24 GMT
Seems like the "non-aligned" grouping is gathering force with defections from left and right Now we just need this movement to be repeated in national politics! And end up with even more political paralysis as a result! How would a government be formed in a parliament of non-affiliates, all independent of each other? Is there no unity in shared wishy-washyness?
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Sept 24, 2019 19:52:55 GMT
Seems like the "non-aligned" grouping is gathering force with defections from left and right Now we just need this movement to be repeated in national politics! And end up with even more political paralysis as a result! How would a government be formed in a parliament of non-affiliates, all independent of each other? The mechanics are for the adminsitrators to sort out, but the principle is that a bill is brought forward and each MP can votre for or against based on his/her own conscience/opinion of what is best for his/her constituents. Sick of politicians who you know very well dont support policy X but vote for it because of party rules/patronage/fear of deselection etc etc
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,279
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 24, 2019 19:53:04 GMT
I watched that speech - she was clearly talking about her own experiences as a Jewish person. Indeed, she said she spoke as “one of thousands of Jews in this party who have never experienced any antisemitism and who support Jeremy Corbyn as the most anti-racist leader this party has ever had.”" She would have been, if what she said had been true, which I very, very strongly doubt. It is completely inconceivable that a Jewish, or indeed any other, person could be completely unaware of any incidences of antisemitism within the Labour Party. She was clearly using the term "experienced" to refer to her own experience - as she said in her speech she was speaking as a Jew
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2019 20:18:17 GMT
And end up with even more political paralysis as a result! How would a government be formed in a parliament of non-affiliates, all independent of each other? Is there no unity in shared wishy-washyness? The Liberal Democrats?
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Sept 24, 2019 20:26:57 GMT
Not very wishy-washy on Brexit tbf
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 24, 2019 20:31:18 GMT
The tipping point was the sheer farce of yesterday afternoon. Instead of a debate on the most important issue of our generation we had a test of loyalty to Corbyn. The stitch up vote, with Formby grossly exceeded her powers over a horrendously weak Chair (I suspect given that session because they knew how maleable she would be). And the football style chanting of Corbyn’s name after the stitch up was not the behaviour of a serious political party, it was that of a cult of personality uncaring and ignorant of politics and of winning elections. Sorry about this. The last part isn't new and has been an unwelcome part of the last few years (said as someone who has been an enthusiastic loyalist for just one leader in my 45 years membership). Presumably you objected to the vote outcome itself? While the chair was poor I think the result was correctly called in the end, although a card vote might have revealed divisions between the various parts of the party. I'd guess the platform didn't want that displayed. Partly the result; I can’t remember a close vote on an issue of such import not going to a card vote, but also the decision of the Chair is ultimately supposed to be final, and it is not the job of the General Secretary (and the guy sitting on her other side) to influence the Chair into changing her decision. My CLP delegate who has been to some 20 conferences as a steward prior to being a delegate this year, is also adamant that a large number of people, over 100, as she described it “charged into the room” as the vote was being taken and raised their hands. Presumably they were counted by Ms Formby but we have no way of knowing if they were delegates; if they were why arrive en-masse at the very end of an extended debate? The result, combined with the tone of the debate - if you supported the composite you were being disloyal to Jeremy, despite Emily Thornberry getting a standing ovation for backing it a couple of hours earlier - convinced me that loyalty to Jeremy is more important than the future of the country or our electoral prospects, and there is zero tolerance for any kind of deviance from The Word of Jeremy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2019 20:55:41 GMT
Sorry about this. The last part isn't new and has been an unwelcome part of the last few years (said as someone who has been an enthusiastic loyalist for just one leader in my 45 years membership). Presumably you objected to the vote outcome itself? While the chair was poor I think the result was correctly called in the end, although a card vote might have revealed divisions between the various parts of the party. I'd guess the platform didn't want that displayed. Partly the result; I can’t remember a close vote on an issue of such import not going to a card vote, but also the decision of the Chair is ultimately supposed to be final, and it is not the job of the General Secretary (and the guy sitting on her other side) to influence the Chair into changing her decision. My CLP delegate who has been to some 20 conferences as a steward prior to being a delegate this year, is also adamant that a large number of people, over 100, as she described it “charged into the room” as the vote was being taken and raised their hands. Presumably they were counted by Ms Formby but we have no way of knowing if they were delegates; if they were why arrive en-masse at the very end of an extended debate? The result, combined with the tone of the debate - if you supported the composite you were being disloyal to Jeremy, despite Emily Thornberry getting a standing ovation for backing it a couple of hours earlier - convinced me that loyalty to Jeremy is more important than the future of the country or our electoral prospects, and there is zero tolerance for any kind of deviance from The Word of Jeremy. Llyod Russell-Moyle, who supported composite 13, said a card vote may have been close among members. I assume that despite Unison and Usdaw backing composite 13 the union bloc was overwhelmingly opposed. Sources told Kuenssberg that 75% of members would need to back composite 13 for it to pass. So if it was only close amongst members as Llyod said and not the 3/4 Kuenssberg said was needed amongst members then it doesn't sound like composite 13 had enough support to justify a card vote
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,326
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Sept 24, 2019 21:00:30 GMT
Partly the result; I can’t remember a close vote on an issue of such import not going to a card vote, but also the decision of the Chair is ultimately supposed to be final, and it is not the job of the General Secretary (and the guy sitting on her other side) to influence the Chair into changing her decision. My CLP delegate who has been to some 20 conferences as a steward prior to being a delegate this year, is also adamant that a large number of people, over 100, as she described it “charged into the room” as the vote was being taken and raised their hands. Presumably they were counted by Ms Formby but we have no way of knowing if they were delegates; if they were why arrive en-masse at the very end of an extended debate? The result, combined with the tone of the debate - if you supported the composite you were being disloyal to Jeremy, despite Emily Thornberry getting a standing ovation for backing it a couple of hours earlier - convinced me that loyalty to Jeremy is more important than the future of the country or our electoral prospects, and there is zero tolerance for any kind of deviance from The Word of Jeremy. Llyod Russell-Moyle, who supported composite 13, said a card vote may have been close among members. I assume that despite Unison and Usdaw backing composite 13 the union bloc was overwhelmingly opposed. Sources told Kuenssberg that 75% of members would need to back composite 13 for it to pass. So if it was only close amongst members as Llyod said and not the 3/4 Kuenssberg said was needed amongst members then it doesn't sound like composite 13 had enough support to justify a card vote Nonetheless, the General Secretary should not have over-ruled the Chair. A card vote would have settled it.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Sept 24, 2019 21:08:21 GMT
Partly the result; I can’t remember a close vote on an issue of such import not going to a card vote, but also the decision of the Chair is ultimately supposed to be final, and it is not the job of the General Secretary (and the guy sitting on her other side) to influence the Chair into changing her decision. My CLP delegate who has been to some 20 conferences as a steward prior to being a delegate this year, is also adamant that a large number of people, over 100, as she described it “charged into the room” as the vote was being taken and raised their hands. Presumably they were counted by Ms Formby but we have no way of knowing if they were delegates; if they were why arrive en-masse at the very end of an extended debate? The result, combined with the tone of the debate - if you supported the composite you were being disloyal to Jeremy, despite Emily Thornberry getting a standing ovation for backing it a couple of hours earlier - convinced me that loyalty to Jeremy is more important than the future of the country or our electoral prospects, and there is zero tolerance for any kind of deviance from The Word of Jeremy. Llyod Russell-Moyle, who supported composite 13, said a card vote may have been close among members. I assume that despite Unison and Usdaw backing composite 13 the union bloc was overwhelmingly opposed. Sources told Kuenssberg that 75% of members would need to back composite 13 for it to pass. So if it was only close amongst members as Llyod said and not the 3/4 Kuenssberg said was needed amongst members then it doesn't sound like composite 13 had enough support to justify a card vote Whilst all of the above may well have been correct, nevertheless the optics was.... abysmal, borderline scary!
|
|