Thursday 30th June 2016

[Temulkar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-poli ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brilliant

[StephenDolan]

Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the [Binyamin] Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of self-styled Islamic states or organisations.


Corbyn.

Anyone care to comment?

You can see the sentiment he actually means - but he will be slaughtered for this, and become "The man who compared Israel to ISIS!! ".... that is the only message the press will hear.

I expect it from the press

If any Labour MP uses it against him though that is unforgiveable

Jess Phillips....

[AngryAsWell]

Yep I was right
Gidon ShavivVerified account
‏@GidonShaviv
Jewish supporters of Labour party, after Corbyn compares Israel to ISIS, during launch of report on antisemitism

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PorFavor]

Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the [Binyamin] Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of self-styled Islamic states or organisations.


Corbyn.

Anyone care to comment?

You can see the sentiment he actually means - but he will be slaughtered for this, and become "The man who compared Israel to ISIS!! ".... that is the only message the press will hear.

You have a point. It could have been more felicitously worded. But, as ever, he's speaking to the people whom he knows are on exactly the same wavelength as he is.

[howsillyofme1]

Yep I was right
Gidon ShavivVerified account
‏@GidonShaviv
Jewish supporters of Labour party, after Corbyn compares Israel to ISIS, during launch of report on antisemitism

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is wilfully misrepresenting it

[AnatolyKasparov]

I can largely buy that, yes.

Look at the Syria vote, for instance - she voted "against" JC but never made a song and dance about it. Unlike certain others.......

Both she and Owen Smith (also a possible runner, apparently) could make an at least vaguely credible claim that they tried their best to make a Corbyn leadership "work". In some respects Smith is a more attractive candidate than Eagle, a shame he has made "end freedom of movement" noises (AE hasn't)

And the reports that it was Eagle and Benn who began orchestrating the coup over a year ago and have been feeding information to Kuenssberg?

I've seen nothing to corroborate these reports, but they don't immediately seem beyond the realms of possibility, especially in Benn's case.

The point is, I can readily believe it with Benn.

Angela Eagle wrote a piece for LabourList less than a year ago, calling on Corbyn's fiercest critics to lay off and that his leadership bid was totally legitimate. Now its not impossible she went from that to undermining him as soon as he was actually elected, but her *public* behaviour doesn't really back that up.

[howsillyofme1]

Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the [Binyamin] Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of self-styled Islamic states or organisations.


Corbyn.

Anyone care to comment?

You can see the sentiment he actually means - but he will be slaughtered for this, and become "The man who compared Israel to ISIS!! ".... that is the only message the press will hear.

You have a point. It could have been more felicitously worded. But, as ever, he's speaking to the people whom he knows are on exactly the same wavelength as he is.

Any literate person reading it can see what he is saying.

Any other interpretation is illiteracy or wilfully (lying)

[citizenJA]

Yep I was right
Gidon ShavivVerified account
‏@GidonShaviv
Jewish supporters of Labour party, after Corbyn compares Israel to ISIS, during launch of report on antisemitism

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Commentators below the post aren't having any of it. They see straight through it as a mendacious, tortured twisting of what Corbyn
said. It makes those attempting to use this against Corbyn foolish. And justly so. Gossip is toxic, I swear, surest way to make sure
no one finds out what's really going on - gossip loud.

[AngryAsWell]

Yep I was right
Gidon ShavivVerified account
‏@GidonShaviv
Jewish supporters of Labour party, after Corbyn compares Israel to ISIS, during launch of report on antisemitism

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is wilfully misrepresenting it

It was bound to happen, why risk it

Jack Mendel ‏@Mendelpol 3m3 minutes ago
#ChakrabartiReport chaos. Corbyn's idiotic ISIS-Israel remarks, @RuthSmeeth running out in tears.. how did that happen?

[howsillyofme1]

Richard Lowe ‏@RichardLoweUK 51m51 minutes ago

I've just reported @JeremyCorbyn to the Labour Party Compliance Unit for his quote comparing Israel and ISIS.

Fuck's sake. Vultures.

See what I mean.....is this twat literate?

[howsillyofme1]

Yep I was right
Gidon ShavivVerified account
‏@GidonShaviv
Jewish supporters of Labour party, after Corbyn compares Israel to ISIS, during launch of report on antisemitism

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is wilfully misrepresenting it

It was bound to happen, why risk it

Jack Mendel ‏@Mendelpol 3m3 minutes ago
#ChakrabartiReport chaos. Corbyn's idiotic ISIS-Israel remarks, @RuthSmeeth running out in tears.. how did that happen?

Perhaps he has this idea that people are honest...more fool him

The Labour Party is full of liars, charlatans and wankers

Good riddance to it if this is what it is like

[Willow904]

I am getting a bit lost here

You are suggesting that the leader of a party should be chosen on what the constituents want.....?

How does that work then?

This is completely nonsensical

The leader of the party should be chosen on the values and vision of that party...

Will Tory MPS give a flying fuck on what their constituents think? Really?

Anyway I think the constituents have spoken by not bloody voting!

This triangulation is getting a bit silly now....just to find another reason to oppose Corbyn

I think the point is an MP has a duty to represent their constituents but, as far as I know, are under no obligation to accept a shadow cabinet role. Surely Angela Eagle is entitled to resign from shadow cabinet if she so wishes? Getting together a petition for Angela Eagle to resign as an MP because she stood down from shadow Corbyn cabinet, as Corbyn fans are currently doing and circling on Twitter is staggeringly undemocratic. She was made an MP by her constituents and she will no longer be an MP when they don't vote for her. At the end of the day, even the CLP can't demand their MP accept a shadow cabinet role, a person is entitled to a certain control over their own career and working life. Other than not wanting to be a shadow cabinet member, what in actual fact ( rather than in gossip and innuendo ) has Angela Eagle actually done?

She has called for Corbyn to step down, against the wishes of her constituency party, and mooted standing against him, against the wishes of her constituency party.

And that's just if you accept her version that she was 100% loyal to Corbyn before stepping down.

I thought backbenchers were allowed to criticise the leadership. I'm not au fait with this raft of party rules and responsibilities that has suddenly appeared. In the past it seemed only the cabinet/shadow cabinet were not allowed to criticise the leadership and thus stepped down to do so. Which is what Angela Eagle appears to have done in this case. I appreciate there is a power struggle going on between the movement and the party, but from an outside perspective some aspects don't make a lot of sense. When disgruntled cabinet members step down and criticise leadership this has been accepted in the past and the only difference in this case seems to be the number of people who have stepped down and criticised the leadership from their new role on the backbenches.

Although I understand why Angela Eagle's actions have upset people and she may end up de-selected if the NEC change the rules to allow this, I personally don't see why she doesn't have the right to take the action she has if she really feels unable to support Corbyn. She was elected as an MP on Ed Miliband's manifesto and surely has a right to choose not to support a different ideological direction, if she feels that's where Corbyn's leadership is heading. Although I understand the strength of feeling among Labour members and the very admirable principles that informs it, I can't help feeling a little uneasy when MPs are being expected to be the puppets of the CLPs against the MPs only personal ideals and beliefs. At the end of the day Angela Eagle was selected a long time ago, probably by a different CLP, by a very different Labour party and has served it in the spirit in which she started. If the CLP has changed over that time, does the MP then have to change their principles too? Or would that perhaps, after all, not be so very principled?

[yahyah]

I was hoping we'd be in celebration mode after Bozo has had his ambition spiked.

Nadine Dorries looked as if she was crying at a news conference.
Who'd have thought it of Gove ? Sarah Vine must be dreaming of the Downing Street flat and Murdoch hopes to get his mitts into No 10 again.

The Boris PM & Trump POTUS nightmare scenario is partly scuppered at least.

[yahyah]

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Willow904]

Anyway, looks like Boris has bottled it. Even by his standards, incredible.

Boris' best chance was as the popular ( populist? ) champion of the disappointed Brexiters in the event of a narrow remain victory and as such I'm not actually surprised he didn't stand. He doesn't support Brexit and doubtless couldn't face any more faking, even if he made it on the ballot, which was always a long shot because the parliamentary party never really wanted him and the Tories aren't stupid enough to let a candidate they don't want on the ballot of a public vote.

[AngryAsWell]

May: NO Brexit budget, NO election, 'MORE austerity'
Well that's my last hope gone for a 2nd referendum
I'm on the point of wanting The Fish Pointer back.....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/li ... ip-8314264" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rebecca]

Every time there is an ISIS attack ,the muslim community is blamed,if only by furtive,sideways looks.
People(idiots) see muslim/person with brown skin/terrorist

Every time Israel carries out an attack there is a rise in anti semitism.

Therefore,Corbyn pointing out that neither peoples are responsible for government/leaders actions seems to me to be entirely sensible and appropriate.

Anybody who can see harm and disrespect in his words is either being wilfully ignorant,shit stirring,or needs to read it again.

[yahyah]

Hopefully no Boris PMship means no (rumoured) honours for Nigel Farage.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

A Tweet from me last night has been retweeted 67 times so far, which is not something I've often achieved!

So, I thought I'd share it

Paul Taylor ‏@PaulfrYorkshire 15h15 hours ago
The Labour challengers need to understand that for many it's not @jeremycorbyn the man, it's what he stands for that is important.

[howsillyofme1]

I think the point is an MP has a duty to represent their constituents but, as far as I know, are under no obligation to accept a shadow cabinet role. Surely Angela Eagle is entitled to resign from shadow cabinet if she so wishes? Getting together a petition for Angela Eagle to resign as an MP because she stood down from shadow Corbyn cabinet, as Corbyn fans are currently doing and circling on Twitter is staggeringly undemocratic. She was made an MP by her constituents and she will no longer be an MP when they don't vote for her. At the end of the day, even the CLP can't demand their MP accept a shadow cabinet role, a person is entitled to a certain control over their own career and working life. Other than not wanting to be a shadow cabinet member, what in actual fact ( rather than in gossip and innuendo ) has Angela Eagle actually done?

She has called for Corbyn to step down, against the wishes of her constituency party, and mooted standing against him, against the wishes of her constituency party.

And that's just if you accept her version that she was 100% loyal to Corbyn before stepping down.

I thought backbenchers were allowed to criticise the leadership. I'm not au fait with this raft of party rules and responsibilities that has suddenly appeared. In the past it seemed only the cabinet/shadow cabinet were not allowed to criticise the leadership and thus stepped down to do so. Which is what Angela Eagle appears to have done in this case. I appreciate there is a power struggle going on between the movement and the party, but from an outside perspective some aspects don't make a lot of sense. When disgruntled cabinet members step down and criticise leadership this has been accepted in the past and the only difference in this case seems to be the number of people who have stepped down and criticised the leadership from their new role on the backbenches.

Although I understand why Angela Eagle's actions have upset people and she may end up de-selected if the NEC change the rules to allow this, I personally don't see why she doesn't have the right to take the action she has if she really feels unable to support Corbyn. She was elected as an MP on Ed Miliband's manifesto and surely has a right to choose not to support a different ideological direction, if she feels that's where Corbyn's leadership is heading. Although I understand the strength of feeling among Labour members and the very admirable principles that informs it, I can't help feeling a little uneasy when MPs are being expected to be the puppets of the CLPs against the MPs only personal ideals and beliefs. At the end of the day Angela Eagle was selected a long time ago, probably by a different CLP, by a very different Labour party and has served it in the spirit in which she started. If the CLP has changed over that time, does the MP then have to change their principles too? Or would that perhaps, after all, not be so very principled?

We are not talking about a single resignation. We are talking about an organised attempt to get the leader to resign so to by-pass the rules

There is a clear way to challenge the leader set out

You are making it sound like they all had this same idea at 30 minute intervals on the same day. In a way forecast in the media a month ago

This is a coup and if you do something like this you have to succeed.....

I don't personally thing she is a ring leader (just based on my feelings) and she has been used somewhat

I don't support mandatory re-election but if Corbyn is re-elected I don't see any other option

No-one is criticising Miliband because of how he has shown his opposition to Corbyn but in a dignified way. See also his letter to his CLP

[AngryAsWell]

Hopefully no Boris PMship means no (rumoured) honours for Nigel Farage.

I always had this thing at the back of my mind that Johnson would turn out better than expected as PM His mother was a socialist & his father is more a Major than Thatcher Tory with big environmental concerns.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Hopefully no Boris PMship means no (rumoured) honours for Nigel Farage.

I always had this thing at the back of my mind that Johnson would turn out better than expected as PM His mother was a socialist & his father is more a Major than Thatcher Tory with big environmental concerns.

I'm sorry but this reminded me of "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"

[sputnikkers]

...
What is the actual job of a Member of Parliament? Apart from swearing an oath of allegiance to HMQ and her heirs, what's the job?
I thought it was to represent the constituents who voted for that MP - if a local constituency party demands that their MP does X, is it OK if they do Y? ...

I am reluctant to say this but this 'narrow-interested' view of the responsibilities of an MP surely leads to the many recognised problems of 'Democratic Centralism' (of those of us who think we are 'right') willing to impose one set of views and principles on all MPs rather than trust them to use their own judgements to make the right decisions as a team of vulnerable professionals - 'representative' democracy? We have cargo cultism to a greater or lesser extent in different parties but none so more than Labour at present and UKIP, at least in the past. I will leave it to other peoples' judgements as to which of these two presently has the more 'ineffective politician' and 'inneffectual leader' at its helm - in pragmatic, evidenced terms on their CV rather than someone who thinks more like we do?

In Labour, we also have this 'democratic centralism' going on where 'activists' now seem to take on all the power without responsibility for delivery - just like the Brexiters. What happens to the views, and more importantly the interests, of all the MP's constituents set into a framework of 'the National Interest'? Now we get 'email polling' of certain select people whose views are virtually guaranteed to force and bully others into positions they think and believe go against the interests of all their constituents/Nation as a whole whether they voted for them or not.

Those familiar with 'branding' know its all about 'the story'. It's how the message around trust and value get through. It would be nice if the story has some basis in reality, some kernel of truth in building its mythology and 'worthy' in itself but unfortunately that is not necessarily or perhaps usually the case in the short term.

There is an irony, of course, in the appeal to the mythical 'Labour Voter' when about 41% of the selectorate have previously voted Lib Dem, 34% have voted Green and 9% have voted Conservative. Some, or perhaps many of these (I suspect the latter) have, particularly on 'single issue politics', actively played more than their part in the dangerous rise of 'anti-politics', undermining trust in politicians in general and the Labour 'Brand' in particular? Yet doing all this in the name of 'Socialism' and 'Democracy'. Meanwhile in the 'Labour Heartlands' I would wager there are many more 'actual' Labour Voters who have never voted against the Party, who voted to 'Leave'.

(You can take the boy out of his Labour Heartland but ... Sorry for what some here may reasonably take as a slight dig but I fail to see how the calling of such people 'racists' and 'morons' and hoping they get what they deserve/reap what they have sown is looking after 'our people' and trying to attract their vote in the future?)

Indeed, the 'message', majorly since 2010, has been that UKIP was a Tory problem and that Cameron/Osborne's austerity is responsible for their situation. Some messages were also telling them that their Labour votes, which they already knew were 'wasted' for a couple of decades under the Tories did not improve their lives and again for the next decade even when achieving a Government (that was actually substantially successful?). Yet, how is it all a Tory/austerity problem? 'New' Labour that those same loyal 'heartland' people had (ignorantly been duped into?) voted for had been a lying, criminal, neoliberal, warmongering imperialist stitch up, only in it for themselves and their self-aggrandisement ... and never did really have the Voters interests at heart. The Labour MPs in Parliament still represent this evil, can't be trusted and need to be told how to vote on every issue by their CLP activists, democratically deciding in small rooms.

What message was now coming from an 'Old/True/Socialist' Labour leadership when it could be heard? A speech to business affirming the need to stop 'subsidising' capitalists (Tax Credits) and 'raising the minimum wage' as fighting exploitation and inequality (with warmongering naturally thrown in as a 'bad' thing). Ironically, Osborne agrees and put both of these in his Budget and failed miserably on reducing the first - quite rightly - giving the 'Opposition' their only substantial victory. The minimum wage rise favours the middle and top deciles of the household distribution at the relative expense of the bottom 2 -3 deciles, raising inequality - which some might think will work in the longer term(?) but during this time of austerity is probably a very poor idea for the more vulnerable. Certainly, the two at the same time was potentially a disaster for these, requiring perverse, offsetting conditionality in work to make the measures more effective - now coming about via UC.

Our 'representative democracy' like our financial system, sport and most human activity is a set of artificial constructs open to manipulation, gaming and cheating to produce particular outcomes on behalf of the interests of individuals, groups, organisations, etc.. The transmission lies through building actual working functioning programmes, organisations, institutions (like NICE) within and adapting existing systems - warts and all - undermining and replacing current, structurally in-built constraints and injustices. This, I believe, though infinitely more complex, is more important and ultimately produces more achievable desirable outcomes than any theoretical construct requiring the destruction and rebuilding of all society in a completely different image.

In this view, it comes down to trust in individuals as elected representatives of a party brand to act on the behalf of all the people. This means taking achievable steps that might take different routes encompassing different opinions as we go. This takes hard work with different opinions required to enable the toiling of delivery of the nitty gritty, arguing, testing and evaluating against shifting circumstances and unexpected consequences. Not just a cabal, worshipping some theoretical set of principles - seemingly embodied through one man and just one man - strangely for a 'mass democratic' movement with hundreds of thousands of like-minded participants, can only possibly be through that one man? His/their views and wishes are then bounced back and forward to LCPs undermining the authority and trust in MPs and trust in their own judgement and who then become effectively irrelevant except as the intermediaries of power and decisions that lie elsewhere - one form of 'representative democracy' does not necessarily improve matters by replacing another one that had delivered and certainly does not do so in the short term revolutionary phase.

To my mind we just saw a massive failure of one democratic process that does not really sensibly reflect 'the will' of the people and any particular vision of how they want the future to unfold. Similar 'democratic' processes with much fewer numbers are open to just as much abuse, astroturfing, name-calling and shouting of TISWAS-type 'This is what they want' platitudes. Who, what where why and how questions concerning message, strategy and delivery are answered with: Because ... democracy? Because ... principles?

Sorry, didn't mean to widen that one small point out so much but ... maybe that's the point. Complexity deserves better, deeper consideration and self-reflection than mere reactive responses of angry indignation that might result in unfortunate, minor rhetorical slips - especially when, as we all do, we think we are right.

Anyway things to do ... good luck all and have a nice day/lives!

[yahyah]

The shocked man in the pic must be someone who'd put a lot of dosh on Boris to win.

[TR'sGhost]

Represent ALL their constituents not just those that voted for them and not a hostage to the demands of their CLP,I humbly suggest.

I think it's more complicated than that, which is why there are many huge unreadable books on the subject.

A political party may choose and support a candidate, but once that candidate is elected as an MP their party can not remove them from office. The MP can be expelled from the party or leave the party, but still remains an MP until they lose an election, resign, stand down, die or are disbarred by statute (e.g. get sent to prison or made bankrupt). The number of people professing terror that the Corbyn Purges of 2015 would see their MP deselected and instantly replaced by a Trotskyite red in tooth and claw is perhaps another indication that referendums aren't a good idea when a significant proportion of the electorate doesn't understand what they are voting about.

The United Kingdom is a representative democracy, where MPs are elected as our representatives, not our delegates. Which makes perfect sense because delegates can find themselves trapped into supporting things that events have made impossible, and have to ignore information and evidence those sending the delegate to implement their wishes may not have been aware of. Then there's matters which arise on which the delegate has received no instructions at all from their constituents. Should a delegate express a view on such things or remain silent? It's not an abstract problem, trades unions that elect delegates to conference not representatives have at times had big internal rows about whether or not delegates should abstain on all issues they have no instructions for.

When we vote for a candidate we are voting for the person (in reality that usually means the party) we think will best represent us when asked to make decisions on our behalf - decisions that outside very unusual events such as the AV referendum, we have no direct input into other than making our views known to our MP. An MP is perfectly entitled to ignore our input if they think following it would not be in the best interests of their constituency or the country.

Constitutionally, the only duty on MPs to serve anyone is theirmoath of allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and lawful successors. If they don't make that oath they can't sit in the House or receive a salary. The same oath has to be made by members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. The oath doesn't necessarily mean allegiance to the actual monarch's wishes though. If it did then Edward VIII would have stayed on the throne and quite possibly instructed Parliament to take us into an alliance with Nazi Germany.

It's one of the strange forms of words that comes from a messy history where The Crown does not mean the monarch but the common property and institutions of the state, where the sovereign body is "The Queen In Parliament" but the Queen can't even enter the place without Parliament's specific permission, loyalty to her successors is sworn by members and Lords but it's Parliament who get to confirm who her legitimate heir and successor is and though Parliament constitutionally advises the Queen and she then, through her grace and favour, decides which laws to pass in reality she signs Acts as a kind of third-party acknowledgement they are indeed what Parliament has constitutionally decided.

The Northern Ireland Assembly, for obvious reasons, uses a pledge of office with completely different form of words and no mention of royalty at all. Unlike the Westminster oath it does set out the relationship between Assembly Member and the people of Northern Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#Northern_Ireland_Assembly

It's clear, looks pretty comprehensive to me, and has the advantage that as well as making sectarianism by members a potential sacking offence it's actually understandable without first taking a head-spinning crash course in the British Constitution.

[mbc1955]

For most of this week, I have not been on speaking terms with the world and have wished it would piss off and leave me alone until I feel more human.

This is the first shaft of light since I went to bed last Thursday evening.

[PorFavor]

I can't believe that the BBC is passing up an opportunity\excuse to interview Nigel Farage.

[TR'sGhost]

Question posed from James O'Brien.

When was the last time the nation did not do what Murdoch and Dacre wanted?

When Labour under Ed Miliband's leadership blocked Cameron from bombing Syria to assist what later became ISIS I think.

[yahyah]

It does feel as if the world is regaining a little more stability doesn't it mbc ?

[yahyah]

Martin Kettle says Boris Johnson will the editor of the Telegraph by Christmas. If he's serious, will that mean Bozo resigns as an MP ? Fingers crossed.

Call me mean but have been sniggering at the idea of Johnson's fan club in tears as reported.

[danesclose]

The shocked man in the pic must be someone who'd put a lot of dosh on Boris to win.

Or someone who's just had a broom handle shoved up his arse

[TR'sGhost]

I think the point is an MP has a duty to represent their constituents but, as far as I know, are under no obligation to accept a shadow cabinet role. Surely Angela Eagle is entitled to resign from shadow cabinet if she so wishes? Getting together a petition for Angela Eagle to resign as an MP because she stood down from shadow Corbyn cabinet, as Corbyn fans are currently doing and circling on Twitter is staggeringly undemocratic. She was made an MP by her constituents and she will no longer be an MP when they don't vote for her. At the end of the day, even the CLP can't demand their MP accept a shadow cabinet role, a person is entitled to a certain control over their own career and working life. Other than not wanting to be a shadow cabinet member, what in actual fact ( rather than in gossip and innuendo ) has Angela Eagle actually done?

Of course she has a right not to be forced into staying in the Shadow Cabinet. She can't be forced to vote any particular way in Parliament either.

She remains an MP if she leaves Labour or is expelled from the Labour party or the PLP.

Equally the PLP, NEC and her CLP have, so longs as they act within the party rules, the right to decide they don't want to support her as their approved candidate or have her as a member any more.

And the public have the right to petition her to take the Chiltern Hundreds, to support or not support Corbyn or spend the next year standing on her head in a bucket of cold custard.

Which petitions she has the right to ignore.

[tinyclanger2]

http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/14589358.-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
doesn't help much but we're clearly not alone - the good people of somerset largely reflective

[yahyah]

Peston says Angela Eagle 'may not announce candidacy at 3 so MPs can have period of reflection on why they've lost confidence in leader'.

Keep it running, eh chaps ?

[AnatolyKasparov]

I think it might be more to do with her not wanting to be overshadowed by the BoJo news, really?

[yahyah]

Will the Tories be able to talk about Ed M 'knifing' his brother ever again ?

[Temulkar]

Peston says Angela Eagle 'may not announce candidacy at 3 so MPs can have period of reflection on why they've lost confidence in leader'.

Keep it running, eh chaps ?

I actually think it's got to the point that they have not a clue what to do.

[PorFavor]

Peston says Angela Eagle 'may not announce candidacy at 3 so MPs can have period of reflection on why they've lost confidence in leader'.

Keep it running, eh chaps ?

I'd have thought that they should have already known why far before we got to this point.

Edited

"a" for "o"

[yahyah]

How long will the period of reflection be then ? Until Bozo/Gove are off the headlines.

Just desperate to find out just who the wonder candidate that we will be expected to vote for is, the person who will attract voters to Labour and unite the party.

[TR'sGhost]

I assume that Boris Johnson has got this speech timed down to the nano-second (deadline-wise) for dramatic effect. But, at the moment, the tone and content of his speech seems to me to be pointing at capitulation. I'm often wrong about these things, though

What Boris says in the morning he can unsay in the afternoon and often does.

And usually gets away with it because he's a media-created and media-savvy celebrity politician who has almost infinitely flexible principles other than the rich must always be made richer and Boris comes first. Those he sticks to like glue.

[yahyah]

See you all later, am going into town for my Mindfulness based CBT session.
Who knows what may have happened by the time I get back ?

[AngryAsWell]

...
What is the actual job of a Member of Parliament? Apart from swearing an oath of allegiance to HMQ and her heirs, what's the job?
I thought it was to represent the constituents who voted for that MP - if a local constituency party demands that their MP does X, is it OK if they do Y? ...

I am reluctant to say this but this 'narrow-interested' view of the responsibilities of an MP surely leads to the many recognised problems of 'Democratic Centralism' (of those of us who think we are 'right') willing to impose one set of views and principles on all MPs rather than trust them to use their own judgements to make the right decisions as a team of vulnerable professionals - 'representative' democracy? We have cargo cultism to a greater or lesser extent in different parties but none so more than Labour at present and UKIP, at least in the past. I will leave it to other peoples' judgements as to which of these two presently has the more 'ineffective politician' and 'inneffectual leader' at its helm - in pragmatic, evidenced terms on their CV rather than someone who thinks more like we do?

In Labour, we also have this 'democratic centralism' going on where 'activists' now seem to take on all the power without responsibility for delivery - just like the Brexiters. What happens to the views, and more importantly the interests, of all the MP's constituents set into a framework of 'the National Interest'? Now we get 'email polling' of certain select people whose views are virtually guaranteed to force and bully others into positions they think and believe go against the interests of all their constituents/Nation as a whole whether they voted for them or not.

Those familiar with 'branding' know its all about 'the story'. It's how the message around trust and value get through. It would be nice if the story has some basis in reality, some kernel of truth in building its mythology and 'worthy' in itself but unfortunately that is not necessarily or perhaps usually the case in the short term.

There is an irony, of course, in the appeal to the mythical 'Labour Voter' when about 41% of the selectorate have previously voted Lib Dem, 34% have voted Green and 9% have voted Conservative. Some, or perhaps many of these (I suspect the latter) have, particularly on 'single issue politics', actively played more than their part in the dangerous rise of 'anti-politics', undermining trust in politicians in general and the Labour 'Brand' in particular? Yet doing all this in the name of 'Socialism' and 'Democracy'. Meanwhile in the 'Labour Heartlands' I would wager there are many more 'actual' Labour Voters who have never voted against the Party, who voted to 'Leave'.

(You can take the boy out of his Labour Heartland but ... Sorry for what some here may reasonably take as a slight dig but I fail to see how the calling of such people 'racists' and 'morons' and hoping they get what they deserve/reap what they have sown is looking after 'our people' and trying to attract their vote in the future?)

Indeed, the 'message', majorly since 2010, has been that UKIP was a Tory problem and that Cameron/Osborne's austerity is responsible for their situation. Some messages were also telling them that their Labour votes, which they already knew were 'wasted' for a couple of decades under the Tories did not improve their lives and again for the next decade even when achieving a Government (that was actually substantially successful?). Yet, how is it all a Tory/austerity problem? 'New' Labour that those same loyal 'heartland' people had (ignorantly been duped into?) voted for had been a lying, criminal, neoliberal, warmongering imperialist stitch up, only in it for themselves and their self-aggrandisement ... and never did really have the Voters interests at heart. The Labour MPs in Parliament still represent this evil, can't be trusted and need to be told how to vote on every issue by their CLP activists, democratically deciding in small rooms.

What message was now coming from an 'Old/True/Socialist' Labour leadership when it could be heard? A speech to business affirming the need to stop 'subsidising' capitalists (Tax Credits) and 'raising the minimum wage' as fighting exploitation and inequality (with warmongering naturally thrown in as a 'bad' thing). Ironically, Osborne agrees and put both of these in his Budget and failed miserably on reducing the first - quite rightly - giving the 'Opposition' their only substantial victory. The minimum wage rise favours the middle and top deciles of the household distribution at the relative expense of the bottom 2 -3 deciles, raising inequality - which some might think will work in the longer term(?) but during this time of austerity is probably a very poor idea for the more vulnerable. Certainly, the two at the same time was potentially a disaster for these, requiring perverse, offsetting conditionality in work to make the measures more effective - now coming about via UC.

Our 'representative democracy' like our financial system, sport and most human activity is a set of artificial constructs open to manipulation, gaming and cheating to produce particular outcomes on behalf of the interests of individuals, groups, organisations, etc.. The transmission lies through building actual working functioning programmes, organisations, institutions (like NICE) within and adapting existing systems - warts and all - undermining and replacing current, structurally in-built constraints and injustices. This, I believe, though infinitely more complex, is more important and ultimately produces more achievable desirable outcomes than any theoretical construct requiring the destruction and rebuilding of all society in a completely different image.

In this view, it comes down to trust in individuals as elected representatives of a party brand to act on the behalf of all the people. This means taking achievable steps that might take different routes encompassing different opinions as we go. This takes hard work with different opinions required to enable the toiling of delivery of the nitty gritty, arguing, testing and evaluating against shifting circumstances and unexpected consequences. Not just a cabal, worshipping some theoretical set of principles - seemingly embodied through one man and just one man - strangely for a 'mass democratic' movement with hundreds of thousands of like-minded participants, can only possibly be through that one man? His/their views and wishes are then bounced back and forward to LCPs undermining the authority and trust in MPs and trust in their own judgement and who then become effectively irrelevant except as the intermediaries of power and decisions that lie elsewhere - one form of 'representative democracy' does not necessarily improve matters by replacing another one that had delivered and certainly does not do so in the short term revolutionary phase.

To my mind we just saw a massive failure of one democratic process that does not really sensibly reflect 'the will' of the people and any particular vision of how they want the future to unfold. Similar 'democratic' processes with much fewer numbers are open to just as much abuse, astroturfing, name-calling and shouting of TISWAS-type 'This is what they want' platitudes. Who, what where why and how questions concerning message, strategy and delivery are answered with: Because ... democracy? Because ... principles?

Sorry, didn't mean to widen that one small point out so much but ... maybe that's the point. Complexity deserves better, deeper consideration and self-reflection than mere reactive responses of angry indignation that might result in unfortunate, minor rhetorical slips - especially when, as we all do, we think we are right.

Anyway things to do ... good luck all and have a nice day/lives!

Thanks for this thoughtful post, an interesting read

[TR'sGhost]

Yep I was right
Gidon ShavivVerified account
‏@GidonShaviv
Jewish supporters of Labour party, after Corbyn compares Israel to ISIS, during launch of report on antisemitism

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Commentators below the post aren't having any of it. They see straight through it as a mendacious, tortured twisting of what Corbyn
said. It makes those attempting to use this against Corbyn foolish. And justly so. Gossip is toxic, I swear, surest way to make sure
no one finds out what's really going on - gossip loud.

We are in a post-truth age, where the aim is not to inform people of facts and provide evidence that they are indeed facts, but by endless repetition and reinforcement to get what the messengers say to become "what everyone just knows and accepts as true".

[PorFavor]

@sputnikkers

From the cast list below, I see you've already left. But in case you come back later - thanks for your thoughtful post.

[howsillyofme1]

I have seen so many deliberate misquoted today

AAW rightly pointed out that the words could be taken easily out of context...which is right to an extent

The deliberate capitalising of the S in states and omission of the rest of the sentence is disgusting

[RogerOThornhill]

Hi all.

Just back from a two hour school meeting.

Did I miss anything?

What? What??

Crikey!

[PorFavor]

Angela Eagle has just announced that she won't be launching any challenge today. (BBC)

[AngryAsWell]

Interesting...

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 3m3 minutes ago
I'm told 4 shadow cabinet members (Clive Lewis, Cat Smith, Rachel Maskell, Andy McDonald) want Corbyn to go and have been trying to see him.

[PorFavor]

Angela Eagle has just announced that she won't be launching any challenge today. (BBC)

The BBC R4 headlines literally just this second said she was expected to announce she was standing this afternoon!

Maybe we could find a toddler to stand. Or a cat. How about a cat?

My cat keeps stalking around and snorting. I know how she feels.

[PorFavor]

Interesting...

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 3m3 minutes ago
I'm told 4 shadow cabinet members (Clive Lewis, Cat Smith, Rachel Maskell, Andy McDonald) want Corbyn to go and have been trying to see him.

Speaking of "Andys" - where is Mr Burnham?