Thursday 28 July 2016

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:13 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: Perhaps if he didn't label people 'Momentum cronies' and 'entryists' and blatantly lie about Corbyn and his supporters in his Twitter feed? Unfortunately we've had so many MPs crying wolf about Momentum 'thugs' etc that in the absence of proof I remain sceptical that things like this are as reported by the MP.
They put it on the Momentum web site.
Are you really saying it's OK to harass people trying to get help from their MP? If so I'm amazed, truly amazed.
Edit to add
they also admit it
Marc Geoffrey
‏@Marc_Geoffrey
@coyleneil @jonlansman Filming so nothing can be misconstrued. Lots of false allegations being made recently. Best to protect ourselves.
No indication of what and who was and wasn't filmed. No evidence of harassment, I don't think it should be presented uncritically as such. More partisan BS. Maybe from both sides, but I'm not taking any.

I've seen the suggestion that all CLP meetings should be filmed ... Seems like a good idea to me while tempers are high.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:17 pm

: 13627154_10153827196448014_3692375350536426454_n.jpg (118.72 KiB) Viewed 7150 times

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:20 pm

: 13882703_10153827196523014_2519777199647986147_n.jpg (145.71 KiB) Viewed 7150 times

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:21 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: They put it on the Momentum web site.
Are you really saying it's OK to harass people trying to get help from their MP? If so I'm amazed, truly amazed.
Edit to add
they also admit it
Marc Geoffrey
‏@Marc_Geoffrey
@coyleneil @jonlansman Filming so nothing can be misconstrued. Lots of false allegations being made recently. Best to protect ourselves.
No indication of what and who was and wasn't filmed. No evidence of harassment, I don't think it should be presented uncritically as such. More partisan BS. Maybe from both sides, but I'm not taking any.
I've seen the suggestion that all CLP meetings should be filmed ... Seems like a good idea to me while tempers are high.

It wasn't a CLP meeting, they were not member of the CLP. It was just a weekly MP's surgery.
They have no right - or reason - to film ordinary people waiting to see their MP about personal problems/constituency business. No one has. if someone filmed me without my explicit permission I would be livid and, quite frankly, would call the police.

fedup59 · Post by **fedup59** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:23 pm

Freedomofthepress wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
Lost Soul wrote: They should be representing their constituents. Why else would anyone vote for them ?
People vote for MPs because they support the platform on which the MP stands, the party the MP belongs to, and in some cases on the personal qualities of the MP. It would be a bit weird after being selected by a local Labour party, Labour MPs suddenly decided that they had to honour the views of all those people who voted Tory. Yes, they can represent those people in parliament. Those voters are entitled to lobby their MP, same as everyone else. But when MPs are elected, that's effectively the electorate endorsing the choice of the constituency party to select that candidate.
My MP is is not Tristram Hunt but his partner in all things Labour.. I recently moved to his Constituency. How on earth am I going to vote for him, I will have to be on tranquilisers when I go to cast my vote.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:27 pm

: 13645276_10153827196583014_4780351890034549061_n.jpg (131.98 KiB) Viewed 7128 times

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:28 pm

: 13886337_10153827196498014_8142699619940285467_n.jpg (141.1 KiB) Viewed 7126 times

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:30 pm

Posting but haven't had a chance to go through them yet....Double posted this one. Apologies.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:30 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Lost Soul wrote:
They should be representing their constituents. Why else would anyone vote for them ?
Well, I of course agree, but does that mean Labour MPs should feel no compulsion to follow the votes of party members when they themselves disagree?

Deselection is, of course, a way of trying to bring in a form of democratic centralism.

No it isn't. Even for you that's a ridiculous statement.

If an MP does not agree with the policies of whichever party which put them forward as a candidate to the extent the party no longer regards them as a desirable representative of that party, the MP has no right whatsoever to expect or require that party to continue to support them as the party's chosen candidate.

The MP can certainly stand again, no-one is going to stop them. Just not as a candidate for the party that no longer wishes to support their election. Forcing a political party to support a particular candidate against their will would be a form of tyranny.

As for representing constituents, the key word is "represent". The MP is a representative, not a delegate from their constituency.

By the way, concern-trolling is amongst the lower and most tedious forms of the art.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:35 pm

: 13882613_10153827196578014_121527530695789065_n (1).jpg (97.45 KiB) Viewed 7122 times

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:37 pm

: 13645276_10153827196583014_4780351890034549061_n.jpg (131.98 KiB) Viewed 7118 times

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:40 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: No indication of what and who was and wasn't filmed. No evidence of harassment, I don't think it should be presented uncritically as such. More partisan BS. Maybe from both sides, but I'm not taking any.
I've seen the suggestion that all CLP meetings should be filmed ... Seems like a good idea to me while tempers are high.
It wasn't a CLP meeting, they were not member of the CLP. It was just a weekly MP's surgery.
They have no right - or reason - to film ordinary people waiting to see their MP about personal problems/constituency business. No one has. if someone filmed me without my explicit permission I would be livid and, quite frankly, would call the police.

Whoa ... I wasn't talking about that event. I merely said I'd seen a suggestion that CLP meetings should be filmed.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:40 pm

Willow904 wrote:
JonnyT1234 wrote:Sorry, I was being flippant. Anything that makes the Labour Party democratic and more representative of its membership would be most welcome so an overhaul is definitely due.

(Edit: so long as they aren't fudged like the current ones have been!).
Maybe they could have a lawyer that specialises in the area of private club rules to give any new rules the once over? It was surprising to me how unclear the rules were. The precedent was for an incumbent to need nominations, if the intention was to change the rules so the incumbent didn't need nominations, I don't understand why the rules didn't explicitly say so. A change from past practice should be clearly indicated. It does make you doubt the ability of those elected to the NEC and makes you wonder if at least one or two of the appointments should be more professional in nature. It's a big job in some ways. At the very least those elected could probably benefit from some more non-partisan advice and support than they currently seem to be getting.

Foskett J didn't seem to find the rules in the least bit ambiguous. He simply said "they mean exactly what they say, the end."

If you change an organisation's rulebook/constitution by removing a section and replacing it with a different one there is no need to add "and, by the way, this replaces in entirety the previous rule, but to be on the safe side, here's what the old rule said and what the new rule no longer says." You simply delete the old rule and replace it with the new. Passing legislation is pretty similar, other than if it replaces existing law there'll be a clause stating "the following Acts/Statutory Instruments are hereby repealed" and the new law is then read on the assumption it means what it says.

Foster's argument, which included "it's all very ambiguous, but if we redefine common English words we can construe a meaning that on the face of it isn't there" and "but the old rules said" was comprehensively chucked out in short order.

And I suspect the Labour Party rulebook does get considered by lawyers before it gets amended. Which, I suspect is why Foster lost. His "arguments" don't have a leg to stand on and him pursuing them was a waste of his money and every else's time.

fedup59 · Post by **fedup59** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:42 pm

Sorry my last post was confusing - I was interrupted by some chip shop chips and got redirected - what I was trying to say was while I expect my MP to represent my interests as a constituent, I don't expect to agree with how he understands these. He is an SNP MP. I didn't vote for him. I don't agree SNP policies, in the main, or priorities, but I do recognise his right as an elected SNP MP to follow his party's commitments.
I had Michael Forsyth as my MP for years and he was seen as an excellent constituency MP. I never once agreed with his politics, policies or political choices. If I had I would have been appalled. He was voted in as a member of the Tory party, my tough luck. It's how it works.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:42 pm

The farce and the agony of trying to get universal credit payments
Frances Ryan

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lays-loans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:44 pm

https://www.unison.org.uk/news/magazine ... nt-add-up/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Homecare workers, illegal payments and when the sums just don’t add up

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:52 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:
TR'sGhost wrote:
JonnyT1234 wrote:Unless they revise the terms again, then the best news about this is that any future leader will always be in the leadership election. Which is just so sensible its unbelievable that it wasn't already the case.
It was, and is, already the case.
Haha. You are, of course, correct. What I should have said, is that this is no longer under any doubt, but the (seeming) ambiguity of the clause could have been challenged at any point in the future too if it hadn't happened now.

Am I right in also thinking that the NEC could equally have voted the other way, and if it had gone unchallenged, Corbyn would not have automatically been on the ballot? This at least means that the NEC can never change their minds.

Well it fixes the meaning of the rules until whenever, if ever, they get amended.

I do wonder which 14 NEC members are apparently unable to construe plain English. I'd expect NEC members to have a higher standard of English comprehension than that.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 6:59 pm

HindleA wrote:https://www.unison.org.uk/news/magazine ... nt-add-up/

Homecare workers, illegal payments and when the sums just don’t add up

A rotten system and no wonder care workers are in short supply.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 7:03 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: It wasn't a CLP meeting, they were not member of the CLP. It was just a weekly MP's surgery.
They have no right - or reason - to film ordinary people waiting to see their MP about personal problems/constituency business. No one has. if someone filmed me without my explicit permission I would be livid and, quite frankly, would call the police.
I ask again - where is the evidence that any 'ordinary people waiting to see their MP about personal problems/constituency business' have been filmed?

The 'admission' posted earlier was no such thing, just a reason given by someone who was not even involved as to why someone going to an MP's surgery might want to film it.

I have seen an awful lot of anti-Momentum stuff uncritically posted as the truth lately. If we're supposed to be ultra-factual about anything we say about Owen Smith, can we please apply that to everyone else in the world?

They put the film on the momentum web site, and have since removed it.
But, fair enough, nothing will convince you. So be it.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 7:09 pm

I just know this is going to heap s*** on my head, but I've been having a look at 'online abuse' on various people's time lines ... I honestly wouldn't call much of it abuse. A lot is forthright. Plain speaking. What you should expect if you are plain speaking and forthright yourself. But not abuse.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 7:17 pm

TR'sGhost wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Lost Soul wrote:
They should be representing their constituents. Why else would anyone vote for them ?
Well, I of course agree, but does that mean Labour MPs should feel no compulsion to follow the votes of party members when they themselves disagree?

Deselection is, of course, a way of trying to bring in a form of democratic centralism.
No it isn't. Even for you that's a ridiculous statement.

If an MP does not agree with the policies of whichever party which put them forward as a candidate to the extent the party no longer regards them as a desirable representative of that party, the MP has no right whatsoever to expect or require that party to continue to support them as the party's chosen candidate.

The MP can certainly stand again, no-one is going to stop them. Just not as a candidate for the party that no longer wishes to support their election. Forcing a political party to support a particular candidate against their will would be a form of tyranny.

I of course do understand this argument, and if you read my post with a pinch of charity you'll see that the end of the first sentence it implies what you say.

Yours is the same argument for a system of deselection that the Bennite left invoked in the 70s and 80s (back in the 70s there was another problem: too many lazy old lags who did nothing, that really isn't an issue today.)

In practice the way deselection procedures work is to keep MPs in line with the CLP. In a representative democracy that is an issue as the representative is subject to the control of another group outside Parliament. Someone like, say, Stella Creasy may be at risk if this procedure makes a comeback.

TR'sGhost wrote: As for representing constituents, the key word is "represent". The MP is a representative, not a delegate from their constituency.

well yes, but of their *constituents*, not the (tiny) group of local members of their party.

TR'sGhost wrote: By the way, concern-trolling is amongst the lower and most tedious forms of the art.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 7:21 pm

We had no choice” say West Berkshire Council after the families of two disabled children triumphed in a High Court battle to halt a budget cut.

The court ruled the council had acted unlawfully when it cut payments to voluntary organisation which provide short breaks for disabled children and their carers.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/readin ... s-11670199" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 7:31 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: I ask again - where is the evidence that any 'ordinary people waiting to see their MP about personal problems/constituency business' have been filmed?

The 'admission' posted earlier was no such thing, just a reason given by someone who was not even involved as to why someone going to an MP's surgery might want to film it.

I have seen an awful lot of anti-Momentum stuff uncritically posted as the truth lately. If we're supposed to be ultra-factual about anything we say about Owen Smith, can we please apply that to everyone else in the world?
They put the film on the momentum web site, and have since removed it.
But, fair enough, nothing will convince you. So be it.
Not when I haven't seen it, no. Which Momentum site was it posted to? I looked on the main one earlier, no sign. Can you tell me what was in it? Did you see it?

Neil Coyle ‏@coyleneil 6h6 hours ago
@CharlotteB1 @jonlansman yes, it's on their page online. Have asked Jon to intervene.
General Woundwort WC ‏@hedgenettle 2h2 hours ago
@tstaddon They were boasting of it on Facebook. @coyleneil @jonlansman
and now the tweet admitting it has been deleted...
But nothing happened eh? Just an MP lying about his constituents being filmed - yep that'll be it.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 7:37 pm

Jeremy Corbyn
5 hrs ·
I welcome the decision by the High Court to respect the democracy of the Labour Party, which cannot be subordinated to the personal wishes of one wealthy individual.
This was a monumental waste of Labour Party time and resources when we should be focused on holding the government to account.
The right of half-a-million Labour Party members should have never been in question. If anything, we should aim to expand the Labour Party membership.
I hope all candidates and supporters will reject any attempt to prolong this process, and that we can now proceed with the election in a comradely and respectful manner.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 7:38 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:I think I feel a flounce coming on

My flounce is bigger than yours.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 7:41 pm

The 14 NEC members - they are not lawyers as far as I am aware. They were given conflicting legal advice. Just to be fair to them. It seemed very cut and dry but the involvement of lawyers confused rather than clarified things.

Post by **refitman** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 8:10 pm

@Ohso - thanks for the policy posts.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 8:14 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: Not when I haven't seen it, no. Which Momentum site was it posted to? I looked on the main one earlier, no sign. Can you tell me what was in it? Did you see it?
Neil Coyle ‏@coyleneil 6h6 hours ago
@CharlotteB1 @jonlansman yes, it's on their page online. Have asked Jon to intervene.
General Woundwort WC ‏@hedgenettle 2h2 hours ago
@tstaddon They were boasting of it on Facebook. @coyleneil @jonlansman
and now the tweet admitting it has been deleted...
But nothing happened eh? Just an MP lying about his constituents being filmed - yep that'll be it.
Enough snark, please. I've seen the twitter conversations of people who hate Momentum deciding what they've seen. If that's evidence to you, fine. I don't think I ask for much. The tweet you poster earlier as an admission was from someone who wasn't involved. Look at it from my perspective. There has been so much exaggeration and spin about Momentum, very little of which is as presented. Bricks through windows, for example. Meetings reported to be full of abuse and heckling that other attendees say were quiet and respectful.

Me snark? Really....

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 8:14 pm

refitman wrote:@Ohso - thanks for the policy posts.

First time I've seen it all in one place. Handy reading.

fedup59 · Post by **fedup59** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 8:14 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
fedup59 wrote:What I'd really like to hear now is a vocal commitment from the PLP to honour the democratic mandate of whoever wins and collectively do their jobs.

Then they can rightly claim their place as Labour party MPs representing the interests of their constituencies.

There is, of course, a tension here.

Should MPs be answerable to the members of their party, or to the constitutents who elected them? These groups are not the same.

Were they elected to do their party's will (and as a result the will of a tiny slice of the electorate) or to act (as they see it) in the best interests of their constituents?

If MPs really did think of themsleves as bound by the votes of members of their parties that would be a dramatic change.

Democratic centralism has long been the goal of the Bennite left (though they have never adhered to it much when not themselves in power).

This is a useful summary of Democratic Centralism (which I think many Labour members subscribe to as an idea).

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

Labour has not, hitherto, operated on that basis.

Just realised I went down the blind alley you opened up SH. The point was not about democratic centralism but acceptance of the party's rules and of the democratic mandate that a leader requires in order to lead the party, which includes the PLP members. If this is a commitment too far then why are they Labour members and Labour party political representatives?

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 8:33 pm

Interesting Huffington post on the Kinnock/school/ Momentum/Wales thing...not fussed apparently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/m ... 6a0b612233" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 8:35 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:

But nothing happened eh? Just an MP lying about his constituents being filmed - yep that'll be it.

Me snark? Really....
That's how your previous post came across to me, yes.

Yes you are quite right sorry. I think I got fed up of banging my head on a wall
Robert would you be happier if I stopped posting here? You seem to take delight in trying to take apart anything (not quite everything, but I'm sure you know what I mean) I post that has a hint of Corbyn in it.
And no (referring to your post and the answer to it above) I'm not flouncing, I'm asking you a serious question.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 8:39 pm

John McDonnell speaks at Deaf and disabled people's rally

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

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 8:42 pm

An Englishman was wandering through the Brecon Beacons, when he came across an old dry stonewaller fixing a wall, they sat and chatted for a while, and the Englishman asked him his name.

Dai, came the repy

Dai what? asked the Englishman.

Well, said Dai, in Wales we name people after the things they do.

Oh?

YOu see these walls, said Dai pointing to the stone structures that ran up the hillside.

Yes.

Well, I built them all, I chose every stone, and made sure it fitted just right, miles and miles of stone walls over the last three decades, each one built by hand, but do they call me Dai the builder? or Dai the Mason? Oh no, but you fuck one goat...

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 8:52 pm

Dai Dactic.

Here endeth the lesson.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:01 pm

In the interests of fairness, if anyone has details of Smith's manifesto they should post it on here.

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:08 pm

Ohso 8.01 I posted his 20 points yesterday, but they were a right ragbag with no detail .

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:11 pm

ohsocynical wrote:In the interests of fairness, if anyone has details of Smith's manifesto they should post it on here.

At the moment it's the list of 20 things from yesterday and this:
1. I am not Jeremy Corbyn.
2. See 1.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:11 pm

frog222 wrote:Ohso 8.01 I posted his 20 points yesterday, but they were a right ragbag with no detail .

To be fair, I can't find a lot of detail in Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto\pledges\to-do list.

More words - but no detail or "hows". So I put them both at about evens on that score.

Edited to add an "e"

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:12 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:The 14 NEC members - they are not lawyers as far as I am aware. They were given conflicting legal advice. Just to be fair to them. It seemed very cut and dry but the involvement of lawyers confused rather than clarified things.

As the involvement of lawyers often does. The old saying that if you ask three lawyers their opinion you'll get five answers has an element of truth in it. What really interests me is why legal opinions concerning, in effect, keeping the incumbent leader off the ballot were sought in the first place and exactly what the lawyers were asked.

There's a big difference between "could you give an opinion as to the meaning of this clause" and "can you think of a way to interpret this clause to get me the following outcome......?"

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:16 pm

I imagine that the latter was definitely the motivation for some. But on both sides of the vote, not just one of them.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:25 pm

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:29 pm

On the first day he tried charm. On the second he was found by his hosts to be offensive.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:36 pm

Two negatives make a positive,unless all basic principles have been rewritten which is a possibility when black isn't even white it is the X17 bus to Sheffield,but only a Thursday.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:44 pm

My surname is Bumscratcher, not quite as bad as the guy in Tem's true story and I haven't much to live up to.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:49 pm

HindleA wrote:My surname is Bumscratcher, not quite as bad as the guy in Tem's true story and I haven't much to live up to.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:55 pm

Actually my real name-which is very close to a woman of some notoriety did for some years and still occasionally result in wary looks.I don't why happening to a have a similar name to somebody seems to pose a threat.

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:57 pm

I watched these again .

Prefer him, any day , to Smith

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

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

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:57 pm

Though it probably wouldn't be best to change your name to Vlad the Impaler etc.

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Thu 28 Jul, 2016 9:58 pm

Bardo ?