Current Affairs The Labour Party

[johnblue23]

HEY LETS SEE WHERE YOU SOURCED THIS FROM:

David Icke | Watch the former Board of Deputies president call for Jeremy Corbyn to be ‘sacrificed’

www.davidicke.com

David Icke. Jesus wept. Get the tinfoil out lads.

I'll assume you can tell the time and understand dates. The source I quoted was from yesterday. That source you quoted was 8 hours ago.

 

[zzr45]

I'll assume you can tell the time and understand dates. The source I quoted was from yesterday. That source you quoted was 8 hours ago.

Blame the lizards.

 

[tsubaki]

.....good on Tom Watson criticising the decision to expel Alastair Campbell. What a strategic mess this Labour Party are in, especially given the state of the Tory’s.

They were entirely correct to get rid of Campbell (as it is a very clear bit of the rulebook which everyone knows of) but it is still a missed opportunity.

They could have used his blatant breaking of a rule that has been on the books since at least 2000 (when the Government Campbell served so disgracefully used it to get rid of Livingstone, after he stood as an independent in the London mayoral election following one of the biggest fixes ever seen in British politics to ensure he wouldn't be the official Labour candidate) to get the NEC to change it, so that the party cannot then do what it did in 2015 and 2016 and get rid of members because they retweeted other candidates, or spoke against an official Labour candidate. When Corbyn finally does leave, they will be looking to get rid of thousands / tens of thousands and it would be more difficult if they could not rely on that rule.

 

[Eggs]

They were entirely correct to get rid of Campbell (as it is a very clear bit of the rulebook which everyone knows of) but it is still a missed opportunity.

They could have used his blatant breaking of a rule that has been on the books since at least 2000 (when the Government Campbell served so disgracefully used it to get rid of Livingstone, after he stood as an independent in the London mayoral election following one of the biggest fixes ever seen in British politics to ensure he wouldn't be the official Labour candidate) to get the NEC to change it, so that the party cannot then do what it did in 2015 and 2016 and get rid of members because they retweeted other candidates, or spoke against an official Labour candidate. When Corbyn finally does leave, they will be looking to get rid of thousands / tens of thousands and it would be more difficult if they could not rely on that rule.

....seem to recall Corbyn voting plenty of times against a Labour Government and keeping his membership.

 

[tsubaki]

....seem to recall Corbyn voting plenty of times against a Labour Government and keeping his membership.

He did, and that was not an offence under those rules - which is why he kept his membership. The rule is:

A member of the Party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member, subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.I.2below of the disciplinary rules.

... hence why Campbell was booted.

 

[roydo]

He did, and that was not an offence under those rules - which is why he kept his membership. The rule is:

Havnt got skin in this game, but that bit about supporting a political group that isnt Labour seems a bit weird. Like I assume, it means one in opposition to Labour, in an election, but it doesnt say that.

But anyrate, anyone who doesnt think booting Campbell out is anything other than spiteful, is deluded.

 

[Eggs]

He did, and that was not an offence under those rules - which is why he kept his membership. The rule is:



... hence why Campbell was booted.

....oh dear, no wonder the party is in such a state. Glad a number of MPs are coming out to say this is wrong. Apparently a lot of active Labour Members refused to campaign or vote for their Party in the Euros. What a shambles the party governance has turned into. Such a shame, should rename it Momentum.

 

[tsubaki]

....oh dear, no wonder the party is in such a state. Glad a number of MPs are coming out to say this is wrong. Apparently a lot of active Labour Members refused to campaign or vote for their Party in the Euros. What a shambles the party governance has turned into. Such a shame, should rename it Momentum.

Havnt got skin in this game, but that bit about supporting a political group that isnt Labour seems a bit weird. Like I assume, it means one in opposition to Labour, in an election, but it doesnt say that.

But anyrate, anyone who doesnt think booting Campbell out is anything other than spiteful, is deluded.

The rule is spiteful by design (hence the "automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Labour party member" bit) - the point is that the rule is one they've (the former party establishment) used repeatedly and probably came up with. I've no idea when it was put in there (the earliest reference I could find on a quick online search is when they used it in 2000 vs Livingstone), but to hazard a guess it probably dates from when the party was trying to get rid of Militant and its ilk (which is where the "supporting a political group that isn't Labour" would make sense).

As I said I wouldn't have used it to kick out Campbell, though if he finds himself kicked out as the result of a rule they all used gleefully not so long ago then it is hard to feel any sympathy for him, or them.

 

[Blue 1]

Imagine being sad about bad things happening to Alastair Campbell.

He probably calculated that this would be the response anyway

 

[roydo]

The rule is spiteful by design (hence the "automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Labour party member" bit) - the point is that the rule is one they've (the former party establishment) used repeatedly and probably came up with. I've no idea when it was put in there (the earliest reference I could find on a quick online search is when they used it in 2000 vs Livingstone), but to hazard a guess it probably dates from when the party was trying to get rid of Militant and its ilk (which is where the "supporting a political group that isn't Labour" would make sense).

As I said I wouldn't have used it to kick out Campbell, though if he finds himself kicked out as the result of a rule they all used gleefully not so long ago then it is hard to feel any sympathy for him, or them.

One day they will learn that behaviour like that, whilst being lapped up by themselves, totally turns potential voters right off.

 

[tsubaki]

One day they will learn that behaviour like that, whilst being lapped up by themselves, totally turns potential voters right off.

It is, and being seen to do that to some very reasonable people in 2015 and 2016 was a lot of the reason why Corbyn won so handily (though they were doing that to people who had "supported" other party candidates before they'd ever been Labour members).

 

[roydo]

It is, and being seen to do that to some very reasonable people in 2015 and 2016 was a lot of the reason why Corbyn won so handily (though they were doing that to people who had "supported" other party candidates before they'd ever been Labour members).

Not sure I follow you mate.

 

[tsubaki]

Not sure I follow you mate.

They were seen to be purging supporters of one candidate, using the rule that Campbell has been subsequently kicked out over. It offended a lot of people and probably boosted Corbyn's support.

 

[roydo]

They were seen to be purging supporters of one candidate, using the rule that Campbell has been subsequently kicked out over. It offended a lot of people and probably boosted Corbyn's support.

When you say "They", you mean Blairites?

 

[tsubaki]

When you say "They", you mean Blairites?

no, the former party establishment