Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Wasn't that Ken Livingstone being Ken Livingstone, rather than any evidence of a anti-semitic cabal at the heart of Labour?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Wasn't that Ken Livingstone being Ken Livingstone, rather than any evidence of a anti-semitic cabal at the heart of Labour?
I don't think anyone is asserting that there's some shadowy anti-Jewish group in Labour.
It's more the case that 'anti-zionism' and opposition to Israel slops over into generalist comments about Jews. Livingstone has just made several such remarks publicly over the course of his career. There are others. See for example, Jackie Walker, the Oxford University Labour club investigation (see Baroness Royall's report), Naz Shah sharing comments about deporting Israelis to America, and so on.
Christ, even Chakrabarti's whitewash of an investigation says that they need to stop calling people 'Zios' and breaking Godwin's Law when talking about Jews. If it's that common they need to make a recommendation against doing it, that says a lot.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/08 14:26:25
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Wasn't that Ken Livingstone being Ken Livingstone, rather than any evidence of a anti-semitic cabal at the heart of Labour?
I don't think anyone is asserting that there's some shadowy anti-Jewish group in Labour.
It's more the case that 'anti-zionism' and opposition to Israel slops over into generalist comments about Jews. Livingstone has just made several such remarks publicly over the course of his career. There are others. See for example, Jackie Walker, the Oxford University Labour club investigation (see Baroness Royall's report), Naz Shah sharing comments about deporting Israelis to America, and so on.
Christ, even Chakrabarti's whitewash of an investigation says that they need to stop calling people 'Zios' and breaking Godwin's Law when talking about Jews. If it's that common they need to make a recommendation against doing it, that says a lot.
There are numerous promiment Tories, who when at Oxford, were members of a society that supported Aparthied South Africa, and were quite happy to call for the death of one Nelson Mandela...
You can imagine their embaressment years later when President Mandela visited the UK.
Point is this: any anti-semitic individuals should be booted out of the Labour party, no question, but the double standards of the British Press when dealing with this issue, and turning a blind eye to the pasts of various senior Tories...well...I'll say no more...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
.....Five new Labour Party members have won a High Court battle over their legal right to vote in the leadership contest between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith.
Labour's NEC had ruled that party members who joined after 12 January could not vote in the contest.
The group that brought the legal challenge argued this amounted to a breach of contract, saying they had "paid their dues" for a right to vote.....
I was torn on this. Eager supporters would flock to ensure a vote for Corbyn, distorting the results, but on reflection if they have paid their dues they should be eligible to vote. Labour are happy to have their coin swelling their coffers so they should accept that these supporters want their choice to count too.
Still, the party for the people is in the news for the wrong reasons.
Ninja'd!
yup no changing the rules after taking the money
if they subsequently wanted to impose a 6 month requirement fair enough, but they needed to accept everybody who joined under the old T&C could vote
There are numerous promiment Tories, who when at Oxford, were members of a society that supported Aparthied South Africa, and were quite happy to call for the death of one Nelson Mandela...
You can imagine their embaressment years later when President Mandela visited the UK.
Point is this: any anti-semitic individuals should be booted out of the Labour party, no question, but the double standards of the British Press when dealing with this issue, and turning a blind eye to the pasts of various senior Tories...well...I'll say no more...
But see, that's where I disagree, actually. You call it double standards, as if the Press are picking on Labour and only Labour. Unless you're just commenting on the fact that the media are only interested in human rights when it's topical (in which case ignore my remarks here), the Tories get just as harsh a run of it as Labour. Remember the pig-screwing story about Cameron? That was completely made up and it got far more airtime than the Union election rigging that was going on about the same time IIRC.
They're picking on Corbyn right now because he's the leader of the opposition. His party ARE the opposition. They are total fair game for whatever muck the newspapers can dredge out. And that's right and proper. I'm certain many Tories hold less than salubrious views, but how many of them are prominent people who have been daft enough to voice them in public recently? You can say, 'It doesn't have to be recent', but there are plenty of skeletons in Labour not being dragged about right now (Diane 'Only white people can be racist' Abbott, anyone?)
Corbyn himself has been dragged into this anti-semitism thing because of things he personally, has said, and the very obvious antipathy he's shown over the whole thing (much like the Brexit vote).Ken Livingstone is the ex Mayor of London, Naz Shah is an MP, Corbyn's most senior aide cropped up in the Sunday Times yesterday as ranting about Israel. These are not nobodies. And they're not alone either, there are at least half a dozen more minor incidents around student Unions and Momentum members floating about at the moment.
If right now, Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng, one of Theresa May's aides, and Boris Johnson (as ex-mayor of London) were making lots of vague implicatory comments about muslim terrorists and Syria, and May was being all mealy mouthed about it, I don't doubt for a minute that the press would be crawling all over it like ants on a picnic lunch. But they're not. And sadly, Labour is. So I totally, totally disagree with the whole 'Oh, the press are just out to get Corbyn' angle on this. It's not so much a case of 'where there's smoke there's probably fire' as it is so much 'Labour Party HQ is on fire with three tv cameras pointed at it'.
The media whilst biased in many,many regards, are totally in the right to be focusing on this, and Labour are doing it to themselves. Sadly, they don't seem able to keep their 'Down with zionism' traps shut for five minutes to let the media blow over, instead we seem to have a new example every other week. Which again, says something in and of itself about the Labour Party right now.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/08/08 20:19:52
Ketara, I agree with what you say - the Labour opposition should be held to account, and there are a ton of skeletons in the Labour party.
For the record, I'm no Labour supporter. Being a SNP supporter, I welcome any attack on the Labour party and it's eventual demise as a electoral force.
But I still can't shake off this feeling that the press, as usual, are being one-sided about their reporting these days.
for example, why aren't we hearing more about the Tory election funds scandal during the General Election? Numerous police forces are investigating upwards of 100+ Tory MPs and with the honourable exception of Channel 4 news, not a cheep from the press. You can bet if that were 100+ Labour MPs, they'd be all over it like a bad rash...
Another example. Liam Fox, as usual up to his old tricks. This time getting cosy with the regime in Azerbaijan, a country with some horrific human rights abuses.
Now, the UK getting cosy with despostic regimes is not nothing new, but the fact that I had to look away from mainstream news to find this out, speaks voulmes IMO.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do i not like that the "alledged" election fraud is as you say being investigated by the police therefore its an ongoing case and there are restrictions on what can he reported in case of biasing any future trial.
For me i just wish all oposition partys would get there fingers out and actually do what there there for and question the goverment and hold it to account. As the torys have managed to have a leadership election form a working goverment, set up a new department and implement stuff while the main opposition havent even got the rules for a leadership vote sorted yet its just embaressing.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara, I agree with what you say - the Labour opposition should be held to account, and there are a ton of skeletons in the Labour party.
For the record, I'm no Labour supporter.
I think we're in roughly the same place politically. Namely, the 'I'm a vaguely decent mildly left wing inclined sort of bloke, where the hell is my representation and what happened to Labour!?' sort of place.
But I still can't shake off this feeling that the press, as usual, are being one-sided about their reporting these days.
I think what you're perceiving is that the Press has good and bad stories about the Tories, but only bad about Labour/Corbyn right now. Which is very much the case. They're just as happy to jump on the Blues for any muck that comes their way, but there's a certain willingness to give the benefit of the doubt, and plenty of neutral stories about going ons in government to balance out the 'Let's drag up Boris Johnson's past gaffes' style columns.
Labour meanwhile, has nothing particularly positive said about it. But frankly? I'm sort of the opinion it has itself to blame for that. Corbyn has no coherent PR policy beyond preaching to his own supporters. Him and his are throwing every piece of mud they can find at the PLP, who are in turn frantically leaking everything they can find which will make Corbyn look bad to try and oust him.
The natural result being that there's actually no positive news coming out of the Labour Party to be reported! They're all so busy sticking knives in each others backs that nobody is actually doing the job of being the opposition and working out coherent strategy. The only bloke who seems to even be vaguely trying to rise above it all is Corbyn's current rival Owen Smith, and he's a nobody who probably won't be here in a month.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/08 21:42:12
On top of everything else, it is now "Silly Season" and only the Olympics are there to distract people's attention from the Labour Party clown car pile-up.
Skullhammer wrote: Do i not like that the "alledged" election fraud is as you say being investigated by the police therefore its an ongoing case and there are restrictions on what can he reported in case of biasing any future trial.
For me i just wish all oposition partys would get there fingers out and actually do what there there for and question the goverment and hold it to account. As the torys have managed to have a leadership election form a working goverment, set up a new department and implement stuff while the main opposition havent even got the rules for a leadership vote sorted yet its just embaressing.
You put that very well. (Though use of a spell checker might be advisable.)
But I still can't shake off this feeling that the press, as usual, are being one-sided about their reporting these days.
I think what you're perceiving is that the Press has good and bad stories about the Tories, but only bad about Labour/Corbyn right now. Which is very much the case. They're just as happy to jump on the Blues for any muck that comes their way, but there's a certain willingness to give the benefit of the doubt, and plenty of neutral stories about going ons in government to balance out the 'Let's drag up Boris Johnson's past gaffes' style columns.
Labour meanwhile, has nothing particularly positive said about it. But frankly? I'm sort of the opinion it has itself to blame for that...
I would also suggest that who owns the vast majority of the press has something to do with it.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Skullhammer wrote: Do i not like that the "alledged" election fraud is as you say being investigated by the police therefore its an ongoing case and there are restrictions on what can he reported in case of biasing any future trial.
For me i just wish all oposition partys would get there fingers out and actually do what there there for and question the goverment and hold it to account. As the torys have managed to have a leadership election form a working goverment, set up a new department and implement stuff while the main opposition havent even got the rules for a leadership vote sorted yet its just embaressing.
I agree that it's important not to prejudice a case, but even before the police investigations were announced, the level of investigative journalism into this was non-existant, with the honourable exception of channel 4.
Think about it. There's a potential for a massive story about electoral fraud, and yet, only 1 media outlet looks into it to see if it's worth following...
Draw your own conclusions from that...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
But I still can't shake off this feeling that the press, as usual, are being one-sided about their reporting these days.
I think what you're perceiving is that the Press has good and bad stories about the Tories, but only bad about Labour/Corbyn right now. Which is very much the case. They're just as happy to jump on the Blues for any muck that comes their way, but there's a certain willingness to give the benefit of the doubt, and plenty of neutral stories about going ons in government to balance out the 'Let's drag up Boris Johnson's past gaffes' style columns.
Labour meanwhile, has nothing particularly positive said about it. But frankly? I'm sort of the opinion it has itself to blame for that...
I would also suggest that who owns the vast majority of the press has something to do with it.
Partly.
However whatever sells papers and clicks is what is best for business. And what is business is Labours seeming implosion and civil war. You cannot blame the owners of the press for a problem solely of the parties making.
When Boris cocks up there will be front page headlines and hours of talking heads discussing in minutiae his previous gaffes. Until then a party which cannot agree on its own rules will be leading the news.
Craig Murray asks why Liam Fox is back in government, given his past scandals, and given the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions concerning Adam Werrity.
It's an interesting state of affairs, but here's the short version. Fox's pal, with links to the UK government, was serving the interests of a foreign power, and not his own country...
The fact that it's taken an ex-Ambassdor to bring this up, should also speak volumes...
Why aren't we hearing about this in the press? Fox's pal acting on behalf of a foreign power is a pretty serious story when you think about it...
It's another example of what I'm talking about when it comes to press bias...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch." Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!"
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Craig Murray asks why Liam Fox is back in government, given his past scandals, and given the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions concerning Adam Werrity.
It's an interesting state of affairs, but here's the short version. Fox's pal, with links to the UK government, was serving the interests of a foreign power, and not his own country...
The fact that it's taken an ex-Ambassdor to bring this up, should also speak volumes...
Why aren't we hearing about this in the press? Fox's pal acting on behalf of a foreign power is a pretty serious story when you think about it...
It's another example of what I'm talking about when it comes to press bias...
Hasn't been a lot of talk concerning some of the more.... concerning... issues with regards to the charity he helps run that sends soldiers/similar on holidays.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I was intrigued enough by this to look into the methodology used in the above study. It would appear that the method used was to take specific publications (in this case the Daily Star, Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Mirror, Evening Standard, Daily Telegraph and Guardian), decide which articles were 'pro', 'neutral', or 'anti' Corbyn (something somewhat open to debate, no serious methodology used bar opinion for this), and then add them all together and divide to produce an average. I'm curious as to why the Times was not included.
The article was produced by a single academic and his PhD students, so it's not entirely the group effort all the names might imply it to be.
On the whole, I found the report started well, but I found it a bit troublesome when they automatically assumed descriptions of Corbyn as being hard left were offensive/untrue, labelled an opinion column which called Corbyn's opposition to disarmament 'naive' as Corbyn being ';ridiculed' and so forth regardless of the veracity of such statements. There's certainly some truth to the general thrust of their argument, but things like this immediately start to shine a light on it as having reached a conclusion that that authors wanted to reach.
The publications examined were mainly the low denominator tabloids, so I'm not entirely unsurprised that they turn out to sensationalise things like Abbotts' relationship with Corbyn.
Another point of concern is the automatic assumption that anything which calls Corbyn's view 'unrealistic' or 'outdated' as the Press 'discrediting' Corbyn. It seems to be the case that the study assumes that anything critical of Corbyn is ridicule or attempting to discredit, and has no method for attempting to sift genuinely thoughtful pieces from 'Look at that wozzer Corbyn'. Instead it just lumps them all in one statistic.
All in all, I'm not very impressed. Purely as an academic reading an academic piece, it appears to have a very poor methodology for evaluating the data collated, and a very undiscerning method for categorising that data to begin with. In both cases, it reads as if the reason for this is a predetermined result. I was actually originally inclined to agree with the statistical premise of the article to begin with(that Corbyn gets a lot of flak in the press), but found this study a rather poor substantiation as it appears inclined to exaggerate the figures for effect.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/09 11:51:20
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Craig Murray asks why Liam Fox is back in government, given his past scandals, and given the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions concerning Adam Werrity.
It's an interesting state of affairs, but here's the short version. Fox's pal, with links to the UK government, was serving the interests of a foreign power, and not his own country...
The fact that it's taken an ex-Ambassdor to bring this up, should also speak volumes...
Why aren't we hearing about this in the press? Fox's pal acting on behalf of a foreign power is a pretty serious story when you think about it...
It's another example of what I'm talking about when it comes to press bias...
Hasn't been a lot of talk concerning some of the more.... concerning... issues with regards to the charity he helps run that sends soldiers/similar on holidays.
If we had a proper press, with a serious focus on investigative journalism, like we used to, these things would see the light of day...
Three more issues of national interest that have been ignored.
1. According to the Mail's Peter Hitchens, British troops have been sighted in the Ukraine, yes the Ukraine...
Ukraine is not a NATO member, so why are they there, and why hasn't parliament been consulted on this?
2. What are the links between British firms selling weapons to the Saudis, and these weapons being responsible for human rights violations in Yemen? The weapons in question are cluster bombs/mines... Thank God for the SNP banging the drum on this one.
3. Helmand Provence is more or less under de facto Taliban control. Many brave British troops died there, and yet, their sacrifice has been in vain, and coverage of the Taliban's resurgence has been swept under the carpet.
By all means attack the Labour party, but in the absence of an opposition, we ned the press to hold the government to account.
They have spectacularly failed in that duty to the British public, and that's what makes me angry, that I have to do my own digging...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
r_squared wrote:I would also suggest that who owns the vast majority of the press has something to do with it.
As far as I can observe, most deliberate ommittals in the mainstream press only tend to occur when either the papers don't think people are interested, or when they directly cross the interests of the owners, so Murdoch, the Barclay Brothers, and so on. If there's a big enough outcry about something, they tend to report it, even if it's just to try and put a favourable/negative slant on it as appropriate.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
By all means attack the Labour party, but in the absence of an opposition, we ned the press to hold the government to account.
They have spectacularly failed in that duty to the British public, and that's what makes me angry, that I have to do my own digging...
I personally find Private Eye to be my publication of choice for when I want to read about who's being corrupt, obstructive, or deceitful this week. Ian Hislop isn't the most sued man in britain for nothing. They err on the side of suspicion a little too much, but they don't tend to be beholden to anyone, and everyone is fair game, be it the Government, opposition, Press, local council, celebrity, and so on.
I found one very interesting thing in there the other day about how the only reason South Eastern Railway wasn't breaching the terms of their franchise was because the Railway Minister altered them about two weeks ago at Southern's request. Aforementioned minister then stood up and bleated in Parliament a week later that her hands were tied because Southern hadn't violated their franchise terms!
Little tidbits like that are easily worth the £1.80 every fortnight.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/09 12:04:17
r_squared wrote:I would also suggest that who owns the vast majority of the press has something to do with it.
As far as I can observe, most deliberate ommittals in the mainstream press only tend to occur when either the papers don't think people are interested, or when they directly cross the interests of the owners, so Murdoch, the Barclay Brothers, and so on. If there's a big enough outcry about something, they tend to report it, even if it's just to try and put a favourable/negative slant on it as appropriate.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
By all means attack the Labour party, but in the absence of an opposition, we ned the press to hold the government to account.
They have spectacularly failed in that duty to the British public, and that's what makes me angry, that I have to do my own digging...
I personally find Private Eye to be my publication of choice for when I want to read about who's being corrupt, obstructive, or deceitful this week. Ian Hislop isn't the most sued man in britain for nothing. They err on the side of suspicion a little too much, but they don't tend to be beholden to anyone, and everyone is fair game, be it the Government, opposition, Press, local council, celebrity, and so on.
I found one very interesting thing in there the other day about how the only reason South Eastern Railway wasn't breaching the terms of their franchise was because the Railway Minister altered them about two weeks ago at Southern's request. Aforementioned minister then stood up and bleated in Parliament a week later that her hands were tied because Southern hadn't violated their franchise terms!
Little tidbits like that are easily worth the £1.80 every fortnight.
I do rate Private Eye quite highly, and although Hislop can be a smug git at times, his defence of a free press during the Leveson inquiry was something to behold...
An informed citizenry is a fundamental part of a vibrant democracy IMO, and part of that is self-knowledge, and the other part is a half decent press, but IMO, the press in this country are corrupt, too cosy with government, incompetent, and have thrown a hissy fit at social media catching them out with awkward things like facts and truth...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
A rogue activist has taken over a Labour Bristol website and used it to attack party leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The Labour Bristol website now carries the title "What Happened to the Labour Party?"
Underneath is a long post saying Mr Corbyn will be the "death of Labour" and claiming he is a career politician who is "ill-equipped" to lead the country.
It also turns on James Schneider and Jon Lansman, the leaders of the Momentum group which supports Mr Corbyn, claiming they are "elitists" who are using the movement to seize power.
Follow
Bristol Labour @LabourBristol
We are aware that our website has been taken over and are unable to access it. We know who is responsible and are taking action against them
12:36 PM - 9 Aug 2016
4 4 Retweets 1 1 like
The activist claims to be the owner of the domain name and says they have reclaimed the site because Labour refused to buy the name from them.
In the post, they say: "The domain was being loaned to the Bristol Labour party. Repeated efforts to get them to take ownership of the domain failed. With the current situation, I am no longer inclined to keep loaning it to them. I will likely re-purpose this domain for Bristol based Labourers information."
Labour Bristol has said it is aware of the issue. It said: "We know who is responsible and we are taking action against them."
However, a South West Labour spokesperson said: "This website is not connected to or endorsed by the Labour Party and does not represent the views of the Labour Party."
Previous cache records of the LabourBristol.org website reveal that it was used as a blog for the Labour Bristol area, featuring blog posts and event information.
The domain LabourBristol.org is registered to Bristolian Ben Lock and was registered in 2010.
A rogue activist has taken over a Labour Bristol website and used it to attack party leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The Labour Bristol website now carries the title "What Happened to the Labour Party?"
Underneath is a long post saying Mr Corbyn will be the "death of Labour" and claiming he is a career politician who is "ill-equipped" to lead the country.
It also turns on James Schneider and Jon Lansman, the leaders of the Momentum group which supports Mr Corbyn, claiming they are "elitists" who are using the movement to seize power.
Follow
Bristol Labour @LabourBristol
We are aware that our website has been taken over and are unable to access it. We know who is responsible and are taking action against them
12:36 PM - 9 Aug 2016
4 4 Retweets 1 1 like
The activist claims to be the owner of the domain name and says they have reclaimed the site because Labour refused to buy the name from them.
In the post, they say: "The domain was being loaned to the Bristol Labour party. Repeated efforts to get them to take ownership of the domain failed. With the current situation, I am no longer inclined to keep loaning it to them. I will likely re-purpose this domain for Bristol based Labourers information."
Labour Bristol has said it is aware of the issue. It said: "We know who is responsible and we are taking action against them."
However, a South West Labour spokesperson said: "This website is not connected to or endorsed by the Labour Party and does not represent the views of the Labour Party."
Previous cache records of the LabourBristol.org website reveal that it was used as a blog for the Labour Bristol area, featuring blog posts and event information.
The domain LabourBristol.org is registered to Bristolian Ben Lock and was registered in 2010.
Normally, I'd accuse the Labour party of twilight zone politics, but we're way past that point
Trouble in Bristol, and we also have Tom Watson claiming that Trotskyists have taken over the Labour party!
Did I miss something, or did we just jump back to 1917 or something?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
One of the many surprises of post-Brexit politics has been the cull of big personalities. Practically overnight, Westminster’s most vivid characters – from the Notting Hill set to Nigel Farage – vanished. One of the few recognisable names still left on Labour’s front bench is Tom Watson, whose charismatic reputation and geeky glamour should therefore elevate him to celebrity status in this colourless new political landscape. But ever since the early hours of 24 June, Labour’s deputy leader has retreated behind a blank facial glaze so opaque as to render him completely inscrutable.
Trotskyists 'twisting arms' of young Labour members to back Corbyn, Watson says
Read more
When appearing beside Jeremy Corbyn, he wears an expression normally reserved for funerals, which of course only makes me all the more curious to know what he is thinking. I ask about his thoughts while he watched Theresa May demolish Corbyn at her first prime minister’s questions, and he starts to chuckle.
“Well, at PMQs I always try to get myself into a Buddha-like state. I try not to have any facial expression at all. Because if I laugh at a Jeremy joke, two hours later on social media it’s either interpreted as me laughing at Jeremy, or laughing at an opposition joke. Or, if I scowl at something someone says, people are accusing me of scowling at Jeremy. So I try to keep a straight face, which everyone always interprets as me looking really sad and miserable. That’s actually not the case. I’m generally just trying to remain expressionless.”
Watson does a good job at keeping it up for most of this interview, too. When we speak before the high court ruling on Labour’s leadership contest, the detached serenity he affects is disconcertingly implausible. But, as he points out several times, he will have to serve as deputy to whichever leader his party elects. “I’m 50 next year, so I’ve learned not to worry about the things you’ve got no control of. I’ve not really been in control of events in the last few weeks, and if I can’t control events, I can’t worry about them.”
He certainly did not predict them. Watson had no idea that Labour’s leader would call for article 50 to be triggered at once, within hours of the referendum result. “But if I’m being honest, I’d not focused a lot on the plan B in the planning meetings that I’d had with him.”
Failing to anticipate the impact Corbyn’s words would have on Labour MPs – “At that point I was so exhausted, I didn’t take it in on the Friday” – he made his way to Glastonbury.
Watson was offline in a silent disco when Corbyn sacked Hilary Benn late that Saturday night, and remained blissfully unaware of the unfolding crisis until he awoke the next morning to a “whole load of missed calls and texts”.
He spent the day on the phone, hurrying back to London, “trying to find out what was happening”. Remarkably, he didn’t speak to Corbyn. Did he even try? “I can’t remember, actually,” he offers vaguely. I’m not sure which would be more bizarre: Corbyn refusing to take his deputy’s call, or Watson not even bothering to phone. When they met the next day, “As ever with Jeremy, it was business-like and friendly.” Watson told him the resignations could have been prevented, had Corbyn only reached out to his shadow team and addressed their concerns. Corbyn disagreed, convinced it was a premeditated coup. “He didn’t seem angry. Just puzzled and sorrowful.”
When Watson heard that a no-confidence motion had been tabled, “I didn’t pay it much heed. I thought it wouldn’t have legs.” He won’t say which way he voted, but the result came as a shock. Even then, it didn’t occur to him that Corbyn would defy the PLP’s indictment. “I thought he would realise that to lose the confidence of 80% of your MPs means that you can’t lead the Labour party.” Watson tried to say so in private two days later, but was thwarted when two Corbyn aides made an unscheduled appearance in their car.
“I was told we would have the journey on our own, and they came. I did suggest that they didn’t, and they said we’re coming in the car. So it became very difficult to have the conversation.” Was he angry? Watson looks conflicted. “You know, at any point in time I want to put my arms around him and hug him and say it’s going to be all right, but also sort of shout and say, we need to talk about this. So I was actually feeling great sorrow for him.”
It wasn’t until six days after the no-confidence vote that Watson met Corbyn privately. “It was very sad, really. But it was also, as ever, polite. I said, I don’t think you can lead the Labour party if you’ve lost 80% of your MPs, and he said, well, look, you’ve said what you have to say, and thank you for saying it. I think he actually said, thank you for saying it in such a polite way. It was still friendly. I did my duty. I did what I could. What else can you do?”
e answers his own question minutes later, after protestations of reluctance that may or not be genuine. His plans “are at a nascent stage”, he says several times, “and I probably shouldn’t even begin to talk to Decca Aitkenhead of the Guardian about them”. But he does.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
Watson wants to reverse Ed Miliband’s “terrible error of judgment” and reinstate the old electoral college system, which accorded one-third of the votes in a leadership election to the PLP and a third each to the unions and the members. He is also drawing up proposals for an agreement “to have women holding some of the key offices of state. My personal view is if you don’t give a proper gender representation on the frontbench you’re in trouble, and either Owen or Jeremy will have to make sure that those big offices have women in them.”
Most significantly, Watson wants to reintroduce elections to the shadow cabinet. Is he sure that MPs who resigned, or refused to serve under Corbyn, would reconsider if elected by the PLP? “I have no idea. But I think if Owen wins it’s still important to do it, because a new leader has got to reshape and rebuild the PLP, and that means giving respect and dignity back to a lot of colleagues.”
How much time he will have to effect any of this is uncertain, if Watson is right about his next point. “I think it’s highly likely there’ll be an early election. I mean, if you’re Theresa May, with a majority of 12, with your Brexit fanatics already saying you’re not going quickly enough to get us out of the European Union, with having sacked too many people from the frontbench who are just looking for the opportunity for her to stumble, and with a double-digit lead in the polls, then even though on day one you might not think you’re going to have an early election, I think it’s almost inevitable you’ll get to a point where you have to. If you were Theresa May, why wouldn’t you? Honestly, why wouldn’t you? You’d get your own mandate, you’d have the easiest run at the election you could imagine, and in all likelihood you’d come back with a bigger majority. Why wouldn’t you do that?”
Could whoever wins the leadership election survive a defeat in a general election? “Well, I don’t know. I don’t know. I mean, it’s highly unlikely, isn’t it? Most leaders resign after losing an election.” Most leaders, I point out, resign after losing the confidence of 80% of MPs. “Well, yes. So it’s still possible, isn’t it?”
Watson is conspicuously reluctant to apportion blame for the crisis facing Labour, but when pressed, he acknowledges, “There are Trots that have come back to the party, and they certainly don’t have the best interests of the Labour party at heart. They see the Labour party as a vehicle for revolutionary socialism, and they’re not remotely interested in winning elections, and that’s a problem. But I don’t think the vast majority of people that have joined the Labour party and have been mobilised by the people that are in Momentum are all Trots and Bolsheviks.
“Some months ago, I described Momentum as ‘a bit of a rabble’, and although leading lights in Momentum privately acknowledged to me that they were a bit of a rabble, it caused great offence to everyone that had signed up to Momentum. Some of these people are deeply interested in political change, in building a more equal society, and are just on a journey in politics that they’re new to, and I don’t want them to feel that I’m labelling them because I’m not. But there are some old hands twisting young arms in this process, and I’m under no illusions about what’s going on. They are caucusing and factionalising and putting pressure where they can, and that’s how Trotsky entryists operate. Sooner or later, that always end up in disaster. It always ends up destroying the institutions that are vulnerable, unless you deal with it.”
What can Watson say to Guardian readers angry with him for betraying the mandate party members invested in him to serve as a loyal deputy to the leader they elected? By asking Corbyn to stand down, didn’t Watson serve the will of self-important MPs instead?
“I don’t think many Guardian readers would think that. I hope most Guardian readers would have a modicum of sympathy for the situation I find myself in. I don’t want us to be here. I don’t want us to be in this position. I didn’t want Hilary to be sacked. I didn’t want there to be a whole set of resignations. I didn’t want us to be 16 points behind in the polls. I didn’t want any of this. I’m not in control of events, but I’m doing what I can.”
He is adamant that the party will not split in the event of Corbyn’s re-election. “I don’t know of any MPs who think the party should split, and frankly I think the claim that there’s a plan out there to split the party is propaganda which actually undermines a lot of people in the PLP. Every single person I talk to on the left and right of the party thinks this is a bad idea. I’ve not had anyone muse with me about it. I’ve not had anyone gossip with me about it. I’ve not heard anyone raising it as an issue.”
Watson remains in contact with Corbyn, though it sounds rather semi-detached. “We still send the odd text to each other. It’s usually about family stuff, you know. My dad’s ill, and he’s always asking about my dad. My dad’s a big supporter of Jeremy. It’s a sort of chat really.”
Such is Watson’s reputation as master of dark arts, some observers have speculated that behind the careful facade of neutrality he is issuing coded messages via his Twitter feed. In recent weeks, it has become increasingly eccentric, featuring links to months’ old articles, such as one headlined: “Why Bad Ideas Refuse to Die.”
Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson has been accused of "peddling baseless conspiracy theories" by Jeremy Corbyn's leadership campaign.
It came after Mr Watson told the Guardian Labour was being infiltrated by "Trotsky entryists" who had "come back" to bolster Mr Corbyn.
Mr Corbyn's campaign team said he should be trying to "unite" the party, rather than "patronising" members.
The Labour leader is embroiled in a contest with challenger Owen Smith.
Former Labour leader Ed Miliband earlier announced he is supporting Mr Smith in the leadership contest, the outcome of which is due on 24 September.
Labour to appeal against voting rights ruling
Guide to the Labour leadership contest
Corbyn supporters elected to Labour's NEC
There has been Labour in-fighting over the massive influx of new members that have signed up to the party since Mr Corbyn became leader last September, under new rules introduced by Mr Miliband.
'Disaster'
Mr Corbyn's supporters have repeatedly faced claims by "moderate" Labour MPs - always firmly denied - that they are attempting to take over the party and transform it into a revolutionary socialist movement, in the way that the secretive Militant faction tried to do in the 1980s.
Momentum - the grassroots network that supports Mr Corbyn - insists they are trying to democratise the party's structures and give ordinary members more of a say.
Ed MilibandImage copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
Ed Miliband said Owen Smith was the candidate best placed to rise to the challenge of Brexit and unite the party
Mr Watson said he did not believe that the "vast majority" of Labour members that have joined the party are "all Trots and Bolsheviks".
But he added: "But there are some old hands twisting young arms in this (leadership) process, and I'm under no illusions about what's going on.
"They are caucusing and factionalising and putting pressure where they can, and that's how Trotsky entryists operate."
"Sooner or later", he added, "that always ends up in disaster. It always ends up destroying the institutions that are vulnerable, unless you deal with it."
Mr Watson said the "Trots" did not have the party's "best interests at heart", but saw it as a "vehicle for revolutionary socialism" and were "not remotely interested in winning elections".
'Patronising'
A spokesperson for the Jeremy for Labour campaign said Mr Watson's remarks were "disappointing" and that Labour members wanted a "politics of hope" rather than "Project Fear".
"Rather than patronising members and peddling baseless conspiracy theories about 'Trotsky entryists', he should be working with Jeremy to unite our party so that we can get back to campaigning to dislodge this Tory government, and help elect a Labour government in its place," the spokesperson added.
In a further signs of the deepening rift in the party, Mr Watson also revealed in the interview that he now has little contact or communication with Mr Corbyn, bar the "odd text" - mainly about "family stuff".
He has called for Labour to replace the "one member one vote" system in Labour leadership elections with the old electoral college system - which gave a block vote to MPs, unions and members. He also wants MPs - not the party leader - to choose who to sit in the shadow cabinet.
'Desire for change'
Meanwhile, six supporters of Mr Corbyn won a clean sweep in elections to the party's ruling National Executive Committee on Monday, giving the Labour leader a majority on the body.
All six places in the section voted for by constituency parties went to members of pro-Corbyn group, Momentum, in what is being seen as a boost for the Labour leader. But these NEC elections have no bearing on the leadership contest itself.
Blairite group Progress and Labour First, which represents "moderate" Labour members, did not get their candidates elected in the section but Labour First saw two of its candidates elected in the local government section.
A spokesman for Mr Corbyn's leadership campaign said the results showed "a desire for real and genuine change in our party".
The NEC consists of the Labour leader, deputy leader, frontbenchers, trade union representatives, constituency party representatives, councillors and members of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
It is the body that governs the Labour Party, but its relationship with the leadership has been under strain in recent months.
The NEC's Procedures Committee is to appeal a High Court ruling giving recent members a vote in its leadership contest between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith - a decision which has been attacked by Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell and other allies of Mr Corbyn.
Pistols at Dawn wrote: What exactly is keeping Mr Watson in his position? If he's not even on talking terms with Corbyn, how can he be expected to fulfil his duties?
Nobody in the Labour party are fulfilling their duties right now...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/09 17:31:26
Pistols at Dawn wrote: What exactly is keeping Mr Watson in his position? If he's not even on talking terms with Corbyn, how can he be expected to fulfil his duties?
Nobody in the Labour party are fulfilling their duties right now...
I freely admit to being biased on this, but the SNP should be given the official title of her majesty's opposition. They're the only UK party that seems to know what they're doing and where they're going.
Labour are a shambles, UKIP are a shambles, the Lib Dems are struggling to fill a phone box, and the greens are just as bad...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Pistols at Dawn wrote: What exactly is keeping Mr Watson in his position? If he's not even on talking terms with Corbyn, how can he be expected to fulfil his duties?
Who else is there? And at the risk of sounding like the neo lib, fascist. media baron$ - am I doing that right? - you can flip that same question, and it has been. If Jeremy is not on speaking terms with members of his cabinet how can he fulfil his duties?
Pistols at Dawn wrote: What exactly is keeping Mr Watson in his position? If he's not even on talking terms with Corbyn, how can he be expected to fulfil his duties?
Nobody in the Labour party are fulfilling their duties right now...
I freely admit to being biased on this, but the SNP should be given the official title of her majesty's opposition. They're the only UK party that seems to know what they're doing and where they're going.
Labour are a shambles, UKIP are a shambles, the Lib Dems are struggling to fill a phone box, and the greens are just as bad...
I could get behind that. Even though I disagree. I know what the policy positions of the SNP are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/09 17:51:26
Pistols at Dawn wrote: What exactly is keeping Mr Watson in his position? If he's not even on talking terms with Corbyn, how can he be expected to fulfil his duties?
Nobody in the Labour party are fulfilling their duties right now...
I freely admit to being biased on this, but the SNP should be given the official title of her majesty's opposition. They're the only UK party that seems to know what they're doing and where they're going.
Labour are a shambles, UKIP are a shambles, the Lib Dems are struggling to fill a phone box, and the greens are just as bad...
Funnily enough, I expect the Lib dems to make a comeback next election. They'll probably steal back one or two of their Scottish seats, and swallow up a good chunk of Labour's vote. Like many people, their stance on Europe was the only thing stopping me voting Lib Dem. If we've left Europe by the time the next election swings around, there's not really a problem in voting for them anymore.The funny thing is that they've actually got more MP's with actual government experience these days than Labour.
It would be sad to see Labour sink into third, but you know? I honestly think that young people in general these days are more natural Liberal voters than anything else. Labour's big problem is that it won it's class struggle. If my thoughts on the matter are even remotely accurate, than the lashback at Clegg will just be a blip as the Lib Dems rise again.
Legion: Dark Angels 
