Moreover, as an aside I have never heard him criticise Corbyn for assisting in the coverup of sexual abuse in Islington by members of the Labour Party - which Corbyn knew about, and did not care about.
We've discussed your confusion about this before, it was Margaret Hodge who was leader of the council which looked after the homes. Corbyn was the MP for the area and nothing to do with with the management of the them.
Or is this some kind of parody Tom Watson thing you are doing where you accuse your opponents without proof?
What was the name of the Labour Shadow Cabinet Minister who was interviewed under caution during Operation Midland?
I'm guessing you don't know. In fact, you might even be surprised to learn there was one. Apart from one report in the Independent - since purged from their website after they realised they might have accidentally given enough details to identify the suspect - there was no reporting of it.
Yet Watson must have known. He must have sat in the Shadow Cabinet with this person. And yet he seems curiously reticent about identifying them.
Moreover, as an aside I have never heard him criticise Corbyn for assisting in the coverup of sexual abuse in Islington by members of the Labour Party - which Corbyn knew about, and did not care about.
Your defence would possibly be valid if Watson was a fearless seeker after truth without favour. But he isn't. He was somebody looking to exploit what I can only describe as an appalling situation that nobody comes out of well for partisan advantage. That is disgusting and he deserves all our opprobrium.
I can only speak of the Beech investigation, of which I know a little. On that, I would cut Watson some slack.
On the other matters, I can't comment.
Watson is a not unintelligent man. It seems fairly clear form his interactions with Beech and the police that someone less determined to pursue an agenda might have been prompted seriously to question the way in which the investigation was being carried out.
I blame the police far more than him in the matter, but I don’t think him an entirely innocent victim of Beech’s fantasies and lies.
The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. .
Of course, there is the possibility that they discussed remedies so much because they suspected there isn't one they could accept decreeing. So why drag the Court into more controversy than necessary if nothing but propaganda is likely to result from ruling the issue is justiciable?
But the next General Election will NOT be about Brexit. This may seem incredible to those caught up in the Westminster political frenzy. But the election will be about domestic issues.
And that's precisely why Labour will do worse than the polls. Domestic issue no 1 for most people is that Corbyn's a tosser and that under his leadership no Labour policy can be trusted. The only people, apart from Leave Momentumites, who disagree are those LD activists still hurting from the damage they suffered from Labour in 2015 and 2017.
Block quotes are a nightmare, aren't they? You've managed to reference me without actually mentioning what I posted.
The government has done everything it can to lose its case before the Supreme Court. Will that effort be enough?
Yes, played a blinder. Huge odds against pulling off a defeat but it looks very possible.
I said before that anything but the triangulation - prorogation IS within legal scope and this particular one is NOT unlawful - would amaze me.
This is no longer true. It would now merely surprise me. It would cause me to lift perhaps 'a quarter of an eyebrow'.
If prorogation is within legal scope than how is it possible that this prorogation could be deemed legal.
The Government doesn't have a majority yet it continued with the prorogation and shut down parliament to stop parliament doing it's job (which may or may not have included a VONC against Boris).
What I can't see the Supreme court doing is suggesting a remedy that will be left for Parliament.
And it only seems fair that if Parliament controls when and how an election is called, it controls when a session can be prorogued and the next session begins.
No, that's unfair, JJ. I'm not mischievious or desperate. I give them the weight I think they merit.
I heard about them from a number of sources, including some friends whose views I trusted and still do. I didn't just buy what I was told, I asked my own questions and formed my own judgements, cautiously.
I was surprised when the case collapsed, and disappointed that it threw no light on the film and the dossier, amongst other things. If it had investiagated them and dismissed them as myths, I would have been totally happy. As it is, I just have to accept, as most reasonabe people would, that they may have existed but we will never know.
It's unsatisfactory, but it's about as much as one can say.
You trust your friends and their judgement. Fair enough. But do you know the basis on which they are forming their views? Do they have genuine inside information on the case, or are connected with it, or are they just at the same level you and I are?
A bit closer to the action than me, for sure, but even so I wouldn't just mindlessly buy in unless it made some sort of sense. At this point, I now have to shrug and say they appear to have been wrong. It's unusual and if I get the chance I'll enquire further but there's only so much you can ask.
In the end, I trust my own judgement and as it stands, I'm saying I'll accept the innocence of those involved but keep my mind open to some doubt because of the unsatisfactory nature of the inquiries.
And I will cut To Watson a bit of slack on this point because if I was misled, it was unntentional and done in good faith. The same may be true of him.
Dr. Foxy, a lot of that pessimism will be hard Remainers fearing leaving the EU *and* hard Leavers fearing we're going to leave in name only.
Probably so, and others very pessimmistic over the culture war and social division unleashed by both sides.
I note that Europeans are notably more pessimistic than other developed nations, Australians being notably optimistic, while middle income countries are generally more optimistic (Brazil, Argentina, Mexico) than their circumstances would suggest. South Africa is notably not a happy place.
Democracies also seem to be more pessimistic than autocratic states.
Moreover, as an aside I have never heard him criticise Corbyn for assisting in the coverup of sexual abuse in Islington by members of the Labour Party - which Corbyn knew about, and did not care about.
We've discussed your confusion about this before, it was Margaret Hodge who was leader of the council which looked after the homes. Corbyn was the MP for the area and nothing to do with with the management of the them.
Or is this some kind of parody Tom Watson thing you are doing where you accuse your opponents without proof?
I never said he was responsible for policing them. I said he was told what was happening and by doing nothing, assisted in the coverup. You may argue with complete justice there were limits to what he could do, but ultimately he accepted the word of Labour members - including Hodge - over that of Liz Davis and was therefore dragged into the coverup.
Again, I would have more sympathy with this - nobody comes out of this shambles well - if he hadn't promised to raise it with government and then broken his promise. Remember, this is a man who signs early day motions protesting at the closure of Aberystwyth Farmers' Market. A protest demanding an investigation in major allegations in his constituency ought to have been a matter of routine and might just have done some good.
No, that's unfair, JJ. I'm not mischievious or desperate. I give them the weight I think they merit.
I heard about them from a number of sources, including some friends whose views I trusted and still do. I didn't just buy what I was told, I asked my own questions and formed my own judgements, cautiously.
I was surprised when the case collapsed, and disappointed that it threw no light on the film and the dossier, amongst other things. If it had investiagated them and dismissed them as myths, I would have been totally happy. As it is, I just have to accept, as most reasonabe people would, that they may have existed but we will never know.
It's unsatisfactory, but it's about as much as one can say.
You trust your friends and their judgement. Fair enough. But do you know the basis on which they are forming their views? Do they have genuine inside information on the case, or are connected with it, or are they just at the same level you and I are?
A bit closer to the action than me, for sure, but even so I wouldn't just mindlessly buy in unless it made some sort of sense. At this point, I now have to shrug and say they appear to have been wrong. It's unusual and if I get the chance I'll enquire further but there's only so much you can ask.
In the end, I trust my own judgement and as it stands, I'm saying I'll accept the innocence of those involved but keep my mind open to some doubt because of the unsatisfactory nature of the inquiries.
And I will cut To Watson a bit of slack on this point because if I was misled, it was unntentional and done in good faith. The same may be true of him.
But the next General Election will NOT be about Brexit. This may seem incredible to those caught up in the Westminster political frenzy. But the election will be about domestic issues.
And that's precisely why Labour will do worse than the polls. Domestic issue no 1 for most people is that Corbyn's a tosser and that under his leadership no Labour policy can be trusted. The only people, apart from Leave Momentumites, who disagree are those LD activists still hurting from the damage they suffered from Labour in 2015 and 2017.
Block quotes are a nightmare, aren't they? You've managed to reference me without actually mentioning what I posted.
Sorry!!!!
You have to match the number of opening blockquotes (which contain the username) with closing blockquotes (/blockquote in brackets)
I've suggested bans before for people who consistently fail with them but no take up as yet...
Edit: Also if you are deleting username parts start with the last one and work your way back.
I should also add that if the Green Party weren't utter incompetent muppets, and appointed a single leader that actually pulled their finger out, they should be doing the speeches to crowds like that.
In the current climate, no pun intended, with the transactional nature of the electorate, they could rake the votes in and get polling up to 10-15%.
Instead, they have one leader I've never heard of - Jonathan Bartley, but he appears to spend just as much time being a drummer for his UK Blues band - and another Siân Berry who's less visible than Caroline Lucas.
They seem just as interested (if not more interested) in being absolutists about equality, pacifism and atheism than they are in fighting climate change.
Caroline Lucas also addressed the climate strikers yesterday. The difficulty for the Greens is that other parties have gone pretty green too. Green politics is now mainstream.
I think the Green Party remains suspicious of strong leaders. Too often that means autocrats controlled by shadowy advisors, as we see in a couple of other parties. Such power is intrinsically corrupting.
And, for as long as they prioritise such fatuous bullshit, they won’t go anywhere.
None of the major parties are offering to respond to ER with the policy response they are demanding. So there’s an open goal for the Greens there.
For a comparison with just how successful they could be look at how the Greens are performing in Germany at the moment.
In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.
I still don't believe this myself but I was in a very small minority. The overwhelming expectation is for the Court to find that this prorogation is both justiciable and wrongful.
Boris is going down David, you will have to accept it
A reverse of the more usual process where somebody goes down on Boris...
In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so.
I still don't believe this myself but I was in a very small minority. The overwhelming expectation is for the Court to find that this prorogation is both justiciable and wrongful.
Boris is going down David, you will have to accept it
A reverse of the more usual process where somebody goes down on Boris...
In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.
I still don't believe this myself but I was in a very small minority. The overwhelming expectation is for the Court to find that this prorogation is both justiciable and wrongful.
Boris is going down David, you will have to accept it
A reverse of the more usual process where somebody goes down on Boris...
The government has done everything it can to lose its case before the Supreme Court. Will that effort be enough?
Yes, played a blinder. Huge odds against pulling off a defeat but it looks very possible.
I said before that anything but the triangulation - prorogation IS within legal scope and this particular one is NOT unlawful - would amaze me.
This is no longer true. It would now merely surprise me. It would cause me to lift perhaps 'a quarter of an eyebrow'.
If prorogation is within legal scope than how is it possible that this prorogation could be deemed legal.
The Government doesn't have a majority yet it continued with the prorogation and shut down parliament to stop parliament doing it's job (which may or may not have included a VONC against Boris).
What I can't see the Supreme court doing is suggesting a remedy that will be left for Parliament.
And it only seems fair that if Parliament controls when and how an election is called, it controls when a session can be prorogued and the next session begins.
If I were threading the eye of that needle I would argue that the government was entitled to prorogue in any way and for any purpose it sought fit, provided it did not completely shut down democratic debate and Parliament’s ability meaningfully to hold it to account. Since Parliament could act, albeit with less time than before, the government may have behaved shabbily but it had not behaved unlawfully.
The government seeking to take the court for fools will not have helped it get the judges to conclude that, however.
Is there any evidence that the Queen did, in fact, raise a quarter of an eyebrow during the Sindy campaign?
Were you on the planet at the time, she spoke at Crathie church and said explicitly that Scotland should think carefully etc. She well and truly poked her nose in and they also issued crap about how she may not agree to be Queen of Scotland. Bunch of arseholes.
Edit: Also well done to Corbyn for managing to speak so close to a noisy crowd...
Jezza seems to manage a better public appearance than BoZo ever did.
Because it is asymmetric warfare by the Left. Only those on the Left get wired up with a hidden mic to harangue the PM in a hospital. Or travel to Luxembourg with loudhailers to drown him out. Or run around lobbing milkshakes.
Everybody else just thinks "wankers...." and gets on with letting Jeremy Corbyn be heard - and getting crushingly low personal polling by doing so.
Given overnight news, a question for Labour might be how many divisions Tom Watson has? If the move against him happens, what will the reaction within Labour be - especially the moderates.
(I'm guessing a collective shrug of the shoulders.)
Probably. The same is pretty much true of the Conservative reaction to slinging out various elder statesmen, or the American GOP reaction to Trump.
A lot of furious tweeting, I imagine.
Tory MPs seem to have had more courage. Quite a number of them have put their careers on the line.
Incidentally, why not call another deputy leader election if people are unhappy with Watson? Why the need to abolish the post?
I wonder about the psychology of the concerns about mass abuse - whether sexual, physical or mental. We point to whichever bogeyman we have - say Muslims, churches or politicians - and see some wrong 'uns amongst them. We tut, knowing that the chances of our kith and kin being victims of these groups are low.
Yet the vast majority of abuse occurs within family and friendship circles. When I was in my early twenties, within a short period three female friends told me they had been sexually abused by family members - and they were believable stories (and in one case, backed up by another family member (*)). AFAIAA none were reported to the police.
It's odd that we concentrate so much fire on these small groups of abusers, and yet we ignore the problems that are much more likely to afflict our immediate circle of associates.
In fact, we all probably know someone - male or female - who has suffered some form of abuse within the last year.
Yet the vast majority of people are not abusers, and would never dream of abusing others.
(As an example, in the case of domestic abuse, 7.9% of women (1.3 million) and 4.2% of men (695,000) experienced domestic abuse in the last year. The figures are truly hideous.)
(*) In this case, the abuser was still allowed within the family circle, despite having admitted the abuse. I was young, and with hindsight I could have encouraged her to go to the police - which she didn't want to do.
Dr. Foxy, a lot of that pessimism will be hard Remainers fearing leaving the EU *and* hard Leavers fearing we're going to leave in name only.
Probably so, and others very pessimmistic over the culture war and social division unleashed by both sides.
I note that Europeans are notably more pessimistic than other developed nations, Australians being notably optimistic, while middle income countries are generally more optimistic (Brazil, Argentina, Mexico) than their circumstances would suggest. South Africa is notably not a happy place.
Democracies also seem to be more pessimistic than autocratic states.
F1: had decided against this but lengthening odds tempted me. With boost you can get 10 on Bottas each way to 'win' qualifying (fifth the odds top three). He was second fastest in Monaco qualifying, so he's got a good shot here.
I've also put tiny sums on Sainz and Hulkenberg at 1301 to top qualifying in case it's wet (Sainz also for the win on the same basis and odds) and a little on Bottas at 12 for the win (not stacked up because if he fails at qualifying it'll be double red).
Moreover, as an aside I have never heard him criticise Corbyn for assisting in the coverup of sexual abuse in Islington by members of the Labour Party - which Corbyn knew about, and did not care about.
We've discussed your confusion about this before, it was Margaret Hodge who was leader of the council which looked after the homes. Corbyn was the MP for the area and nothing to do with with the management of the them.
Or is this some kind of parody Tom Watson thing you are doing where you accuse your opponents without proof?
You are correct that it is Margaret Hodge who should be castigated about what went on in Islington’s childrens homes while she was Leader of the Council.
I believe that a separate allegation was made that Corbyn as the local MP was told about some of the allegations but did not pursue them or raise them. I don’t know whether that is true or whether he did raise and accepted the answers he was given . But he was not responsible for the management of the homes. Hodge deserves a whole heap of criticism for her behaviour not just while the abuse was going on but for the way she libelled one of the survivors afterwards and had to publicly apologise to him.
The government has done everything it can to lose its case before the Supreme Court. Will that effort be enough?
Yes, played a blinder. Huge odds against pulling off a defeat but it looks very possible.
I said before that anything but the triangulation - prorogation IS within legal scope and this particular one is NOT unlawful - would amaze me.
This is no longer true. It would now merely surprise me. It would cause me to lift perhaps 'a quarter of an eyebrow'.
If prorogation is within legal scope than how is it possible that this prorogation could be deemed legal.
The Government doesn't have a majority yet it continued with the prorogation and shut down parliament to stop parliament doing it's job (which may or may not have included a VONC against Boris).
What I can't see the Supreme court doing is suggesting a remedy that will be left for Parliament.
And it only seems fair that if Parliament controls when and how an election is called, it controls when a session can be prorogued and the next session begins.
If I were threading the eye of that needle I would argue that the government was entitled to prorogue in any way and for any purpose it sought fit, provided it did not completely shut down democratic debate and Parliament’s ability meaningfully to hold it to account. Since Parliament could act, albeit with less time than before, the government may have behaved shabbily but it had not behaved unlawfully.
The government seeking to take the court for fools will not have helped it get the judges to conclude that, however.
Johnson's laziness generally attracts less attention than his recklessness and mendacity. I suspect here the problem was his not being bothered to ensure that a proper defence was mounted.
The one thing guaranteed to make Labour even more of a laughing stock than getting rid of Tom Watson now would be not to do it. If Jeremy’s cacked his pants, he’s not going to be forgiven by the Stalinists who went to bed to dream sweet dreams of purge.
You need to calm down comrade.
You can argue timing not good for this sort of thing, just before a GE not just after, you can argue motivation to some degree based on outspoken off message of the post holder, but surely you CANNOT defend the existence of such outdated, unnecessary and asking for trouble anachronism as an elected deputy leader post, the other parties also had before they got sensible and modernised?
Given overnight news, a question for Labour might be how many divisions Tom Watson has? If the move against him happens, what will the reaction within Labour be - especially the moderates.
(I'm guessing a collective shrug of the shoulders.)
Probably. The same is pretty much true of the Conservative reaction to slinging out various elder statesmen, or the American GOP reaction to Trump.
A lot of furious tweeting, I imagine.
Tory MPs seem to have had more courage. Quite a number of them have put their careers on the line.
Incidentally, why not call another deputy leader election if people are unhappy with Watson? Why the need to abolish the post?
My understanding is only the MPs could make a deputy leadership contest happen, similarly to how they did a leadership one in 2016 I guess. Members can't make a deputy leadership competition happen, neither can any other group AFAIK.
Also I did mention earlier but Labour seem to have contests of ridiculous length, the 2016 one went on for months. If we actually had a contest we'd probably be weeks the other side of a general election by the time someone was chosen. That and the position doesn't actually seem to consist of much useful/helpful for the last few years TBH.
I have to go now - busy day - but will be happy to take this matter up with you again later.
I don't think we're so far apart. All I am saying is that in this case, keep a little bit of doubt open in your mind and maybe don't buy wholly into the fashionable narrative. Watson may have had his reasons and these may have been unspeakable.
Of course he may have been completely wrong too, and so may I, but I don't think he's a ****.
In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.
I still don't believe this myself but I was in a very small minority. The overwhelming expectation is for the Court to find that this prorogation is both justiciable and wrongful.
I will be happy as long as they say the matter is justiciable. If they fail to do that I would be very shocked. However in terms lawful v unlawful I still think it’s impossible to forecast regardless of the time the judges spent on remedy.
I think that regardless there will be a plea to Parliament to make sure that this doesn’t happen again by legislating. It is one of the many ironies that one of the government’s best points turned out to be Benn’s Act which showed that Parliament could have stopped this if they really wanted to. A single clause in his bill and prorogation could have been revoked.
I don't think I've come across that last bit before. That makes the scenario of passive denial a bit less convincing.
That said as noted upthread Geoffrey Dickens was, to put it mildly, highly eccentric and that was why nobody listened to him. You can understand why Corbyn would be miffed at interfering in his constituency. But it's a bit unfortunate that Corbyn effectively called him a liar when he was telling the truth.
I totally agree with you incidentally that Hodge is the one who bears the most direct responsibility, but just because her record is worse doesn't give Corbyn a hospital pass.
I should also add that if the Green Party weren't utter incompetent muppets, and appointed a single leader that actually pulled their finger out, they should be doing the speeches to crowds like that.
In the current climate, no pun intended, with the transactional nature of the electorate, they could rake the votes in and get polling up to 10-15%.
Instead, they have one leader I've never heard of - Jonathan Bartley, but he appears to spend just as much time being a drummer for his UK Blues band - and another Siân Berry who's less visible than Caroline Lucas.
They seem just as interested (if not more interested) in being absolutists about equality, pacifism and atheism than they are in fighting climate change.
Caroline Lucas also addressed the climate strikers yesterday. The difficulty for the Greens is that other parties have gone pretty green too. Green politics is now mainstream.
I think the Green Party remains suspicious of strong leaders. Too often that means autocrats controlled by shadowy advisors, as we see in a couple of other parties. Such power is intrinsically corrupting.
And, for as long as they prioritise such fatuous bullshit, they won’t go anywhere.
None of the major parties are offering to respond to ER with the policy response they are demanding. So there’s an open goal for the Greens there.
For a comparison with just how successful they could be look at how the Greens are performing in Germany at the moment.
Green politics have very deep roots in Germany. The culture of back to nature was evident in the German Romantic movement centuries ago, and also was one of the curious features of Nazism. Curious in such a successful industrial economy.
I see British Greens as very grass roots orientated and intrinsically congregationalist rather than episcopelian. I think that they are in many ways an effective pressure group, tugging the Overton window in the direction of environmentalism, and broadly happy with that. Like UKIP, they can have important influence that way in the absence of political power.
Given overnight news, a question for Labour might be how many divisions Tom Watson has? If the move against him happens, what will the reaction within Labour be - especially the moderates.
(I'm guessing a collective shrug of the shoulders.)
Probably. The same is pretty much true of the Conservative reaction to slinging out various elder statesmen, or the American GOP reaction to Trump.
A lot of furious tweeting, I imagine.
Tory MPs seem to have had more courage. Quite a number of them have put their careers on the line.
Incidentally, why not call another deputy leader election if people are unhappy with Watson? Why the need to abolish the post?
My understanding is only the MPs could make a deputy leadership contest happen, similarly to how they did a leadership one in 2016 I guess. Members can't make a deputy leadership competition happen, neither can any other group AFAIK.
Also I did mention earlier but Labour seem to have contests of ridiculous length, the 2016 one went on for months. If we actually had a contest we'd probably be weeks the other side of a general election by the time someone was chosen. That and the position doesn't actually seem to consist of much useful/helpful for the last few years TBH.
Thank you for the answer. So the NEC could presumably ask for a contest and determine its speed. That would seem to be the sensible thing to do if you felt that the current incumbent was not up to the job.
I should also add that if the Green Party weren't utter incompetent muppets, and appointed a single leader that actually pulled their finger out, they should be doing the speeches to crowds like that.
In the current climate, no pun intended, with the transactional nature of the electorate, they could rake the votes in and get polling up to 10-15%.
Instead, they have one leader I've never heard of - Jonathan Bartley, but he appears to spend just as much time being a drummer for his UK Blues band - and another Siân Berry who's less visible than Caroline Lucas.
They seem just as interested (if not more interested) in being absolutists about equality, pacifism and atheism than they are in fighting climate change.
Caroline Lucas also addressed the climate strikers yesterday. The difficulty for the Greens is that other parties have gone pretty green too. Green politics is now mainstream.
I think the Green Party remains suspicious of strong leaders. Too often that means autocrats controlled by shadowy advisors, as we see in a couple of other parties. Such power is intrinsically corrupting.
And, for as long as they prioritise such fatuous bullshit, they won’t go anywhere.
None of the major parties are offering to respond to ER with the policy response they are demanding. So there’s an open goal for the Greens there.
For a comparison with just how successful they could be look at how the Greens are performing in Germany at the moment.
Our Greens will never be that successful, because the German Greens are a grown-up centre-left party who have demonstrated to a lot of voters that they can be trusted with the levers of power, whereas our Greens are just a loopy far-left protest group. A red-green Labour, minus Corbyn and anti-semitism to be sure, but also without the vast legions of safe seats and robot voters and in possession of an even more ruinous economic policy. They're essentially irrelevant.
On topic, Labour *might* have a horrible General Election, but sadly they're not going to get wiped out however bad the likely outcome. The disproportionate concentration of Labour robot votes in low turnout urban seats with North Korean majorities means that they could go down to 20% and still come out the other side with 200 MPs. England is not going the way of Scotland: I'm afraid that we're all stuck with the Red Death.
Moreover, as an aside I have never heard him criticise Corbyn for assisting in the coverup of sexual abuse in Islington by members of the Labour Party - which Corbyn knew about, and did not care about.
We've discussed your confusion about this before, it was Margaret Hodge who was leader of the council which looked after the homes. Corbyn was the MP for the area and nothing to do with with the management of the them.
Or is this some kind of parody Tom Watson thing you are doing where you accuse your opponents without proof?
You are correct that it is Margaret Hodge who should be castigated about what went on in Islington’s childrens homes while she was Leader of the Council.
I believe that a separate allegation was made that Corbyn as the local MP was told about some of the allegations but did not pursue them or raise them. I don’t know whether that is true or whether he did raise and accepted the answers he was given . But he was not responsible for the management of the homes. Hodge deserves a whole heap of criticism for her behaviour not just while the abuse was going on but for the way she libelled one of the survivors afterwards and had to publicly apologise to him.
The only thing I remember reading (sometime ago so a little hazy on exact wording and no clue on the validity of source) is someone said they said something to Corbyn (or someone said that somebody said something to Corbyn) and (I don't think this was a direct quote with "") Corbyn passing this on to someone (pretty sure the police)
I don't like Tom Watson politically but the much criticised Tom Watson approach would have been better in that situation rather than just leaving it to the police.
I'd be pretty disgusted if I was the victim of an incompetent and tendentious investigation.
I'd like to know what happened to the snuff film, and the dossier prepared by a now-deceased Tory MP. If they were mythical, and there was no other incriminating evidence, I'd like to know why the police were unable to establish as much without slurring the names of many public figures.
Not an unreasonable wish, is it?
My goodness, you are digging yourself deeper into a stinking midden.
Proving a negative -that something doesn't exist - is rather difficult. It's even harder to prove that something *never* existed. And then you add in the political aspect, where people will use such slurs and rumours to their advantage.
Again, I refer you to the McApline mess. A man had his name sullied for decades just because he shared a name with an abuser. Political opponents made use of it, even though it was all utter crud. His name was only cleared when the media did a terrible job and repeated the rumours publicly.
Such crimes are hideous, and anyone committing them - from whatever party or background - should rot in the deepest pits of Hell. But likewise, that means that accusing someone of them should also be done cautiously, especially when you aren't involved - and especially when there may be nasty political motivations for the slurs.
Again, I ask how the people you know are so certain there is truth behind the rumours?
They are not certain, and neither am I. If any of us had the
I am sure some innocent people were unfairly slurred, and that is wrong, but they were not defenceless, vulnerable people and they were able to obtain redress where it was due. Had the police investigations been conducted properly, the damage would have been far less, and probably negligible.
I don't ask you to believe that Watson's suspicions were justified, nor mine. All I ask is that like me you keep an open mind. The investigation folded. Those accused are innocent, and will remain so until proved otherwise. Those that had concerns were let down by the investigations, as were the victims of the suspicion.
I think that's reasonable enough.
Did the allegations pre date Beech coming forward?
I think they did, and Beech just exploited the rumours. A lot of us expressed surprise at the time that the Police were taking it so seriously.
I suspect there were historic nonces in politics, though not the ones named. I have a lot of scepticism about the level of evidence in these cases though. Nearly impossible to be reliable either way.
The Nonce-finder General didn't seem to have much interest in finding Cyril Smith. Wrong politics?
It bodes well for getting the Spartans rebels down to low double figures or less.
It also shows just how little they understood the original WA and how it was mainly about political optics.
Or what a f******* bunch of idiots they truly are.
That too.
Definitely that.
I expect that there will almost certainly still be a backstop as well, as it is what kicks in when everything else to deal with border issues has failed. It's prominence may diminish but I think it will still be there.
I should also add that if the Green Party weren't utter incompetent muppets, and appointed a single leader that actually pulled their finger out, they should be doing the speeches to crowds like that.
In the current climate, no pun intended, with the transactional nature of the electorate, they could rake the votes in and get polling up to 10-15%.
Instead, they have one leader I've never heard of - Jonathan Bartley, but he appears to spend just as much time being a drummer for his UK Blues band - and another Siân Berry who's less visible than Caroline Lucas.
They seem just as interested (if not more interested) in being absolutists about equality, pacifism and atheism than they are in fighting climate change.
Caroline Lucas also addressed the climate strikers yesterday. The difficulty for the Greens is that other parties have gone pretty green too. Green politics is now mainstream.
I think the Green Party remains suspicious of strong leaders. Too often that means autocrats controlled by shadowy advisors, as we see in a couple of other parties. Such power is intrinsically corrupting.
And, for as long as they prioritise such fatuous bullshit, they won’t go anywhere.
None of the major parties are offering to respond to ER with the policy response they are demanding. So there’s an open goal for the Greens there.
For a comparison with just how successful they could be look at how the Greens are performing in Germany at the moment.
Green politics have very deep roots in Germany. The culture of back to nature was evident in the German Romantic movement centuries ago, and also was one of the curious features of Nazism. Curious in such a successful industrial economy.
I see British Greens as very grass roots orientated and intrinsically conversationalist rather than episcopelian. I think that they are in many ways an effective pressure group, tugging the Overton window in the direction of environmentalism, and broadly happy with that. Like UKIP, they can have important influence that way in the absence of political power.
There was a big pastoral movement in Germany in the 1920s, whose name I unfortunately forget. It always struck me as ironic that there were a group of people who wanted to adopt by choice what first the Allies at Versailles and later the Soviets considered imposing by force.
I don't think I've come across that last bit before. That makes the scenario of passive denial a bit less convincing.
That said as noted upthread Geoffrey Dickens was, to put it mildly, highly eccentric and that was why nobody listened to him. You can understand why Corbyn would be miffed at interfering in his constituency. But it's a bit unfortunate that Corbyn effectively called him a liar when he was telling the truth.
I totally agree with you incidentally that Hodge is the one who bears the most direct responsibility, but just because her record is worse doesn't give Corbyn a hospital pass.
I agree on the last point but he was probably no worse than a lot of others who were told about child abuse problems eg in Rotherham or elsewhere and who did nothing or the bare minimum. Remember Ann Cryer who did raise publicly the issue of grooming of younger age girls. Chris Mullins diaries for the time record him saying that they knew that she was right but that other MPs simply did not want to put their heads above the parapet on this toxic issue.
If Labour did a complete car crash then only the Lib Dems can wipe up the mess. Were they to be in a very clear second place the weekend before an election they would probably be the leading party in votes.
I should also add that if the Green Party weren't utter incompetent muppets, and appointed a single leader that actually pulled their finger out, they should be doing the speeches to crowds like that.
In the current climate, no pun intended, with the transactional nature of the electorate, they could rake the votes in and get polling up to 10-15%.
Instead, they have one leader I've never heard of - Jonathan Bartley, but he appears to spend just as much time being a drummer for his UK Blues band - and another Siân Berry who's less visible than Caroline Lucas.
They seem just as interested (if not more interested) in being absolutists about equality, pacifism and atheism than they are in fighting climate change.
Caroline Lucas also addressed the climate strikers yesterday. The difficulty for the Greens is that other parties have gone pretty green too. Green politics is now mainstream.
I think the Green Party remains suspicious of strong leaders. Too often that means autocrats controlled by shadowy advisors, as we see in a couple of other parties. Such power is intrinsically corrupting.
And, for as long as they prioritise such fatuous bullshit, they won’t go anywhere.
None of the major parties are offering to respond to ER with the policy response they are demanding. So there’s an open goal for the Greens there.
For a comparison with just how successful they could be look at how the Greens are performing in Germany at the moment.
Green politics have very deep roots in Germany. The culture of back to nature was evident in the German Romantic movement centuries ago, and also was one of the curious features of Nazism. Curious in such a successful industrial economy.
I see British Greens as very grass roots orientated and intrinsically congregationalist rather than episcopelian. I think that they are in many ways an effective pressure group, tugging the Overton window in the direction of environmentalism, and broadly happy with that. Like UKIP, they can have important influence that way in the absence of political power.
That’s rather erudite and I agree that’s largely reflective of the current situation but it’s still apologising for their lack of leadership.
If a 15 year old Swede can show global leadership then so can anyone.
I have to go now - busy day - but will be happy to take this matter up with you again later.
I don't think we're so far apart. All I am saying is that in this case, keep a little bit of doubt open in your mind and maybe don't buy wholly into the fashionable narrative. Watson may have had his reasons and these may have been unspeakable.
Of course he may have been completely wrong too, and so may I, but I don't think he's a ****.
And nor am I !
Atb
PtP
I do have some doubt in my mind. However, if you look at what we know for sure, then we see a fantasist who created a mess (or used existing stories), and journalists and a couple of MPs who used their power and that fantasist to attack others. Everything else is just scuttlebutt and rumour.
Have a good day. I'm also rather busy, entertaining the little 'un on what looks like the only dry day of the week ...
I should also add that if the Green Party weren't utter incompetent muppets, and appointed a single leader that actually pulled their finger out, they should be doing the speeches to crowds like that.
In the current climate, no pun intended, with the transactional nature of the electorate, they could rake the votes in and get polling up to 10-15%.
Instead, they have one leader I've never heard of - Jonathan Bartley, but he appears to spend just as much time being a drummer for his UK Blues band - and another Siân Berry who's less visible than Caroline Lucas.
They seem just as interested (if not more interested) in being absolutists about equality, pacifism and atheism than they are in fighting climate change.
Caroline Lucas also addressed the climate strikers yesterday. The difficulty for the Greens is that other parties have gone pretty green too. Green politics is now mainstream.
I think the Green Party remains suspicious of strong leaders. Too often that means autocrats controlled by shadowy advisors, as we see in a couple of other parties. Such power is intrinsically corrupting.
And, for as long as they prioritise such fatuous bullshit, they won’t go anywhere.
None of the major parties are offering to respond to ER with the policy response they are demanding. So there’s an open goal for the Greens there.
For a comparison with just how successful they could be look at how the Greens are performing in Germany at the moment.
Our Greens will never be that successful, because the German Greens are a grown-up centre-left party who have demonstrated to a lot of voters that they can be trusted with the levers of power, whereas our Greens are just a loopy far-left protest group. A red-green Labour, minus Corbyn and anti-semitism to be sure, but also without the vast legions of safe seats and robot voters and in possession of an even more ruinous economic policy. They're essentially irrelevant.
On topic, Labour *might* have a horrible General Election, but sadly they're not going to get wiped out however bad the likely outcome. The disproportionate concentration of Labour robot votes in low turnout urban seats with North Korean majorities means that they could go down to 20% and still come out the other side with 200 MPs. England is not going the way of Scotland: I'm afraid that we're all stuck with the Red Death.
All that, but they could pick up 5-6 seats if they were really organised.
That would make a difference in Parliament and to the nation’s politics.
Also, I might make a tidy sum or two from a couple of bets.
Moreover, as an aside I have never heard him criticise Corbyn for assisting in the coverup of sexual abuse in Islington by members of the Labour Party - which Corbyn knew about, and did not care about.
We've discussed your confusion about this before, it was Margaret Hodge who was leader of the council which looked after the homes. Corbyn was the MP for the area and nothing to do with with the management of the them.
Or is this some kind of parody Tom Watson thing you are doing where you accuse your opponents without proof?
You are correct that it is Margaret Hodge who should be castigated about what went on in Islington’s childrens homes while she was Leader of the Council.
I believe that a separate allegation was made that Corbyn as the local MP was told about some of the allegations but did not pursue them or raise them. I don’t know whether that is true or whether he did raise and accepted the answers he was given . But he was not responsible for the management of the homes. Hodge deserves a whole heap of criticism for her behaviour not just while the abuse was going on but for the way she libelled one of the survivors afterwards and had to publicly apologise to him.
The only thing I remember reading (sometime ago so a little hazy on exact wording and no clue on the validity of source) is someone said they said something to Corbyn (or someone said that somebody said something to Corbyn) and (I don't think this was a direct quote with "") Corbyn passing this on to someone (pretty sure the police)
I don't like Tom Watson politically but the much criticised Tom Watson approach would have been better in that situation rather than just leaving it to the police.
It was a social worker who raised the allegations with Corbyn. Just as it was a youth worker in Rotherham who raised a similar issue in Rotherham. Lots of people were aware of allegations. Very few did anything and those who spoke up were generally ignored or dismissed.
The Watson approach was utterly wrong and disastrous. The police behaved in an appallingly incompetent way. Will the right lessons have been learned? I doubt it.
I don't think I've come across that last bit before. That makes the scenario of passive denial a bit less convincing.
That said as noted upthread Geoffrey Dickens was, to put it mildly, highly eccentric and that was why nobody listened to him. You can understand why Corbyn would be miffed at interfering in his constituency. But it's a bit unfortunate that Corbyn effectively called him a liar when he was telling the truth.
I totally agree with you incidentally that Hodge is the one who bears the most direct responsibility, but just because her record is worse doesn't give Corbyn a hospital pass.
I agree on the last point but he was probably no worse than a lot of others who were told about child abuse problems eg in Rotherham or elsewhere and who did nothing or the bare minimum. (Snip)
Or the Catholic Church. Or the Church of England - etc, etc. Different problems, similar root causes.
This story sadly hasn't been more widely discussed:
She was asked to comment on the situation with Tom Watson and she wouldn't. She kept repeating herself about her own motion and wouldn't comment about Momentum proposing the abolition of Tom Watson. It didnt help to diffuse anything.
I don't think I've come across that last bit before. That makes the scenario of passive denial a bit less convincing.
That said as noted upthread Geoffrey Dickens was, to put it mildly, highly eccentric and that was why nobody listened to him. You can understand why Corbyn would be miffed at interfering in his constituency. But it's a bit unfortunate that Corbyn effectively called him a liar when he was telling the truth.
I totally agree with you incidentally that Hodge is the one who bears the most direct responsibility, but just because her record is worse doesn't give Corbyn a hospital pass.
I agree on the last point but he was probably no worse than a lot of others who were told about child abuse problems eg in Rotherham or elsewhere and who did nothing or the bare minimum. Remember Ann Cryer who did raise publicly the issue of grooming of younger age girls. Chris Mullins diaries for the time record him saying that they knew that she was right but that other MPs simply did not want to put their heads above the parapet on this toxic issue.
Cowardice is a pretty common trait.
In a sense, this is all tangential to my original point - that those praising or perhaps, excusing Watson for his anti-paedophile campaigns are overlooking the fact he was entirely partisan about them. Looked at with a cold eye, he was using it as a stick to beat the Tories with and therefore the fact he was also exposed as having uncritically swallowed a pack of lies means he deserves no sympathy.
Nobody comes out of decades of silence over child sexual exploitation well. David Steele, for example, has a record at least comparable to and arguably rather worse than that of Corbyn. But there are those who seem to think Corbyn did nothing wrong. I can't accept that. At best, he showed an appalling lack of judgement. At worst, he could be bracketed with Hodge. The likeliest scenario is somewhere in between.
It's true labour cannot rely on a miracle every time and theres no guarantee they can recover from a bad position again.
But BoJo is not the campaigning wizard he is purported to be, labour retain the advantages of being the only realistic non tory choice in hundreds of seats and most critically they are hoping like hell Farage comes to their rescue and stands candidates which hurt the tories the most when we extend rather than brexit.
It's not easy and they are complacent about it, but it's not hopeless
I should also add that if the Green Party weren't utter incompetent muppets, and appointed a single leader that actually pulled their finger out, they should be doing the speeches to crowds like that.
In the current climate, no pun intended, with the transactional nature of the electorate, they could rake the votes in and get polling up to 10-15%.
Instead, they have one leader I've never heard of - Jonathan Bartley, but he appears to spend just as much time being a drummer for his UK Blues band as he does in politics - and another Siân Berry who's less visible than Caroline Lucas.
They seem just as interested (if not more interested) in being absolutists about equality, pacifism and atheism than they are in fighting climate change, and are largely absent from the stage.
I used to be friends with Sian Berry at college. A few years after we left, would have been 2003, there was an election for Chancellor after the death of Roy Jenkins and I sent an email round to us alumni living in North London at the time suggesting we went up to vote and have a day out in Oxford, get pissed, go punting etc. She replied that she didn’t vote in elections that didn’t effect her on principle. I said that maybe if there was a candidate that was opposed to tuition fees (all of us being that way inclined) she could vote for that - or even stand (she had quite recently got involved with the Greens IIRC) and raise her profile. An argument somehow started. She said I was a massive elitist and “obsessed” with the election. I took massive offence. We haven’t spoken since.
You must be mistaken. Dawn Butler is like a female Barack Obama. I'm sure I read that on Wikipedia, so it must be true.
Probably an ideal candidate for Corbyn's successor, should Labour manage to perform badly enough in the next election to permit Johnson to get over the finishing line.
Then, when Labour polls even worse at the election after that, the Far Left has a ready-made excuse for failure. Their policies were good - it's just that the electorate were too misogynist and racist to vote for a black woman as PM. Damn 'em.
She was asked to comment on the situation with Tom Watson and she wouldn't. She kept repeating herself about her own motion and wouldn't comment about Momentum proposing the abolition of Tom Watson. It didnt help to diffuse anything.
Thanks. It sounds as though she overplayed her motion and ended up in the shit.
I should also add that if the Green Party weren't utter incompetent muppets, and appointed a single leader that actually pulled their finger out, they should be doing the speeches to crowds like that.
In the current climate, no pun intended, with the transactional nature of the electorate, they could rake the votes in and get polling up to 10-15%.
Instead, they have one leader I've never heard of - Jonathan Bartley, but he appears to spend just as much time being a drummer for his UK Blues band - and another Siân Berry who's less visible than Caroline Lucas.
They seem just as interested (if not more interested) in being absolutists about equality, pacifism and atheism than they are in fighting climate change.
Caroline Lucas also addressed the climate strikers yesterday. The difficulty for the Greens is that other parties have gone pretty green too. Green politics is now mainstream.
I think the Green Party remains suspicious of strong leaders. Too often that means autocrats controlled by shadowy advisors, as we see in a couple of other parties. Such power is intrinsically corrupting.
And, for as long as they prioritise such fatuous bullshit, they won’t go anywhere.
None of the major parties are offering to respond to ER with the policy response they are demanding. So there’s an open goal for the Greens there.
For a comparison with just how successful they could be look at how the Greens are performing in Germany at the moment.
Green politics have very deep roots in Germany. The culture of back to nature was evident
There was a big pastoral movement in
I think it fair to say that Weimar Germany was a ferment of interesting ideas. Indeed Such was the proliferation of radicalism in art, design, performing arts and politics that it provoked a lot of support for the reactionaries wanting to suppress such ideas.
We have just passed the centenary of the Weimar Republic. Its first years were blighted by the great inflation, but it was soon looking really quite successful until the 1929 crash, mass unemployment and rise to power of Hitler. A really fork in the road, and how different Europe would be if the Nazis had remained an irritant rather than a government. Would we and other Europeans still have an Empire for example? A fascinating alternative history beckons.
Given overnight news, a question for Labour might be how many divisions Tom Watson has? If the move against him happens, what will the reaction within Labour be - especially the moderates.
(I'm guessing a collective shrug of the shoulders.)
Tweets.
At this time, against BoJo and with a GE imminent, theyd do more?
In sure Jess Phillip's has already mentioned how jolly cross she is for starters, such bravery no doubt.
If Labour did a complete car crash then only the Lib Dems can wipe up the mess. Were they to be in a very clear second place the weekend before an election they would probably be the leading party in votes.
If my granny had wheels she could have been a wheelbarrow
I think it fair to say that Weimar Germany was a ferment of interesting ideas. Indeed Such was the proliferation of radicalism in art, design, performing arts and politics that it provoked a lot of support for the reactionaries wanting to suppress such ideas.
We have just passed the centenary of the Weimar Republic. Its first years were blighted by the great inflation, but it was soon looking really quite successful until the 1929 crash, mass unemployment and rise to power of Hitler. A really fork in the road, and how different Europe would be if the Nazis had remained an irritant rather than a government. Would we and other Europeans still have an Empire for example? A fascinating alternative history beckons.
And violence. Do not forget violence.
Why was it called the Weimar Republic? Because Berlin was in a state of open warfare between different armed groups so the constitutional convention had to meet in Weimar.
I'm not sure I agree about 24-29, incidentally. Inflation had come down but not gone away, just as the issues around the economy had not. Moreover even with Stresemann's influence the government was hopelessly divided, unstable and corrupt, especially after Hindenburg's election. But it was undoubtedly a major cultural centre and probably a fascinating and exciting place to visit if you had money.
Have you ever read Walter Laqueur's Weimar: A Cultural History or Peter Gay's Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider? I think you would enjoy both.
She was asked to comment on the situation with Tom Watson and she wouldn't. She kept repeating herself about her own motion and wouldn't comment about Momentum proposing the abolition of Tom Watson. It didnt help to diffuse anything.
Thanks. It sounds as though she overplayed her motion and ended up in the shit.
I suppose "awful" is a bit harsh. "weak" is probably better.
My understanding is only the MPs could make a deputy leadership contest happen, similarly to how they did a leadership one in 2016 I guess. Members can't make a deputy leadership competition happen, neither can any other group AFAIK.
Also I did mention earlier but Labour seem to have contests of ridiculous length, the 2016 one went on for months. If we actually had a contest we'd probably be weeks the other side of a general election by the time someone was chosen. That and the position doesn't actually seem to consist of much useful/helpful for the last few years TBH.
Thank you for the answer. So the NEC could presumably ask for a contest and determine its speed. That would seem to be the sensible thing to do if you felt that the current incumbent was not up to the job.
In terms of negative headlines I don't see that it makes much difference, setting up different rules for the contest would be labelled Stalinist and the rest just as much as abolishing the position*. It is an elected position and the members would probably just as happily see it gone in the circumstances.
Even if you dislike Corbyn and favour Watson there is an obvious bonus to Labour in terms of not giving him as big a platform to undermine the party.
What positive reasons (from a Labour supporter point of view) are there for not getting rid of it instead of an election, the election could easily be used in various ways against Labour. Also it is the elected NEC (everyone gets a mandate in Labour) that is doing it who the members elect every year (or a number of them who probably were among those most in favour)
I wouldn't be a member of the party but if Labour members wanted John Mann as leader, they should get John Mann as leader. If Tories want Johnson as leader they should get Johnson as leader. If Tom Watson's constituency want to select him to stand as a Labour candidate in the next election then they should get exactly that whatever my disagreements with him. The reverse is also true though. If people don't want Corbyn as leader, or Tom as deputy they should get that.
Although TBH I'm not 100% on the next stages if it is just the NEC that would do it.
Aw, dont tell me they'll chicken out? It's like firing a starting pistol, the hostile intent has been declared so no take back. I'll admire Corbyn if he bald facedly lies and says he backs Watson to defuse this
Aw, dont tell me they'll chicken out? It's like firing a starting pistol, the hostile intent has been declared so no take back. I'll admire Corbyn if he bald facedly lies and says he backs Watson to defuse this
Come back Gordon Brown, all is forgiven.
And no, I am not feeling all right. Those are words I never thought I would say...
Good morning everybody. A fascinating day ahead with the Watson whack penned in. I don't expect just tweets this time but 'active' tweets, possibly with emojis. The labour party is about to split rubbish is just that, with an election possibly weeks away there is no time to form another party and have it registered with the electoral commission. Unless of course they take over Change UK........
All that, but they could pick up 5-6 seats if they were really organised.
That would make a difference in Parliament and to the nation’s politics.
Also, I might make a tidy sum or two from a couple of bets.
The number 1 Green target for the next election is the Isle of Wight - where they are currently third behind Labour, need a 17% swing from Con, and the incumbent Tory has a majority of over 20,000.
Moreover, as an aside I have never heard him criticise Corbyn for assisting in the coverup of sexual abuse in Islington by members of the Labour Party - which Corbyn knew about, and did not care about.
We've discussed your confusion about this before, it was Margaret Hodge who was leader of the council which looked after the homes. Corbyn was the MP for the area and nothing to do with with the management of the them.
Or is this some kind of parody Tom Watson thing you are doing where you accuse your opponents without proof?
You are correct that it is Margaret Hodge who should be castigated about what went on in Islington’s childrens homes while she was Leader of the Council.
I believe that a separate allegation was made that Corbyn as the local MP was told about some of the allegations but did not pursue them or raise them. I don’t know whether that is true or whether he did raise and accepted the answers he was given . But he was not responsible for the management of the homes. Hodge deserves a whole heap of criticism for her behaviour not just while the abuse was going on but for the way she libelled one of the survivors afterwards and had to publicly apologise to him.
The only thing I remember reading (sometime ago so a little hazy on exact wording and no clue on the validity of source) is someone said they said something to Corbyn (or someone said that somebody said something to Corbyn) and (I don't think this was a direct quote with "") Corbyn passing this on to someone (pretty sure the police)
I don't like Tom Watson politically but the much criticised Tom Watson approach would have been better in that situation rather than just leaving it to the police.
It was a social worker who raised the allegations with Corbyn. Just as it was a youth worker in Rotherham who raised a similar issue in Rotherham. Lots of people were aware of allegations. Very few did anything and those who spoke up were generally ignored or dismissed.
The Watson approach was utterly wrong and disastrous. The police behaved in an appallingly incompetent way. Will the right lessons have been learned? I doubt it.
Right so allegations were raised with Corbyn and he passed them onto the appropriate authorities, considering you don't approve of the Tom Watson approach surely that is right approach?
If Labour did a complete car crash then only the Lib Dems can wipe up the mess. Were they to be in a very clear second place the weekend before an election they would probably be the leading party in votes.
If my granny had wheels she could have been a wheelbarrow
And would have been handy for the historic Great Ayrshire Turnip Harvest of 1979 ....
Godfather1.........Michael discovered one of his two lieutenants Tessio or Clemenza was planning to kill him and take over the family . Most thought it would be Clemenza but as Michael said in the graveyard where they were burying the Don 'It was always going to be Tessio. It was the smart thing to do. He was the smart one' before ordering his men to take him out in a car ........
It was always going to be Watson or Thornberry. They could see their party falling apart and their MPs drifting off and joining other parties. Watson was always the ambitious one. He'd trashed the reputation of an octogenarian ex chancellor and he knew that while he stayed loyal and in the background he was going nowhere. Get rid of his boss and all sorts of possibilities opened up.........
....and then the christening when all the rival families were taken down....
.....and the party conference where all the clans gathered.....
.....and as he falteringly walked to the podium beard trimmed blinking in the arc lights .....Len McClusky leading the union barons to their feet as the ripple of applause became a siren....
All that, but they could pick up 5-6 seats if they were really organised.
That would make a difference in Parliament and to the nation’s politics.
Also, I might make a tidy sum or two from a couple of bets.
The number 1 Green target for the next election is the Isle of Wight - where they are currently third behind Labour, need a 17% swing from Con, and the incumbent Tory has a majority of over 20,000.
Somehow I don't see 5-6 seats happening.
Agreed. The other oft touted seats are in Bristol about which I know not top much but they are way behind and my own seat of Norwich South. They are very capable of getting towards 20% here in a perfect storm but unless the seat splits four ways there isn't the votes to get them over the line, it would take Clive Lewis and labour imploding, a lib dem surge, the Tory vote here holding up and the students all going green to even be theoretical.
Aw, dont tell me they'll chicken out? It's like firing a starting pistol, the hostile intent has been declared so no take back. I'll admire Corbyn if he bald facedly lies and says he backs Watson to defuse this
TBH Corbyn doesn't usually do confrontation it wouldn't be surprising if he hadn't been behind it but no point turning back IMO, same complaints and press either way just with Tom Watson still as deputy.
Moreover, as an aside I have never heard him criticise Corbyn for assisting in the coverup of sexual abuse in Islington by members of the Labour Party - which Corbyn knew about, and did not care about.
We've discussed your confusion about this before, it was Margaret Hodge who was leader of the council which looked after the homes. Corbyn was the MP for the area and nothing to do with with the management of the them.
Or is this some kind of parody Tom Watson thing you are doing where you accuse your opponents without proof?
You are correct that it is Margaret Hodge who should be castigated about what went on in Islington’s childrens homes while she was Leader of the Council.
I believe that a separate allegation was made that Corbyn as the local MP was told about some of the allegations but did not pursue them or raise them. I don’t know whether that is true or whether he did raise and accepted the answers he was given . But he was not responsible for the management of the homes. Hodge deserves a whole heap of criticism for her behaviour not just while the abuse was going on but for the way she libelled one of the survivors afterwards and had to publicly apologise to him.
The only thing I remember reading (sometime ago so a little hazy on exact wording and no clue on the validity of source) is someone said they said something to Corbyn (or someone said that somebody said something to Corbyn) and (I don't think this was a direct quote with "") Corbyn passing this on to someone (pretty sure the police)
I don't like Tom Watson politically but the much criticised Tom Watson approach would have been better in that situation rather than just leaving it to the police.
It was a social worker who raised the allegations with Corbyn. Just as it was a youth worker in Rotherham who raised a similar issue in Rotherham. Lots of people were aware of allegations. Very few did anything and those who spoke up were generally ignored or dismissed.
The Watson approach was utterly wrong and disastrous. The police behaved in an appallingly incompetent way. Will the right lessons have been learned? I doubt it.
Right so allegations were raised with Corbyn and he passed them onto the appropriate authorities, considering you don't approve of the Tom Watson approach surely that is right approach?
The 'appropriate authorities' in this case would have been the Home Office. Did he in fact raise it with them, because my understanding is he didn't despite promising to do so?
I think it fair to say that Weimar Germany was a ferment of interesting ideas. Indeed Such was the proliferation of radicalism in art, design, performing arts and politics that it provoked a lot of support for the reactionaries wanting to suppress such ideas.
We have just passed the centenary of the Weimar Republic. Its first years were blighted by the great inflation, but it was soon looking really quite successful until the 1929 crash, mass unemployment and rise to power of Hitler. A really fork in the road, and how different Europe would be if the Nazis had remained an irritant rather than a government. Would we and other Europeans still have an Empire for example? A fascinating alternative history beckons.
And violence. Do not forget violence.
Why was it called the Weimar Republic? Because Berlin was in a state of open warfare between different armed groups so the constitutional convention had to meet in Weimar.
I'm not sure I agree about 24-29, incidentally. Inflation had come down but not gone away, just as the issues around the economy had not. Moreover even with Stresemann's influence the government was hopelessly divided, unstable and corrupt, especially after Hindenburg's election. But it was undoubtedly a major cultural centre and probably a fascinating and exciting place to visit if you had money.
Have you ever read Walter Laqueur's Weimar: A Cultural History or Peter Gay's Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider? I think you would enjoy both.
No, but they do sound interesting. I shall look them up.
I am not suggesting that Weimar was smooth sailing, indeed few democracies in Europe were between the wars. I do wonder if Stresemann had not died so young, then perhaps he could have kept the Nazis out of power.
Indeed, Appeasment would have been a great policy if Stresemann was in charge, a logical development from his negotiations in the 1920's. Chamberlain and Halifax made the fatal error of thinking Hitler as reasonable as him.
Aw, dont tell me they'll chicken out? It's like firing a starting pistol, the hostile intent has been declared so no take back. I'll admire Corbyn if he bald facedly lies and says he backs Watson to defuse this
What does it have to do with them? Momentum is a private business 100% owned by Lansman. That Momentum members don't know this and believe the "people's" nonsense demonstrates their naivety/stupidity
Good morning everybody. A fascinating day ahead with the Watson whack penned in. I don't expect just tweets this time but 'active' tweets, possibly with emojis. The labour party is about to split rubbish is just that, with an election possibly weeks away there is no time to form another party and have it registered with the electoral commission. Unless of course they take over Change UK........
It's one reason why, having turned the cold war in the party hot again, they should push through - dare the unhappy to throw it all away with an election possibly weeks or months away.
They found out which were men/women and which were mice already, and having unnecessarily brought the issue to the fore, might as well force the issue to confirm.
We've discussed your confusion about this before, it was Margaret Hodge who was leader of the council which looked after the homes. Corbyn was the MP for the area and nothing to do with with the management of the them.
Or is this some kind of parody Tom Watson thing you are doing where you accuse your opponents without proof?
You are correct that it is Margaret Hodge who should be castigated about what went on in Islington’s childrens homes while she was Leader of the Council.
I believe that a separate allegation was made that Corbyn as the local MP was told about some of the allegations but did not pursue them or raise them. I don’t know whether that is true or whether he did raise and accepted the answers he was given . But he was not responsible for the management of the homes. Hodge deserves a whole heap of criticism for her behaviour not just while the abuse was going on but for the way she libelled one of the survivors afterwards and had to publicly apologise to him.
The only thing I remember reading (sometime ago so a little hazy on exact wording and no clue on the validity of source) is someone said they said something to Corbyn (or someone said that somebody said something to Corbyn) and (I don't think this was a direct quote with "") Corbyn passing this on to someone (pretty sure the police)
I don't like Tom Watson politically but the much criticised Tom Watson approach would have been better in that situation rather than just leaving it to the police.
It was a social worker who raised the allegations with Corbyn. Just as it was a youth worker in Rotherham who raised a similar issue in Rotherham. Lots of people were aware of allegations. Very few did anything and those who spoke up were generally ignored or dismissed.
The Watson approach was utterly wrong and disastrous. The police behaved in an appallingly incompetent way. Will the right lessons have been learned? I doubt it.
Right so allegations were raised with Corbyn and he passed them onto the appropriate authorities, considering you don't approve of the Tom Watson approach surely that is right approach?
Yes - that is why I was agreeing with you that Hodge was responsible for what went on in the homes and Corbyn wasn’t which was where the conversation between us started.
The degree of failure for not following up - at all or strongly enough - on allegations which are brought to you (eg by not raising them with the authorities) is another matter. There were lots of MPs and others who turned a blind eye when allegations were being raised.
All that, but they could pick up 5-6 seats if they were really organised.
That would make a difference in Parliament and to the nation’s politics.
Also, I might make a tidy sum or two from a couple of bets.
The number 1 Green target for the next election is the Isle of Wight - where they are currently third behind Labour, need a 17% swing from Con, and the incumbent Tory has a majority of over 20,000.
Somehow I don't see 5-6 seats happening.
Brexit Party are leafleting heavily on the Island. I think it quite doable for the Greens if the Lab vote drops and the LDs stand down in a Remain Alliance. The BXP could easily take 10 000 off that Tory majority.
No, but they do sound interesting. I shall look them up.
I am not suggesting that Weimar was smooth sailing, indeed few democracies in Europe were between the wars. I do wonder if Stresemann had not died so young, then perhaps he could have kept the Nazis out of power.
Indeed, Appeasment would have been a great policy if Stresemann was in charge, a logical development from his negotiations in the 1920's. Chamberlain and Halifax made the fatal error of thinking Hitler as reasonable as him.
I'll answer your question. No. It wasn't Hitler that killed Weimar. It died under Hindenburg. Check out how often the Reichstag met in the period 1930-32. And ultimately it was Oskar Hindenburg that put the Nazis in power when six months of patience might have seen the danger point pass.
On the other point you raise, I think I'm right in saying of all the new democracies in Europe formed after 1918 by 1936 only Czechoslovakia and Ireland remained democratic. And Czechoslovakia of course was overrrun by the Nazis in 1938-39.
You have to admire the way Ireland - which started out even less propitiously than most of the others - became a functioning and effective democracy and spurned at least one attempt to turn into a quasi-Fascist dictatorship. I'm never sure whether that's a tribute to the Irish people or the remarkable integrity and courage of William T. Cosgrave (or both, of course).
If they do axe Watson as deputy leader, I'd be intrigued to see what he and other Labour MPs actually do.
Past form would make whining pathetically and doing nothing the most likely option, but they did push for a vote of no confidence last Parliament and maybe pushing Watson overboard would see them rush for the lifeboats rather than stay aboard the rotting ship of Corbyn.
I think it fair to say that Weimar Germany was a ferment of interesting ideas. Indeed Such was the proliferation of radicalism in art, design, performing arts and politics that it provoked a lot of support for the reactionaries wanting to suppress such ideas.
We have just passed the centenary of the Weimar Republic. Its first years were blighted by the great inflation, but it was soon looking really quite successful until the 1929 crash, mass unemployment and rise to power of Hitler. A really fork in the road, and how different Europe would be if the Nazis had remained an irritant rather than a government. Would we and other Europeans still have an Empire for example? A fascinating alternative history beckons.
And violence. Do not forget violence.
Why was it called the Weimar Republic? Because Berlin was in a state of open warfare between different armed groups so the constitutional convention had to meet in Weimar.
I'm not sure I agree about 24-29, incidentally. Inflation had come down but not gone away, just as the issues around the economy had not. Moreover even with Stresemann's influence the government was hopelessly divided, unstable and corrupt, especially after Hindenburg's election. But it was undoubtedly a major cultural centre and probably a fascinating and exciting place to visit if you had money.
Have you ever read Walter Laqueur's Weimar: A Cultural History or Peter Gay's Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider? I think you would enjoy both.
It is coming across such recommendations that makes PB visits worthwhile. Weimar is one of the many lacunae in the patchwork of my historical semi-ignorance. I shall enjoy repairing that.
You are correct that it is Margaret Hodge who should be castigated about what went on in Islington’s childrens homes while she was Leader of the Council.
I believe that a separate allegation was made that Corbyn as the local MP was told about some of the allegations but did not pursue them or raise them. I don’t know whether that is true or whether he did raise and accepted the answers he was given . But he was not responsible for the management of the homes. Hodge deserves a whole heap of criticism for her behaviour not just while the abuse was going on but for the way she libelled one of the survivors afterwards and had to publicly apologise to him.
The only thing I remember reading (sometime ago so a little hazy on exact wording and no clue on the validity of source) is someone said they said something to Corbyn (or someone said that somebody said something to Corbyn) and (I don't think this was a direct quote with "") Corbyn passing this on to someone (pretty sure the police)
I don't like Tom Watson politically but the much criticised Tom Watson approach would have been better in that situation rather than just leaving it to the police.
It was a social worker who raised the allegations with Corbyn. Just as it was a youth worker in Rotherham who raised a similar issue in Rotherham. Lots of people were aware of allegations. Very few did anything and those who spoke up were generally ignored or dismissed.
The Watson approach was utterly wrong and disastrous. The police behaved in an appallingly incompetent way. Will the right lessons have been learned? I doubt it.
Right so allegations were raised with Corbyn and he passed them onto the appropriate authorities, considering you don't approve of the Tom Watson approach surely that is right approach?
The 'appropriate authorities' in this case would have been the Home Office. Did he in fact raise it with them, because my understanding is he didn't despite promising to do so?
If he did, I will concede your point.
The police surely? According to reports, he promised to raise the issue with Virginia Bottomley who was I believe Health Secretary.
Aw, dont tell me they'll chicken out? It's like firing a starting pistol, the hostile intent has been declared so no take back. I'll admire Corbyn if he bald facedly lies and says he backs Watson to defuse this
TBH Corbyn doesn't usually do confrontation it wouldn't be surprising if he hadn't been behind it but no point turning back IMO, same complaints and press either way just with Tom Watson still as deputy.
I absolutely believe he might not have been behind it. I dont think hes incapable - he has become a bit harder and flintier in the last 4 years - but I'd agree about pushing on. They are going to be a happy family if it doesnt happen?
You are correct that it is Margaret Hodge who should be castigated about what went on in Islington’s childrens homes while she was Leader of the Council.
I believe that a separate allegation was made that Corbyn as the local MP was told about some of the allegations but did not pursue them or raise them. I don’t know whether that is true or whether he did raise and accepted the answers he was given . But he was not responsible for the management of the homes. Hodge deserves a whole heap of criticism for her behaviour not just while the abuse was going on but for the way she libelled one of the survivors afterwards and had to publicly apologise to him.
The only thing I remember reading (sometime ago so a little hazy on exact wording and no clue on the validity of source) is someone said they said something to Corbyn (or someone said that somebody said something to Corbyn) and (I don't think this was a direct quote with "") Corbyn passing this on to someone (pretty sure the police)
I don't like Tom Watson politically but the much criticised Tom Watson approach would have been better in that situation rather than just leaving it to the police.
It was a social worker who raised the allegations with Corbyn. Just as it was a youth worker in Rotherham who raised a similar issue in Rotherham. Lots of people were aware of allegations. Very few did anything and those who spoke up were generally ignored or dismissed.
The Watson approach was utterly wrong and disastrous. The police behaved in an appallingly incompetent way. Will the right lessons have been learned? I doubt it.
Right so allegations were raised with Corbyn and he passed them onto the appropriate authorities, considering you don't approve of the Tom Watson approach surely that is right approach?
The 'appropriate authorities' in this case would have been the Home Office. Did he in fact raise it with them, because my understanding is he didn't despite promising to do so?
If he did, I will concede your point.
The police surely? According to reports, he promised to raise the issue with Virginia Bottomley who was I believe Health Secretary.
Presumably because she was responsible for children's homes. But the issue was that the police were refusing to investigate, and given where he was the Home Office were the ones with the power to intervene there.
I think it fair to say that Weimar Germany was a ferment of interesting ideas. Indeed Such was the proliferation of radicalism in art, design, performing arts and politics that it provoked a lot of support for the reactionaries wanting to suppress such ideas.
We have just passed the centenary of the Weimar Republic. Its first years were blighted by the great inflation, but it was soon looking really quite successful until the 1929 crash, mass unemployment and rise to power of Hitler. A really fork in the road, and how different Europe would be if the Nazis had remained an irritant rather than a government. Would we and other Europeans still have an Empire for example? A fascinating alternative history beckons.
And violence. Do not forget violence.
Why was it called the Weimar Republic? Because Berlin was in a state of open warfare between different armed groups so the constitutional convention had to meet in Weimar.
I'm not sure I agree about 24-29, incidentally. Inflation had come down but not gone away, just as the issues around the economy had not. Moreover even with Stresemann's influence the government was hopelessly divided, unstable and corrupt, especially after Hindenburg's election. But it was undoubtedly a major cultural centre and probably a fascinating and exciting place to visit if you had money.
Have you ever read Walter Laqueur's Weimar: A Cultural History or Peter Gay's Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider? I think you would enjoy both.
It is coming across such recommendations that makes PB visits worthwhile.
I think it fair to say that Weimar Germany was a ferment of interesting ideas. Indeed Such was the proliferation of radicalism in art, design, performing arts and politics that it provoked a lot of support for the reactionaries wanting to suppress such ideas.
We have just passed the centenary of the Weimar Republic. Its first years were blighted by the great inflation, but it was soon looking really quite successful until the 1929 crash, mass unemployment and rise to power of Hitler. A really fork in the road, and how different Europe would be if the Nazis had remained an irritant rather than a government. Would we and other Europeans still have an Empire for example? A fascinating alternative history beckons.
And violence. Do not forget violence.
Why was it called the Weimar Republic? Because Berlin was in a state of open warfare between different armed groups so the constitutional convention had to meet in Weimar.
I'm not sure I agree about 24-29, incidentally. Inflation had come down but not gone away, just as the issues around the economy had not. Moreover even with Stresemann's influence the government was hopelessly divided, unstable and corrupt, especially after Hindenburg's election. But it was undoubtedly a major cultural centre and probably a fascinating and exciting place to visit if you had money.
Have you ever read Walter Laqueur's Weimar: A Cultural History or Peter Gay's Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider? I think you would enjoy both.
It is coming across such recommendations that makes PB visits worthwhile.
Yes they have an issue with Watson but is now really the time to cause this drama .
The Lib Dems must think Christmas has come early .
The only Liberal Democrat disappointed this morning is Jo Swinson's husband. He must be wondering how he can possibly hope to make her sex life as exciting and dramatic as the politics.
I don't think I've come across that last bit before. That makes the scenario of passive denial a bit less convincing.
That said as noted upthread Geoffrey Dickens was, to put it mildly, highly eccentric and that was why nobody listened to him. You can understand why Corbyn would be miffed at interfering in his constituency. But it's a bit unfortunate that Corbyn effectively called him a liar when he was telling the truth.
I totally agree with you incidentally that Hodge is the one who bears the most direct responsibility, but just because her record is worse doesn't give Corbyn a hospital pass.
I agree on the last point but he was probably no worse than a lot of others who were told about child abuse problems eg in Rotherham or elsewhere and who did nothing or the bare minimum. (Snip)
Or the Catholic Church. Or the Church of England - etc, etc. Different problems, similar root causes.
This story sadly hasn't been more widely discussed:
There was such a home near me until it was closed recently. The kids were left to run riot, most were city kids from Birmingham, dumped in suburban Leicestershire, and completely out of control. There was no effective supervision, in a rented house and the police were there every day.
I had some sympathy for the kids, who were getting a rotten start to adult life, but as glad as the next when it was closed. It was a racket, with Birmingham Council paying several thousand pounds a week for each to a cynical dodgy profiteering company. The directors should have been barred from working with children, and prosecuted for misuse of public funds.
BBC quotes Watson as saying Corbyn has the power to stop this. Thats it then isn't it? Corbyn doesnt like confrontation as theJezziah states, so he'll fold and everyone pretends good old Jeremy reined in momentum.
On momentum generally, if being a part of it is more crucial than being labour generally, then as with the ERG are they even truly of the main party? Which are they more loyal to?
Comments
Or is this some kind of parody Tom Watson thing you are doing where you accuse your opponents without proof?
I blame the police far more than him in the matter, but I don’t think him an entirely innocent victim of Beech’s fantasies and lies.
The Government doesn't have a majority yet it continued with the prorogation and shut down parliament to stop parliament doing it's job (which may or may not have included a VONC against Boris).
What I can't see the Supreme court doing is suggesting a remedy that will be left for Parliament.
And it only seems fair that if Parliament controls when and how an election is called, it controls when a session can be prorogued and the next session begins.
In the end, I trust my own judgement and as it stands, I'm saying I'll accept the innocence of those involved but keep my mind open to some doubt because of the unsatisfactory nature of the inquiries.
And I will cut To Watson a bit of slack on this point because if I was misled, it was unntentional and done in good faith. The same may be true of him.
I note that Europeans are notably more pessimistic than other developed nations, Australians being notably optimistic, while middle income countries are generally more optimistic (Brazil, Argentina, Mexico) than their circumstances would suggest. South Africa is notably not a happy place.
Democracies also seem to be more pessimistic than autocratic states.
Again, I would have more sympathy with this - nobody comes out of this shambles well - if he hadn't promised to raise it with government and then broken his promise. Remember, this is a man who signs early day motions protesting at the closure of Aberystwyth Farmers' Market. A protest demanding an investigation in major allegations in his constituency ought to have been a matter of routine and might just have done some good.
I've suggested bans before for people who consistently fail with them but no take up as yet...
Edit: Also if you are deleting username parts start with the last one and work your way back.
None of the major parties are offering to respond to ER with the policy response they are demanding. So there’s an open goal for the Greens there.
For a comparison with just how successful they could be look at how the Greens are performing in Germany at the moment.
The government seeking to take the court for fools will not have helped it get the judges to conclude that, however.
Tory MPs seem to have had more courage. Quite a number of them have put their careers on the line.
Incidentally, why not call another deputy leader election if people are unhappy with Watson? Why the need to abolish the post?
It bodes well for getting the Spartans rebels down to low double figures or less.
It also shows just how little they understood the original WA and how it was mainly about political optics.
I wonder about the psychology of the concerns about mass abuse - whether sexual, physical or mental. We point to whichever bogeyman we have - say Muslims, churches or politicians - and see some wrong 'uns amongst them. We tut, knowing that the chances of our kith and kin being victims of these groups are low.
Yet the vast majority of abuse occurs within family and friendship circles. When I was in my early twenties, within a short period three female friends told me they had been sexually abused by family members - and they were believable stories (and in one case, backed up by another family member (*)). AFAIAA none were reported to the police.
It's odd that we concentrate so much fire on these small groups of abusers, and yet we ignore the problems that are much more likely to afflict our immediate circle of associates.
In fact, we all probably know someone - male or female - who has suffered some form of abuse within the last year.
Yet the vast majority of people are not abusers, and would never dream of abusing others.
(As an example, in the case of domestic abuse, 7.9% of women (1.3 million) and 4.2% of men (695,000) experienced domestic abuse in the last year. The figures are truly hideous.)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabusefindingsfromthecrimesurveyforenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018
(*) In this case, the abuser was still allowed within the family circle, despite having admitted the abuse. I was young, and with hindsight I could have encouraged her to go to the police - which she didn't want to do.
The Great Wall doing its Great Work.
Betting PostF1: had decided against this but lengthening odds tempted me. With boost you can get 10 on Bottas each way to 'win' qualifying (fifth the odds top three). He was second fastest in Monaco qualifying, so he's got a good shot here.
I've also put tiny sums on Sainz and Hulkenberg at 1301 to top qualifying in case it's wet (Sainz also for the win on the same basis and odds) and a little on Bottas at 12 for the win (not stacked up because if he fails at qualifying it'll be double red).
I believe that a separate allegation was made that Corbyn as the local MP was told about some of the allegations but did not pursue them or raise them. I don’t know whether that is true or whether he did raise and accepted the answers he was given . But he was not responsible for the management of the homes. Hodge deserves a whole heap of criticism for her behaviour not just while the abuse was going on but for the way she libelled one of the survivors afterwards and had to publicly apologise to him.
Note this article - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11758612/Jeremy-Corbyn-accused-of-inaction-over-paedophile-scandal.html - which also mentions Geoffrey Dickens, the MP who allegedly had a dossier, though I believe his family later said that the “dossier” amounted to some handwritten notes.
You can argue timing not good for this sort of thing, just before a GE not just after, you can argue motivation to some degree based on outspoken off message of the post holder, but surely you CANNOT defend the existence of such outdated, unnecessary and asking for trouble anachronism as an elected deputy leader post, the other parties also had before they got sensible and modernised?
Also I did mention earlier but Labour seem to have contests of ridiculous length, the 2016 one went on for months. If we actually had a contest we'd probably be weeks the other side of a general election by the time someone was chosen. That and the position doesn't actually seem to consist of much useful/helpful for the last few years TBH.
I have to go now - busy day - but will be happy to take this matter up with you again later.
I don't think we're so far apart. All I am saying is that in this case, keep a little bit of doubt open in your mind and maybe don't buy wholly into the fashionable narrative. Watson may have had his reasons and these may have been unspeakable.
Of course he may have been completely wrong too, and so may I, but I don't think he's a ****.
And nor am I !
Atb
PtP
I miss him.
That said as noted upthread Geoffrey Dickens was, to put it mildly, highly eccentric and that was why nobody listened to him. You can understand why Corbyn would be miffed at interfering in his constituency. But it's a bit unfortunate that Corbyn effectively called him a liar when he was telling the truth.
I totally agree with you incidentally that Hodge is the one who bears the most direct responsibility, but just because her record is worse doesn't give Corbyn a hospital pass.
I see British Greens as very grass roots orientated and intrinsically congregationalist rather than episcopelian. I think that they are in many ways an effective pressure group, tugging the Overton window in the direction of environmentalism, and broadly happy with that. Like UKIP, they can have important influence that way in the absence of political power.
On topic, Labour *might* have a horrible General Election, but sadly they're not going to get wiped out however bad the likely outcome. The disproportionate concentration of Labour robot votes in low turnout urban seats with North Korean majorities means that they could go down to 20% and still come out the other side with 200 MPs. England is not going the way of Scotland: I'm afraid that we're all stuck with the Red Death.
I don't like Tom Watson politically but the much criticised Tom Watson approach would have been better in that situation rather than just leaving it to the police.
I expect that there will almost certainly still be a backstop as well, as it is what kicks in when everything else to deal with border issues has failed. It's prominence may diminish but I think it will still be there.
Cowardice is a pretty common trait.
Were they to be in a very clear second place the weekend before an election they would probably be the leading party in votes.
If a 15 year old Swede can show global leadership then so can anyone.
If they can be arsed.
Have a good day. I'm also rather busy, entertaining the little 'un on what looks like the only dry day of the week ...
That would make a difference in Parliament and to the nation’s politics.
Also, I might make a tidy sum or two from a couple of bets.
The Watson approach was utterly wrong and disastrous. The police behaved in an appallingly incompetent way. Will the right lessons have been learned? I doubt it.
This story sadly hasn't been more widely discussed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49673455
Nobody comes out of decades of silence over child sexual exploitation well. David Steele, for example, has a record at least comparable to and arguably rather worse than that of Corbyn. But there are those who seem to think Corbyn did nothing wrong. I can't accept that. At best, he showed an appalling lack of judgement. At worst, he could be bracketed with Hodge. The likeliest scenario is somewhere in between.
But BoJo is not the campaigning wizard he is purported to be, labour retain the advantages of being the only realistic non tory choice in hundreds of seats and most critically they are hoping like hell Farage comes to their rescue and stands candidates which hurt the tories the most when we extend rather than brexit.
It's not easy and they are complacent about it, but it's not hopeless
True story.
Then, when Labour polls even worse at the election after that, the Far Left has a ready-made excuse for failure. Their policies were good - it's just that the electorate were too misogynist and racist to vote for a black woman as PM. Damn 'em.
We have just passed the centenary of the Weimar Republic. Its first years were blighted by the great inflation, but it was soon looking really quite successful until the 1929 crash, mass unemployment and rise to power of Hitler. A really fork in the road, and how different Europe would be if the Nazis had remained an irritant rather than a government. Would we and other Europeans still have an Empire for example? A fascinating alternative history beckons.
At this time, against BoJo and with a GE imminent, theyd do more?
In sure Jess Phillip's has already mentioned how jolly cross she is for starters, such bravery no doubt.
Why was it called the Weimar Republic? Because Berlin was in a state of open warfare between different armed groups so the constitutional convention had to meet in Weimar.
I'm not sure I agree about 24-29, incidentally. Inflation had come down but not gone away, just as the issues around the economy had not. Moreover even with Stresemann's influence the government was hopelessly divided, unstable and corrupt, especially after Hindenburg's election. But it was undoubtedly a major cultural centre and probably a fascinating and exciting place to visit if you had money.
Have you ever read Walter Laqueur's Weimar: A Cultural History or Peter Gay's Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider? I think you would enjoy both.
Even if you dislike Corbyn and favour Watson there is an obvious bonus to Labour in terms of not giving him as big a platform to undermine the party.
What positive reasons (from a Labour supporter point of view) are there for not getting rid of it instead of an election, the election could easily be used in various ways against Labour. Also it is the elected NEC (everyone gets a mandate in Labour) that is doing it who the members elect every year (or a number of them who probably were among those most in favour)
I wouldn't be a member of the party but if Labour members wanted John Mann as leader, they should get John Mann as leader. If Tories want Johnson as leader they should get Johnson as leader. If Tom Watson's constituency want to select him to stand as a Labour candidate in the next election then they should get exactly that whatever my disagreements with him. The reverse is also true though. If people don't want Corbyn as leader, or Tom as deputy they should get that.
Although TBH I'm not 100% on the next stages if it is just the NEC that would do it.
And no, I am not feeling all right. Those are words I never thought I would say...
The labour party is about to split rubbish is just that, with an election possibly weeks away there is no time to form another party and have it registered with the electoral commission. Unless of course they take over Change UK........
Somehow I don't see 5-6 seats happening.
It was always going to be Watson or Thornberry. They could see their party falling apart and their MPs drifting off and joining other parties. Watson was always the ambitious one. He'd trashed the reputation of an octogenarian ex chancellor and he knew that while he stayed loyal and in the background he was going nowhere. Get rid of his boss and all sorts of possibilities opened up.........
....and then the christening when all the rival families were taken down....
.....and the party conference where all the clans gathered.....
.....and as he falteringly walked to the podium beard trimmed blinking in the arc lights .....Len McClusky leading the union barons to their feet as the ripple of applause became a siren....
Le Fin
If he did, I will concede your point.
I am not suggesting that Weimar was smooth sailing, indeed few democracies in Europe were between the wars. I do wonder if Stresemann had not died so young, then perhaps he could have kept the Nazis out of power.
Indeed, Appeasment would have been a great policy if Stresemann was in charge, a logical development from his negotiations in the 1920's. Chamberlain and Halifax made the fatal error of thinking Hitler as reasonable as him.
They found out which were men/women and which were mice already, and having unnecessarily brought the issue to the fore, might as well force the issue to confirm.
The degree of failure for not following up - at all or strongly enough - on allegations which are brought to you (eg by not raising them with the authorities) is another matter. There were lots of MPs and others who turned a blind eye when allegations were being raised.
Whose conference motion is that?
On the other point you raise, I think I'm right in saying of all the new democracies in Europe formed after 1918 by 1936 only Czechoslovakia and Ireland remained democratic. And Czechoslovakia of course was overrrun by the Nazis in 1938-39.
You have to admire the way Ireland - which started out even less propitiously than most of the others - became a functioning and effective democracy and spurned at least one attempt to turn into a quasi-Fascist dictatorship. I'm never sure whether that's a tribute to the Irish people or the remarkable integrity and courage of William T. Cosgrave (or both, of course).
Past form would make whining pathetically and doing nothing the most likely option, but they did push for a vote of no confidence last Parliament and maybe pushing Watson overboard would see them rush for the lifeboats rather than stay aboard the rotting ship of Corbyn.
Weimar is one of the many lacunae in the patchwork of my historical semi-ignorance. I shall enjoy repairing that.
Yes they have an issue with Watson but is now really the time to cause this drama .
The Lib Dems must think Christmas has come early .
I for one welcome every thing that happens to expose them for what they are.
I had some sympathy for the kids, who were getting a rotten start to adult life, but as glad as the next when it was closed. It was a racket, with Birmingham Council paying several thousand pounds a week for each to a cynical dodgy profiteering company. The directors should have been barred from working with children, and prosecuted for misuse of public funds.
On momentum generally, if being a part of it is more crucial than being labour generally, then as with the ERG are they even truly of the main party? Which are they more loyal to?