Starmer

[lpm]

Well Starmer's f.cked this up. The most inconsequential vote you could imagine, and he turns it into a storm about words and procedures.

[headshot]

Has he? Sounds like Lindsay Hoyle is the one who f.cked it.

Starmer’s walked away with a victory and the Tories and SNP voted no together against a ceasefire amendment.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Tbh can't see this cutting through all that much

[jimbob]

Well Starmer's f.cked this up. The most inconsequential vote you could imagine, and he turns it into a storm about words and procedures.

It is all about words.

And saying that Israel cannot be expected to halt the fighting if Hamas continues violence seems like a reasonable addition.

[lpm]

Tbh can't see this cutting through all that much

Not with voters. But Labour needs friends in the Commons - to exploit Tory infighting.

And when they win they need a helpful Speaker - especially if a tiny majority or minority government.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Apparently the Tories are thinking about unseating him by standing against him at the election.

Lads, he's the MP for Chorley. In Lancashire. Where the Tories haven't won for over 30 years. And everyone hates you.

[headshot]

Tbh can't see this cutting through all that much

Not with voters. But Labour needs friends in the Commons - to exploit Tory infighting.

And when they win they need a helpful Speaker - especially if a tiny majority or minority government.

Lindsay Hoyle has been helpful for Labour?

You learn something new everyday.

[snoozeofreason]

Well Starmer's f.cked this up. The most inconsequential vote you could imagine, and he turns it into a storm about words and procedures.

It is all about words.

And saying that Israel cannot be expected to halt the fighting if Hamas continues violence seems like a reasonable addition.

Labour also added a demand to end "settlement" expansion and violence [my quotation marks], which doesn't seem unreasonable either.

[discovolante]

This is why, if I'm trying to reach a written agreement with someone, I nearly always prefer to get in first and draft it myself.

[IvanV]

Well Starmer's f.cked this up. The most inconsequential vote you could imagine, and he turns it into a storm about words and procedures.

It is all about words.

And saying that Israel cannot be expected to halt the fighting if Hamas continues violence seems like a reasonable addition.

It is indeed a lot about words. People call for ceasefires without saying what they mean. And now when Labour has tried to add clarity to this - ceasefire means bilateral ceasefire - they go, noooooo, we don't want that clarity. We just want the moral superiority of calling for a ceasefire that is as ill-defined as possible. We don't want to say what we mean at all. We just want to solve our own internal problem.

I asked some months ago, are these ceasefire calls for bilateral or unilateral ceasefires? And some people said, well, ceasefires, they are bilateral, aren't they? That's what they must mean. But now when someone tries to clarify that it means a bilateral ceasefire, we see that actually there are many don't want that clarity.

And some might think as jimbob does, that it is reasonable for it to be bilateral. And others might think that Israel should unilaterally ceasefire. But kudos at least to Labour for being clear what they mean when others refused.

When first ceasefire calls came, I thought a bilateral ceasefire was unachievable, because I didn't think Hamas would stop. And then we did in fact have a temporary bilateral ceasefire, so I was wrong. And just recently Hamas set out some terms for a ceasefire. And people will vary as to whether they think Netanyahu's "in your dreams" response was reasonable or unreasonable. But personally I think what Hamas asked for was a reasonable starting point for a negotiation.

[monkey]

I found this interview clip with the SNP's Stephen Flynn funny: clicky

Stephen Flynn: "We need to know what Starmer and Hoyle said in their meeting."

Beth Rigby: "What did you talk about in your meeting?"

Stephen Flynn: "It was a private meeting, it would be unfair to talk about that."

[TopBadger]

During the last 24 hours the SNP have reminded us all to be grateful that Sinn Fein don't take their seats in Westminster.

Who needs tantrums from a bunch of MP's who don't actually want to be there?

[jimbob]

I found this interview clip with the SNP's Stephen Flynn funny: clicky

Stephen Flynn: "We need to know what Starmer and Hoyle said in their meeting."

Beth Rigby: "What did you talk about in your meeting?"

Stephen Flynn: "It was a private meeting, it would be unfair to talk about that."

Hard to disagree with your assessment

[IvanV]

As is not uncommon when it is DIane Abbott, she has made vague and ill-sourced assertions. And it hasn't done her any harm when Starmer has come along and said, no, that's not true. She has at least left doubt in people's minds as to what she said was on its way to being true, and her exposure of it embarrassed him into backing down.

In the past, Abbott's use of vague and ill-sourced assertions made me dismiss her as incompetent. But in fact she mostly has been a very successful politician, and so probably what she does is something that largely works. So I'm now rather wondering whether she is actually rather clever, at least as a politician, nothing she has ever said has given me any impression she has any useful insight into policy.

Anyone have any views whether Starmer really was trying to prevent her standing, and her interventions made him back down? Or has Abbott just spun this rather nicely to discredit him?

[lpm]

Being ruthless with the Corbyn wing is a definite vote winner for Starmer. Abbott is particularly unpopular.

Plus they're clearing out some other dubious candidates.

[JQH]

Being ruthless with the Corbyn wing is a definite vote winner for Starmer. Abbott is particularly unpopular.

Plus they're clearing out some other dubious candidates.

Abbott is not unpopular in her constituency. Or with Afro-Caribbean voters generally. Starmer and his minions have clearly decided being macho with the Left is the way forward - without considering the optics of banning Britain's first and longest serving black woman MP.

[IvanV]

Being ruthless with the Corbyn wing is a definite vote winner for Starmer. Abbott is particularly unpopular.

Plus they're clearing out some other dubious candidates.

It's a vote-winner with the broader electorate. Whilst a lot of people think that Corbynites are the unacceptable face of Labour, they have their supporters and I think Abbott has quite strong local support that is much broader than that. But the Labour Party has procedures, and presumably they don't work on the basis of dictatorial rule by Starmer.

Something odd has been going on. Just on Friday, Starmer said that the situation with Abbott remains unresolved. But then we learn that the internal enquiry reported in December, and the remedy was that Abbott should go through some training, which apparently she satisfactorily carried through in February. So why wasn't it resolved by last Friday? And then on Tuesday, when she is alleging they are trying to stop her standing, we learn she has had the whip restored. She alleges they offered in negotiation to do that subject to her standing down as MP at the election, but she didn't agree to it. And seemingly the restoration of the whip came out of nowhere. So what did happen between Friday when it was "unresolved" and Tuesday when the whip was restored, which apparently could have happened 3 months ago? Starmer's statement that no decision has been made to prevent her standing does not exclude the possibility that one might be subsequently made. But the nomination deadline is 7 June.

I've just looked through the Labour Party's parliamentary candidate selection procedures, and the NEC in general seems to have the final say. But what actually happens in a case like Abbott's is clear as mud, they only set out procedures for situations where there is no sitting labour MP, or the sitting labour MP has resigned. There is no mention of reselection/deselection of sitting MPs. All applications to be candidate had to be in by 28 May - are people other than Diane Abbott applying to stand for her seat? They have a list of constituencies you can apply to be a candidate, and Hackney North is not on it.

Well, we will know very shortly whether Abbott is the candidate for Hackney North or not.

[lpm]

Meh. The JPF tried to purge the PJF but lost badly to the Romans, the PJF regained control and are purging the JPF.

Just kick all the JPF out. There'll be a new Popular Front emerging soon.

They're also getting rid of that misogynist Russell-Moyle and some other candidate who fifty years ago liked a dodgy tweet. Any excuse will do.

A large chunk of the British electorate loves a ruthless dictator as Prime Minister. Plus Sunak is doing this presidential campaigning thing, so Starmer should act as a president instead of a committee leader.