[Update at end of post]
Corbyn-backing website The Canary has been the butt of jokes from right-wingers and the more mainstream media of late for its more than occasional over-egging of the pudding, but here on Zelo Street such sources are treated strictly on their merits, as is their hero Jezza. When others slag them off on the flimsiest of pretexts, they get called out. But when they get it wrong themselves, they get called out too.
Corbyn-backing website The Canary has been the butt of jokes from right-wingers and the more mainstream media of late for its more than occasional over-egging of the pudding, but here on Zelo Street such sources are treated strictly on their merits, as is their hero Jezza. When others slag them off on the flimsiest of pretexts, they get called out. But when they get it wrong themselves, they get called out too.
It is not giving away any trade secrets to tell that The Canary is prepared to stand behind the current Labour leader whether his performance is good, bad or indifferent. Thus when Jezza had a bad PMQs yesterday - something that does not happen often nowadays - they were first out of the traps telling readers how he had bossed Theresa May. He hadn’t. Likewise there has been a staunch defence of Jezza on the Article 50 debate.
“Did you get duped by The Guardian’s ‘three-line’ Brexit farce?” asked The Canary last Friday, claiming “On 19 January, The Guardian reported that Jeremy Corbyn had ‘signalled’ he would impose a three-line whip on his MP … But the problem is that neither Corbyn nor his team have spoken of imposing a three-line whip … The fact that Corbyn’s team has not yet issued a statement does not give The Guardian the right to make up their minds for them”. So the Guardian had been wrong, had it?
Well, maybe not: today, in its coverage of Labour’s Article 50 controversy, and under the heading “What Corbyn said about a 3-line whip”, the Guardian tells “Jeremy Corbyn recorded a short clip for Sky News about the article 50 bill. Asked if the party would impose a three-line whip telling its MPs to vote for the bill, he at first replied ‘It will be a clear decision that we want all of our MPs to support the article 50 vote when it comes up next week’ … Then, when pressed on the question of whether it would be a three-line whip, he went on ‘It’s clearly a three-line whip’”. So the Guardian had not been wrong, after all.
This makes The Canary’s conclusion in its Guardian bashing article that much more telling: “The Guardian can be a superb and informative news source. But that cannot excuse journalism which plays fast and loose with the truth. We need news sources like The Guardian which do great investigative work. But every time they do something like this, their readers lose a little bit more faith in them”. You don’t say.
What is far more pressing right now for the Labour leadership than how the Guardian might have worded a headline is the potential revolt among the party’s front bench over whipping the Article 50 vote. Clive Lewis and Tulip Siddiq are said to be considering voting against, and may therefore have to resign their front bench positions.
There may be others following that lead. On top of that, some Corbyn supporters are dismayed at his stance on the issue. George Monbiot has concluded “I was thrilled when Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, but it has been one fiasco after another. I have now lost all faith”, while Andrew Bowie has concurred: “This makes no sense, and I am a Corbyn supporter. Equivalent to voting to be tax haven”.
And Ian Dunt of Politics.co.uk has put it bluntly: “Corbyn's Brexit policy, from demanding A50 was triggered on June 24 to whipping it today, has been a triumph of monumental stupidity”. The Canary, though, is arguing the toss over a headline that turned out not to be wrong. One has to wonder if and when they will get their priorities in order.
[UPDATE 1800 hours: as the BBC is now reporting, Tulip Siddiq has indeed resigned from the Labour front bench. Bit more significant than arguing over Guardian headlines, eh?]
[UPDATE 1800 hours: as the BBC is now reporting, Tulip Siddiq has indeed resigned from the Labour front bench. Bit more significant than arguing over Guardian headlines, eh?]
11 comments:
You're right to have a dig at the Canary Tim, but you've spoken too soon on this. When The Guardian posted early on that Lewis would go, and when others followed up with Smith and Butler - I smelt a rat - or, at the least, somebody briefing against them/Corbyn. I think I was right. Siddiq has indeed gone, but she said she'd be doing that last week. Subtly, The Guardian has been attempting to row back on its earlier assertions.
To be fair, last week after the Guardian posted its headline it later changed it. At that point there had been no commitment to any sort of whip as the bill hadn't been published. @MattZarb said this on Twitter:
"Labour supports Article 50, we'll decide on the whip when we've seen the bill."
That's Matt Zarb-Cousin media spokesperson for @jeremycorbyn
Bill has now been published.
Labour has now decided on a three line whip.
I certainly hope the others don't 'go' but instead gather enough other MPs to their position so that Corbyn won't dare to sack them. Otherwise, the 3 line whip will mean resignations and sackings of shadow front bench members, the Labour party looking even more feeble and confused than it already does, no change in Brexit voters’ perception of the party’s position and no difference to the outcomes in the 2 coming byelections.
All of which might just persuade Corbyn to sack himself and allow someone capable of presenting a coherent and consistent policy on Brexit which , at the moment, only the SNP and the Lib Dems seem capable of doing. Labour Remainers should be doing all they can to help their MPs to get their 'Leader' to see sense.
Corbyn great backbencher & local MP. No Leader of men or the country. Life is bad enough under the Tories. Could u imagine life under Corbyn it would be chaos, simply chaos. Thanks for the memories but time to go Jezza.
I couldn't care less about Siddiq, or the Canary, still less the sellout (now right wing) Guardian.
Where mainstream media is concerned, nor does it much matter what Jeremy Corbyn says or does - they'll attack him anyway. On the issue of triggering Article 50, had he decided to oppose it he would've been attacked for "Standing in the way of the expressed wish of the British people." The same propaganda method will be used against him on other issues.
In other words, it's just another load of anti-Corbyn bollocks.
Meanwhile, standing in the wings (literally licking his lips) is the ineffable figure of arch-hypocrite "Bomber" Benn ready and willing to sell his arse to the most useful ranting righty power source. At which point he will be promoted as "electable," probably by Murdoch and Rothermere propaganda clerks and goons.
It's all so predictable it's tedious. The biggest victims, as always, will be the most vulnerable. But I don't expect Benn or the Guardian to give a shit about that. Nor will the tories or the LibDems - after all, they've got form.
A considered response as always , Alan:
'the sellout (now right wing) Guardian'
'The biggest victims, as always, will be the most vulnerable'
Quite right. But at some point during the fifteenth successive Tory administration, in 2083, the movement we're starting to build will finally sweep away the foetid remains of the corrupt liberal left-wing consensus and consign them to the dustbin of history.
The (long-term) future is ours!
Meanwhile .......
Why has Jeremy Corbyn committed Labour to voting for Article 50?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/01/why-has-jeremy-corbyn-committed-labour-voting-article-50
Informative read.
Claiming something has happened before it has happened and then the thing eventually happening is not the same as reporting facts.
I'm a Jeremy Corbyn fan but I'm beginning to believe he is a disaster.
Apart from the horrendous pounding and quite outrageous anti-Corbyn partisan media so-called reporting,there seems to be no coherent or organised campaign against the Tories.
I think Jeremy Corbyn would make a superb ministerial opposition spokesman in a number of portfolios. He is a terrific parliamentary performer. He can, in a very measured way make mince-meat of most Tories including the PM.
But there really needs to be someone who can draw together all the strands of Labour. (I will not forgive the Blairite rebels who have publicly done so much damage to Labour in their anti-Corbyn campaigns).
All is not lost though. The public have short memories. Any Opposition Leader only needs 12 months to campaign and decimate the Tories in Parliament.
I'm particularly annoyed Corbyn is promoting a Brexit position, The game here is to delay and delay Brexit (the majority of Tories don't want it) to the point where a second referendum becomes a requirement. Jeremy is on a losing battle and cannot win whatever the result.
But who to take over? Those who publicly opposed Corbyn is such a damaging way should never be considered. who will be Labour's hero?
A strong leader is required.
A fuhrer.
A duce.
A generalissimo.
Yeah, that's it. That's what's needed.
At present it's an indecisive, mumbling cipher. Perhaps something in between?
Post a Comment