Where did it all go wrong? The first bit is straightforward: Azhar Ali, who won the selection battle, was not subjected to due diligence for his past utterances. So the right-wing press did the job Labour omitted. And they soon discovered that Ali had been peddling the wacko conspiracy theory that the Hamas raid on southern Israel on October 7 last was an inside job.
But then a problem entered: this discovery had occurred after the deadline for nominations. Labour could not submit another candidate in Ali’s place. So a number of voices who had previously passed severely adverse comment on anything to do with Corbyn’s leadership thoroughly devalued themselves by parading before the media to support Ali. Because Ali was a Blairite. He was one of them. They would therefore deem black to be white on his behalf.
John Rentoul, that most arch of arch-Blairites, told TalkTV “It’s very uncharacteristic in my experience of him, to be parroting a conspiracy theory”. It was clearly an isolated incident. Louise Ellman made her excuses. Ali had previously been supportive of her. Adam Langleben mused that “in any other by-election” Labour should have pulled their candidate. But not this one.
And then push came to shove: the Mail had more evidence of what should have been picked up in a proper due diligence exercise. Like the one not performed by the Labour leadership. At this point, Starmer about turned and pulled party support from Azhar Ali. A safe Labour seat lost because of factionalism, stupidity, stubbornness and basic ineptitude.
So it was that Louise Ellman appeared on the Radio 4 Today programme to explain why she had given Ali a free pass yesterday, but not today, and it was quite right that he had been dumped. The Mail, for its part, approved of Starmer’s action so much that, for once, their front page splash referred to him by his Christian name, a privilege usually reserved for Tories.
Labour’s leadership can count itself fortunate that the Tories are in such a mess, and highly likely to lose both by-elections coming up later this week, as to change very few minds. Where their luck has run out is that claims of having zero tolerance of anti-Semitism have been shown to be complete bunk. And dumping on Corbyn shown to be a complete sham.
Blair didn’t need to behave like this. Nor should Starmer. That is all.
https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton
18 comments:
The sitting North of Tyne metro mayor Jamie Driscoll got instantly deselected for accepting an invitation from a local film group to discuss, alongside him, the release of Ken Loaches 3rd film made in the area.
Upon his deselection Baroness Chapmen (Jenny Chapmen) declared that it was "simply guaranteeing the highest quality candidates"
His deselection was also widely lauded by exactly the same individuals who went out to bat for Azhar Ali yesterday.
It is very revealing how detailed examinations of certain candidates from specific factions of the party result in almost instant sanction whereas other candidates, even when serious indiscretions are revealed (by others) get the support of the self same people who would castigate the former without hesitation.
Well, well. The "controversy" arrived a lot sooner than predicted.
How ironic the Starmer Quisling should be hoist on his own petard of non-existent "Labour Party anti-semitism". By the nazi-supporting anti-semitic Rothermere Daily Heil. You have to larf, even though it is all so predictable, and all obviously meant to keep the Quisling in line. Which he and his gutless fellow travellers do so willingly.
Meanwhile, there's this observation for Rochdale voters:
The point is this iteration of the Labour Party will mean little more than a change of tie, and the circumstance of the likes of your son will not improve in any meaningful manner. All they will do is lock in austerity and move the Overton window to the right. Streeting has already made it clear that he will "throw open the doors" to private money in the NHS, various Labour politicians have come out and made it clear public spending will not improve, and all they will offer is crackdowns and flag shagging. How will that improve your son's lot?
As a secondary point, "Cunts" like us fell for the "people who need a Labour government" shite for decades, holding our noses and voting for increasingly right wing Labour parties and an increasingly authoritarian and conservative Labour government. Come 2015 when the left took control of the party, we asked for the favour to be returned in order to get out a lunatic Tory government, the Labour right made it quite clear they didn't give a fuck about those who "need a Labour government", only getting their ball back. They then embarked on a four year campaign of wrecking to ensure Tory victory, including a co-ordinated day of resignations in collusion with the BBC, labelling the entire left racist and in some cases wrecking election campaigns (two got peerages for it).
So, with all due respect: I'd rather gargle piss than vote for this shower of cúnts and reward their wrecking.
The alternative is to vote for left-wing independents, or the Greens (problematic, but less so than Labour). Until people make a concerted effort to break the duopoly, the direction of travel in this country will only be to the right at ever greater speed.
But this is just the start for the Quislings. There's a lot more far right cowardice to come.
"Robert Peston"?
Is that the same Robert Peston who wrote "...on the whole, greed is good... in his far right tory propaganda bullshit Who Runs Britain?, (Hodder paperback, 2008), page 336.
That one?
And now Graham Jones has been suspended as a Labour candidate after referring to “fucking Israel” and saying that Britons who fight for the Israel Defense Forces should be “locked up”.
Sentiments that, in the middle of the slaughter by Israel and the IDF of 27000 Palestinians and counting (among whom, no doubt, a few thousands Hamas fighters), I would imagine are shared by a sizeable majority of the people of this country.
To save future embarrassment maybe Starmer should leave candidate selection to the Daily Mail and the Jewish Chronicle.
Does anyone else think that 'Anonymous' at 17:01 is actually Tim's sock puppet? After all, Tim does seem to be confused as to where he lives - he claims to live in Portugal, yet the headers of his blog still proclaim Crewe, as does his Blogger profile. He also claims to use a BT Internet address.
So which is it, Tim?
"Does anyone else think that 'Anonymous' at 17:01 is actually Tim's sock puppet?"
No, I don't.
18:22.
Save your single brain cell the effort.
Like Tim, I'm Spartacus and so is everyone else. All happy Trots together.
Hope this helps.....but I doubt it.
Does anyone else think that 'Anonymous' at 18.22 is actually Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's sock puppet? After all, who else has demonstrated in the past a particular interest in Tim's particular location?
If irritated by the ineffable anon@17.01 I try to simply imagine his words being recited by a younger Rick Mayall. He's as regular as rain during the monsoon season and can be reduced to a quick scan for a capital Q
I've thought that Bertie might be Tim's sock on occasion - because nobody could be that off the mark without being part of the joke - but I have gone back on that.
Even my Oxbridge mind can't explain Bertie, but Tim is a guy who says what he means via his blog. Like a normal person really.
"the Hamas raid on southern Israel on October 7 last was an inside job."
Er, no, it was that Bibi and his thugs had been warned but chose to ignore it.
Green Party candidate Guy Otten has also been ditched by his party, almost a week ago, for anti-Islam posts on antisocial media some years back. Curiously no-one is making a big noise over his case. Can't think why…
Anonymous at 22:36 - I'm going to try that!
October 7 may or may not be "a wacko conspiracy theory". It wouldn't surprise either way.
What is known is that history provides plenty of confirmed evidence showing the actuality of such mass homicidal insanity. Here's a prime example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods.
Add to that the infamous Gulf of Tonkin "incident" used to get the USA into all out invasion of Vietnam, plus, say, the nazi lies that enabled the attack on Poland and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, and the notion is far from outlandish.
I wouldn't put anything past the current psychotic fascist colonial Israel government. It has already commited a war crime many times worse than the nazi attack on the Warsaw Ghetto.
Mark! It's Valentine's Day. Where are my flowers? I was expecting your obsession to be manifested if not horticulturally then at least with sweetmeats.
But no, another limp jibe is all you manage.
And really, I think it's time for you to concede that there are actually quite a lot of things that your 'Oxbridge mind' is not up to recognising let alone explaining.
Your obtuseness, literal-mindedness and total lack of self-awareness being the most obvious ones.
Now go and put those flowers in some water before, like your 'Oxford mind' percipience, they begin to wilt and droop.
Watergate was a wacko conspiracy theory too. Until it wasn't.
My immediate response to the Hamas attack on 7 October was that Bibi let it happen, on the grounds that he was under severe domestic criticism and that acting the heroic war leader might help restore his tattered reputation. Of course, the Hamas attack did a lot more damage than Bibi intended, but this sort of wheeze always has its risks. It just seemed improbable that a state as security-focused as Israel would not have noticed the build-up in Gaza to the attack, and that its highly efficient armed forces could not ward off a few hundred bedraggled guerrillas.
I then started to think a bit more, and concluded that were Bibi to try this trick, it would need to have involved quite a few people in the Israeli defence organisations, and it was within this sector that opposition to him was particularly strong, and they would have blown the gaff on him. Friends of mine, some of whom with good contacts in Israel, then told me that the Israeli state was -- incredible as it seems -- indeed caught off-guard, not least because they were concentrating on helping Zionist settlers and harassing Palestinians in the West Bank.
Within a few hours, I had stopped reckoning that it was a false-flag job, and came to feel that that the attack was not in fact 'allowed to happen'. But I nonetheless still feel that my immediate thoughts were not a descent 'down the rabbit hole', but a logical provisional conclusion drawn from the news as I heard it.
What I'd like to know is how long Mr Ali was claiming it was a false-flag job. Was he still pushing this line after it became clear that the Israeli state had its eye off the ball?
But even if he continued to believe the false-flag theory, does that necessarily make him guilty of promoting an anti-Semitic theory? Merely accusing Israel of staging a false-flag job does not automatically imply anti-Jewish feelings or motivation. Israel has a well-documented history of staging false-flag jobs, such as in Iraq and Egypt. Did Mr Ali utter some genuinely anti-Jewish prejudices along with his conspiracy theory, or does the Leader of my party and his Thought Police consider that merely promoting a conspiracy theory concerning Israel automatically constitutes hostility towards Jews?
In the context of the current Labour party leadership, Dr P, to say anything about Israel and its government other than 'Israel has a right to defend itself', will constitute anti-semitism.
Your post above would probably be enough to get you expelled from the party as would my comments here (if I hadn't already resigned weeks ago over this issue). This isthe absurd point we've reached.
Post a Comment