General Election

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS Albie.

In your post 338, you say:

This (the clauses we are discussing) is presumably what Faiza Shaheen is taking legal advice about.
Shaheen was criticised for a retweet of a post that refers to the Israeli lobby.
The existence of that lobby is a historical fact, and has been evident for many years past.

That's simply and irrefutably wrong. The clauses we are discussing relate to MEMBERSHIP. Shaheen's membership has not been revoked.

[albie]

BST,

Stop trying to backtrack and rewrite your own basic mistakes.
You have completely misunderstood the issues, and are too egotistical to own up, preferring to drivel and obfuscate.

The point Oborne was making in relation to membership is correct.
No organisation can write into its rules that natural justice is set aside, irrespective of the clauses they identify.
It is simply not within their gift to do so.

As Shaheen is a Labour member, she is entitled to the full range of opportunities that membership brings.
She chose to stand for Labour in Chingford, and was approved as their candidate by Chingford Labour.

For the Starmer controlled NEC to set aside her standing, they need a valid reason under the rules.
They do not have one.

If you think that they have, please enlighten us!
What is this "gross misconduct" analogy, I can't see any relevance to Shaheen?

Labour mumbled on about the need to have the highest quality candidate.
Shaheen is an economics academic (at the LSE), and an authority on economic inequality.
It would be hard to find someone better qualified.

Shaheen will be taking legal advice upon whether the decision to deny her standing is consistent with her membership rights, and if the given explanation can be justified against the published rules of Labour, assuming these rules are themselves lawful.

Of course post 336 relates to candidacy.
The matter of whether membership can be withdrawn without consideration of natural justice is material to that. It is a contingent factor.
You cannot be a candidate if you are not a member. That is the issue in contention with Shaheen.

Take my advice BST, never enter the witness box for cross examination.
Barristers would salivate over the prospect of grilling you!

Your post 360 above simply rehearses what I actually said to you!

Any reply to the relevant questions I asked you in post 355?
You know, Wakeford, Berger and Co?

[wilts rover]

https://x.com/DerbysPolice/status/1797013089017106619

 
Seems Robert Largan has previous
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66742672

Wow! “Off with his Head!”

Well, he did apologise.
Isn’t it ok if an MP apologised for an error.

If an MP apologises for an error then produces campaign material that so appear to mimic it being from another party that both the electoral commission and the police become involved - how sincere was that apology in the first place?

And does it not conform to the Tory stereotype that 'the rules are for the little people and not the likes of us'?

[BillyStubbsTears]

This is really very weird behaviour Albie.

I'll repeat. Shaheen has not had her membership revoked.(*) I KNOW you say you know that, but you then go on to say:

You cannot be a candidate if you are not a member. That is the issue in contention with Shaheen.

At this point, I genuinely do not have a clue what you are trying to say. You're contradicting yourself n every post and even in the same post.


(*) She certainly hasn't had ANY action taken against her that I'm aware of in conjunction with clause I.4A. Which is what Oborne and I (and I did think, you) were talking about.

[albie]

Here is post 355 again, BST, as you don't seem to be able to read properly.

BST,

Your post 352 seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the point Oborne is making.
Oborne is talking about the revisions which apply to MEMBERSHIP.

Shaheen has been excluded from CANDIDACY, but her membership remains in place.
 
By the logic of your first point, are you saying that the inclusion of Tory defectors, like Natalie Elphicke or Christian Wakeford, meet those membership criteria?
Or Luciana Berger, who stood for the LibDems against Labour?

Consider the reasons given for the removal of Faiza Shaheen as a Labour candidate.
Liking tweets referring to the Green Party before she joined Labour, or retweeting a comedy sketch about the Israeli lobby, or commenting on her own experience of Islamophobia in Labour.

Now read the rules again, and point out the specific offence that means an automatic exclusion from being a candidate.
Not her membership, which is still valid, but her candidacy supported by her local party.

What is the "prohibited act" that is proven, and leads to disqualification as a CANDIDATE?
Is any such "prohibited act" lawfully included in the rulebook, and consistent with UK legislation on natural justice?

I have an open mind, I consider this unproven until it has been tested in the courts.
In your own time.

Now answer the questions you have been asked, please!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

I'll answer what Iike thank you. I joined discussion on this topic to point out a blatant misrepresentation that you posted. You refuse to accept that and you fire off in other directions instead. It's no way to have a grown up discussion.

[albie]

"(*) She certainly hasn't had ANY action taken against her that I'm aware of in conjunction with clause I.4A. Which is what Oborne and I (and I did think, you) were talking about."

Yes, I told you that.
Which is why the reasons for refusing her candidacy need to be valid.

Neither Oborne nor I are saying the clauses are relevant...you said that, and they are not.
They are arbitrary, and irrelevant to the candidacy of a full member.

Now please answer the questions put to you.
Do Wakeford, Elphicke and Berger meet the standards for membership in the rules?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

So let's summarise.

You agree that the membership revelation clauses, including the one referring to "Natural Justice" are irrelevant to the Shaheen case?

You accept my one and only point in getting involved in this, which was that you were spreading a blatant misrepresentation of the facts?

If so, that's the discussion over.

If not, please explain to me clearly why you disagree with those two points.

Nothing else is relevant to the point I was making.

[albie]

BST,

1)
"You agree that the membership revelation clauses, including the one referring to "Natural Justice" are irrelevant to the Shaheen case?"

No, they are relevant to the matter of her membership under the rules.
Whether the rules themselves are lawful is another consideration.

Natural justice applies to both the membership rules, and the rules on candidates, despite what the Labour Party say.
The rules on membership, and those on candidacy, have to be internally coherent and applied without prejudice.

These issues need to be tested in the courts.

2)
"You accept my one and only point in getting involved in this, which was that you were spreading a blatant misrepresentation of the facts?"

Absolutely not.
The only "blatant misrepresentation" has been your lame attempt to rewrite the story to cover your back.
I have explained to you several times the errors in your replies, only for you to avoid the issue by changing focus.

All of which is in keeping with bad faith posting, trying to deviate by ducking and diving.
The game for you seems to be defending your own team, not looking at the bigger picture.

A bit immature, isn't it?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Christ alive Albie, what are you doing man?

1) Shaheen's membership has not been questioned, so how in God's name can clauses about membership have any connection?

2) I have not re-written anything in this thread. I stand by every single word. I genuinely do not have an idea what point you are trying to make.

If you're going to explode like this accusing me of changing focus and "ducking and diving" as part of some "game", have the decency to point out EXACTLY where I have done that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

This should really be the one and only thing we should be talking about in the campaign.

https://x.com/BenChu_/status/1797249155661717526

As a Novel Prize winning Economist puts it, "Productivity isn't everything. But in the long run, it's very nearly everything."

This is the biggest economic disaster in decades, if not centuries. If we don't start to put that right, the future is bleak.

[albie]

There is absolutely no point in being a member of a party which denies you the benefits of full membership.
That is the position of Faiza Shaheen.

Refused backing as a candidate, despite meeting all the stated criteria, is a denial of natural justice.
It means a second class status of Labour membership, where not all members enjoy equal rights.

If she decides to run as an Indy, her membership will then be revoked under the rules.
Meanwhile, ex Tories and LibDems are welcome having campaigned and stood against Labour candidates.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
This is what BST is struggling to understand, despite having said he was going to resign from the local party if Shaheen was prevented from standing..which she is!

In the real world, this is a form of constructive dismissal.
In this case it applies to a job opportunity, not a post occupied. At the very least it is a form of discrimination in the recruitment process.

Shaheen had passed all the hurdles to become a candidate, only to be downgraded at the eleventh hour on spurious grounds, in favour of a candidate from the Starmer faction.
A local candidate replaced with an outsider, and a Labour Friend of Israel to displace a supporter of Palestinian rights.

Go figure!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

I'll say again.

What I'm struggling with is the fact that you posted comnents about Labour's rules on membership that are;
a) highly misleading and
b) nothing whatsoever to do with Shaheen's case.

That's it. Nothing more,nothing less.

[drfchound]

There is absolutely no point in being a member of a party which denies you the benefits of full membership.
That is the position of Faiza Shaheen.

Refused backing as a candidate, despite meeting all the stated criteria, is a denial of natural justice.
It means a second class status of Labour membership, where not all members enjoy equal rights.

If she decides to run as an Indy, her membership will then be revoked under the rules.
Meanwhile, ex Tories and LibDems are welcome having campaigned and stood against Labour candidates.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
This is what BST is struggling to understand, despite having said he was going to resign from the local party if Shaheen was prevented from standing..which she is!

In the real world, this is a form of constructive dismissal.
In this case it applies to a job opportunity, not a post occupied. At the very least it is a form of discrimination in the recruitment process.

Shaheen had passed all the hurdles to become a candidate, only to be downgraded at the eleventh hour on spurious grounds, in favour of a candidate from the Starmer faction.
A local candidate replaced with an outsider, and a Labour Friend of Israel to displace a supporter of Palestinian rights.

Go figure!

I was wondering whether bst would go through with that threat to resign if Shaheen wasn’t allowed to stand in the GE.

[Herbert Anchovy]

If anyone is in doubt about what the Governments key tactic at this election will be, then have a listen to Kemi Badenoch's interview on Today this morning:-

1. Let's create a 'Culture War' policy headline that blames some minority group for the ills of the country
2. Don't worry about the detail - nobody cares as long as we are seen to be having a pop at the young, immigrants, trans-sexuals, the poor etc...etc...
3. Send one of our leading ministers onto the media to explain and defend the policy
4. When the Minister is unable to answer very reasonable questions about the policy, ensure that she gets the arse on during the live interview and looks like an aggressive bully and doesn't actually tell us anything.

As shallow as a kids paddling pool

Rinse & Repeat...

[IDM]

If anyone is in doubt about what the Governments key tactic at this election will be, then have a listen to Kemi Badenoch's interview on Today this morning:-

1. Let's create a 'Culture War' policy headline that blames some minority group for the ills of the country
2. Don't worry about the detail - nobody cares as long as we are seen to be having a pop at the young, immigrants, trans-sexuals, the poor etc...etc...
3. Send one of our leading ministers onto the media to explain and defend the policy
4. When the Minister is unable to answer very reasonable questions about the policy, ensure that she gets the arse on during the live interview and looks like an aggressive bully and doesn't actually tell us anything.

As shallow as a kids paddling pool

Rinse & Repeat...

Reminds me of 1933 ish..

[BillyStubbsTears]

If anyone is in doubt about what the Governments key tactic at this election will be, then have a listen to Kemi Badenoch's interview on Today this morning:-

1. Let's create a 'Culture War' policy headline that blames some minority group for the ills of the country
2. Don't worry about the detail - nobody cares as long as we are seen to be having a pop at the young, immigrants, trans-sexuals, the poor etc...etc...
3. Send one of our leading ministers onto the media to explain and defend the policy
4. When the Minister is unable to answer very reasonable questions about the policy, ensure that she gets the arse on during the live interview and looks like an aggressive bully and doesn't actually tell us anything.

As shallow as a kids paddling pool

Rinse & Repeat...

Someone has commented on Twitter today about this, saying today Labour are talking about Defence and national security policy, while the Tories are talking about what paperwork you need to go for a piss.

Kind of sums up the approaches of the two parties at the moment.

[BillyStubbsTears]

This latest b*llocks really captures the reason why I genuinely think the Tories might be facing an existential threat.

Be under no misapprehension about what Badenoch is doing today.

This announcement isn't about trying to win the Election. That's gone.

This is about throwing some red meat to the old, very right wing Tory membership. So that she'll be their darling when the Leader dogfight gets underway this summer.

Anyone who wants to be the next Tory leader has to win over a hundred thousand old reactionaries in the shires.

But like I keep saying. Those people and the values they represent are literally dying out.

And every time the Tory big names align the party more closely with those opinions, they repel even more of the younger people who are going to be voting for the next 50 years.

The Tory party used to be smarter than that. It sniffed the wind and reinvented itself to appeal to the emerging society in every generation.

So, Macmillan embraced the Keynesian economics and One Nation approach that would have been anathema to the previous generation.

Thatcher made the party the home of the newly aspirational working class.

Cameron accepted social liberalism and did away with the old "tut-tut" attitude associated with the Party.

But this lot have no idea of their own history. They are preaching to a shrinking, dying subset of the Electorate. Who is going to vote for them, when that group is no longer here?

[i_ateallthepies]

Unfortunately, BST a good few posters on here - and I include myself in this - may not be around to witness it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No knowing when any of us are going Pies.

Here's some numbers from the YG poll at the weekend that show how apocalyptic the situation is for the Tories.

YG polled 2040 people.

291 said they'd vote Tory at the election.

158 of those were aged 65+
76 were 50-64
51 were 25-49
6 were 18-24

If I were a Tory strategist, I'd be tying down and gagging any MP who wanted to make this election a Culture War about how to make bigoted pensioners feel better about themselves. The Tories are writing their own obituary by concentrating on that strategy.

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS.
The figures for Labour were:

657 said they'd vote Labour at the election.

91 of those were aged 65+
156 were 50-64
337 were 25-49
73 were 18-24

That's an absolutely unprecedented split.

People between 18 and 50 are SEVEN TIMES more likely to support Labour rather than the Tories.

As recently as 2.5 years ago, the polls were saying that age group was only 1.6 times more likely to vote Labour.

[BillyStubbsTears]

In case you didn't realise that the Tories are in meltdown...
https://x.com/twlldun/status/1797582937820717520

This from the ex Headmaster of St Paul's school, which charges £30k a year fees and currently pays no VAT.

[ChrisBx]

At 15:00, Farage will highly likelyannounce that he's standing as a candidate in the election.

The prospect of a Tory wipeout increases.

[mugnapper]

At 15:00, Farage will highly likelyannounce that he's standing as a candidate in the election.

The prospect of a Tory wipeout increases.

8th time (un)lucky?

[ChrisBx]

At 15:00, Farage will highly likelyannounce that he's standing as a candidate in the election.

The prospect of a Tory wipeout increases.

8th time (un)lucky?

Probably, unless there's two constituencies in which Reform are polling particularly well. (Assuming Tice has cherry-picked the area where they're strongest)

That won't stop him getting considerable TV/radio time during the campaign. Whatever you think of him, he's an effective campaigner and the Tories will be very worried about him/Reform diverting votes away from their party.

[albie]

Albie.

I'll say again.

What I'm struggling with is the fact that you posted comnents about Labour's rules on membership that are;
a) highly misleading and
b) nothing whatsoever to do with Shaheen's case.

That's it. Nothing more,nothing less.

BST,

Your points;

1)
The post is totally accurate.
What is misleading is your strange interpretation, which fails to see the link to the subsequent action in debarring Shaheen from standing.

2)
It is highly relevant, and central to the issue of eligibility to stand.

Labour are saying a member who wishes to stand, approved by Chingford Labour, cannot do so.
The democratic rights of Chingford Labour have thus been ignored.

Shaheens rights as a member are therefore restricted, and she does not hold the same status and privileges as other party members.
This is discriminatory, and potentially unlawful.

[albie]

Here is Starmer with his highest quality candidate grift;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1797585302577356800/pu/vid/avc1/858x720/mUBtiGPfby6Swl2t.mp4?tag=12

She is a Professor of Economics!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

I'll say again.

What I'm struggling with is the fact that you posted comnents about Labour's rules on membership that are;
a) highly misleading and
b) nothing whatsoever to do with Shaheen's case.

That's it. Nothing more,nothing less.

BST,

Your points;

1)
The post is totally accurate.
What is misleading is your strange interpretation, which fails to see the link to the subsequent action in debarring Shaheen from standing.

2)
It is highly relevant, and central to the issue of eligibility to stand.

Labour are saying a member who wishes to stand, approved by Chingford Labour, cannot do so.
The democratic rights of Chingford Labour have thus been ignored.

Shaheens rights as a member are therefore restricted, and she does not hold the same status and privileges as other party members.
This is discriminatory, and potentially unlawful.

This is so far beyond weird, it's actually quite unsettling.

Last go.

YOU posted a quote from Osborne that was highly misleading.

That quote related to Prohibited Actions which automatically led to revocation of party membership.

The quote was misleading because it gave the impression, deliberately or not, that membership revocation  without appeal could happen arbitrarily. It didn't inform the reader about the very precise and limited circumstances in which that applies. The entire and sole purpose of my contribution was to make that clear.

None of that has ANYTHING to do with the Shaheen issue.

She's not had her membership revoked.

She's had her candidacy blocked.

The specific clauses we have been discussing say nothing whatsoever about eligibility to be a Labour candidate.

I genuinely haven't got a clue how and why you are conflating two totally and utterly separate issues, but I wish you well with whatever strange logic you are using.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oh hang on!

The post is totally accurate.
What is misleading is your strange interpretation, which fails to see the link to the subsequent action in debarring Shaheen from standing.

Are you suggesting the link is this:

Because, as you see it, the issue Oborne raises proves that Labour are able at will and with no right of appeal to arbitrarily revoke someone's membership, they presumably can block someone's candidacy equally arbitrarily?

[BillyStubbsTears]

At 15:00, Farage will highly likelyannounce that he's standing as a candidate in the election.

The prospect of a Tory wipeout increases.

https://x.com/cjayanetti/status/1797640969980133544