Labour party civil war

[Alf Bentley]

Back to the subject, anyone got any idea why Leicester South MP Jon Ashworth hasn't resigned? He's no ally of Corbyn and all of the ones in the shadow cabinet that have similar views to him have long gone?

 

 

Ashworth is my MP, but I can't answer your question.

 

About 3-4 days ago, I emailed him, expressing my dismay at Corbyn's inadequate performance during the referendum campaign and calling for him (Corbyn, not Ashworth) to go, but for Labour to move forward using some of his policies, not lurching back to New Labour. It was essentially a copy-and-paste of one of my posts in here. I've yet to receive any response.

 

Ashworth tends to be labelled a Brownite, which generally means not that different to Blairite New Labour, but slightly more to the left, a bit more attention to traditional supporters & grassroots, economic/social issues, public sector etc.

 

I see Soulsby has called for Corbyn to go.

[Guest MattP]

And how would you 'discourage' people to wear things that relate to their cultural identity?

 

Why does clothing create division or is perhaps attitudes towards difference that's the issue?

 

Because it shows you are different, whether it's a hijab or a yamaka it expresses a difference of yourself from the rest of society, the former I'd argue is worse though given the way it's been used as a weapon of subjugation across the World towards women. We know exactly what the teaching of Islam is when it comes to the Hijab, all four branches have a common understaning, it's about making sure of the seclusion of women, it's about control of the male over the female, forcing them into dressing modestly and obeying those who "own" them.

 

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimār over their breasts and not display their beauty except to their husband, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their (Muslim) women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. (Quran 24:31)

 

I do find it completely baffling how a left winger who is supposed to be concerned about equality and women's rights doesnt only defend these things but also seeks to promote it as some sort of thing we should aspire too, it's almost like they do it without thinking because some idiots are racist towards Muslims.

 

Me and @alfbentley are both on a facebook page in Iran calld "My stealthy freedom" - it's a page that shows girls taking pictures of themselves without the headcarves they are forced to wear, you should stand in solidarity with them, they are the future, they are the 21st century, not encouraging the wearing of it in the already liberated Western World.

[Guest MattP]

Ashworth is my MP, but I can't answer your question.

 

About 3-4 days ago, I emailed him, expressing my dismay at Corbyn's inadequate performance during the referendum campaign and calling for him (Corbyn, not Ashworth) to go, but for Labour to move forward using some of his policies, not lurching back to New Labour. It was essentially a copy-and-paste of one of my posts in here. I've yet to receive any response.

 

Ashworth tends to be labelled a Brownite, which generally means not that different to Blairite New Labour, but slightly more to the left, a bit more attention to traditional supporters & grassroots, economic/social issues, public sector etc.

 

I see Soulsby has called for Corbyn to go.

 

I can't understand it at all, there is nothing whatsoever I can think of that would keep him there.

 

You'll get a response eventually, although even from e-mails MP's generally reply with a posted letter still from the HoC, which rather sadly I still get excited about receiving.

[Nick]

Because it shows you are different, whether it's a hijab or a yamaka it expresses a difference of yourself from the rest of society, the former I'd argue is worse though given the way it's been used as a weapon of subjugation across the World towards women. We know exactly what the teaching of Islam is when it comes to the Hijab, all four branches have a common understaning, it's about making sure of the seclusion of women, it's about control of the male over the female, forcing them into dressing modestly and obeying those who "own" them.

 

 

I do find it completely baffling how a left winger who is supposed to be concerned about equality and women's rights doesnt only defend these things but also seeks to promote it as some sort of thing we should aspire too, it's almost like they do it without thinking because some idiots are racist towards Muslims.

 

PS I have no clue whatsoever what you are on about at this point in your post - you've clearly misinterpreted or misread something.

 

Me and @alfbentley are both on a facebook page in Iran calld "My stealthy freedom" - it's a page that shows girls taking pictures of themselves without the headcarves they are forced to wear, you should stand in solidarity with them, they are the future, they are the 21st century, not encouraging the wearing of it in the already liberated Western World.

 

I think it's lovely you and Alf have so much in common but why are you telling me this like its something I don't know about or wouldn't support?

 

 

We are all different Matt - diversity is something to celebrate in my opinion the issue is how people perceive and interpret difference, rather than the difference itself.

 

My point is about personal choice and funnily enough, certainly not about sanctioning the abuse of womankind. 

 

You or anybody else are not in a position to discourage religious dress labelling it as a barrier or difference when it's out of individual choice - where does it end: turbans, clergy uniform, Nun's, Monks - perhaps just paint everybody white so the natives don't have to be afraid......

[Guest MattP]

We are all different Matt - diversity is something to celebrate in my opinion the issue is how people perceive and interpret difference, rather than the difference itself.

 

My point is about personal choice and funnily enough, certainly not about sanctioning the abuse of womankind. 

 

You or anybody else are not in a position to discourage religious dress labelling it as a barrier or difference when it's out of individual choice - where does it end: turbans, clergy uniform, Nun's, Monks - perhaps just paint everybody white so the natives don't have to be afraid......

 

Shame but sort of knew this was coming eventually, seems like we still have a while to go before we can have grown up conversations about politics without silly childish backhanded accusations of racism.

[Nick]

Shame but sort of knew this was coming eventually, seems like we still have a while to go before we can have grown up conversations about politics without sly, backhanded accusations of racism whenever we have to speak about people or religion.

 

 

Not at all - My question was how do you discourage all religious dress, why would you do it and what rights do have to do so and where does it end.

 

Your response said I was trying to promote the hijab for some bizarre reason.

[Nick]

Shame but sort of knew this was coming eventually, seems like we still have a while to go before we can have grown up conversations about politics without silly childish backhanded accusations of racism.

 

 

that you edited your post to call me childish. I'm not crying racism - just answer the questions

 

You begin by suggesting difference is bad and even uncivilised, you then say you would discourage all religious dress. I ask how, why and where does it end. You say that difference is bad - however you wish to look at it, there is no problem with difference its about the prejudices that surround it. You wrote that difference is a bad thing. 

 

You then exit the argument attempting to find some moral high ground - my comment is perfectly fair: if you regulate all religious dress due to fear of demonstrating difference, where does it end?

[Guest]

Really? I'd discourage all religious dress, it's just another layer of division in a society that shows the difference between people, of course everything should always have the freedom to wear what they want, but to suggest wearing the hijab is a sign of some sort of progressive ideology is a bit warped imho.

 

I take back civilised though, I should have said forward thinking.

 

Would you discourage tattoos and nose studs too?

 

What about hoodies and baseball caps.

 

The clothes are not the problem. Variety enhances society. Controls like that are dangerous.

[Dr The Singh]

Really? I'd discourage all religious dress, it's just another layer of division in a society that shows the difference between people, of course everything should always have the freedom to wear what they want, but to suggest wearing the hijab is a sign of some sort of progressive ideology is a bit warped imho.

I take back civilised though, I should have said forward thinking.

I think everyone should be forced to wear the turban, that way I can create a designer brand, I would be like the Michael Korr of turban designers.

There is a difference between choice, and wearing something you believe in. Aslong it does not impeach on anyone else then why the issue. However clothing line the burka which is a barrier, should be avoided

[Thracian]

And how would you 'discourage' people to wear things that relate to their cultural identity?

 

Why does clothing create division or is perhaps attitudes towards difference that's the issue?

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with "difference" so long as its lawful and there's respect for other people's "difference" and that "difference" doesn't unreasonably impact on anyone else's free choice and feelings of comfort and acceptability.

 

Unfortunately there's lots of intolerance of "difference" highlighted only this week when a school removed "the cross" from its badge. It was said that other faiths had no objection to the cross but that left the reasons for the decision a mystery.

 

My guess is that there were specific, perhaps isolated, and totally unofficial comments made.

 

I just don't accept the decision was made for no reason but explaining the reasons honestly might well have been seen to be making the situation worse. So - another compromise. More backing off. And being "different" gets subdued.

 

Seems to me that difference is fine - but some "difference" is more tolerated than others.

 

As for your comment suggesting that clothing shouldn't create division, you're right, it shouldn't.

But it does. Absolutely no question. Nothing is more divisive (to some) than different sets of rival football fans in their respective colours. Or people wearing their political colours. Clothing is sometimes deliberately worn as a means of identity. And that, in some, provokes reaction.              

[Thracian]

Would you discourage tattoos and nose studs too?

 

What about hoodies and baseball caps.

 

The clothes are not the problem. Variety enhances society. Controls like that are dangerous.

 

 

I tend to agree so long as security's not put at risk and would agree all-but completely if security were no longer an issue, which used to be the case.

 

So why do we allow any third party - husband, individual or organisation - to influence or dictate what someone wears in a free situation (ie not part of a uniform that needs to be recognised such as a policeman or nurse)? 

 

Clothes are often used to make a statement about people but the wearing of that identity should be entirely the choice of the individual so long as its lawful. 

[Beliall]

.

[Webbo]

I think everyone should be forced to wear the turban, that way I can create a designer brand, I would be like the Michael Korr of turban designers.

There is a difference between choice, and wearing something you believe in. Aslong it does not impeach on anyone else then why the issue. However clothing line the burka which is a barrier, should be avoided

I think you're more like Michael's brother Juan Korr.

[GaelicFox]

I think you're more like Michael's brother Juan Korr.

Full name

kok Juan Korr

[Realist Guy In The Room]

I'm looking forward to that, hoping to see Peter Mandelson crying into his fish, chips and guacamole.

Imagine how disappointing it would be if the report said, 'Nah mate. All legit.'

[Alf Bentley]

If this is true, it's quite incredible: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/02/corbyn-keeps-watson-arms-length

 

"Jeremy Corbyn’s aides are refusing to let Labour deputy leader Tom Watson hold a one-to-one meeting with him, claiming that Watson will try to “bully” the leader into resigning. A senior Labour source, close to the embattled leader, said they had blocked Watson from talking privately to Corbyn because they have a “duty of care. They [Watson’s aides] want Watson to be on his own with Corbyn so that he can jab his finger at him,” the source said. “We are not letting that happen. He’s a 70-year-old [sic] man. We have a duty of care … This is not a one-off. There is a culture of bullying. Maybe it’s a Blairite/Brownite thing.”

I'm no fan of bullying - a serious issue - but if someone is leader of a political party, he needs to be able to stand up to bullying or shouldn't be in that position....and the idea that he's going to be bullied 1-on-1 by his deputy?! 

Whatever anyone may think of Corbyn, he's been in politics for many decades, often adopting controversial positions or positions in conflict with his party leadership or the majority of his colleagues. The idea that he is going to be bullied by Watson is unbelievable. 

[Thracian]

If this is true, it's quite incredible: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/02/corbyn-keeps-watson-arms-length

 

"Jeremy Corbyn’s aides are refusing to let Labour deputy leader Tom Watson hold a one-to-one meeting with him, claiming that Watson will try to “bully” the leader into resigning. A senior Labour source, close to the embattled leader, said they had blocked Watson from talking privately to Corbyn because they have a “duty of care. They [Watson’s aides] want Watson to be on his own with Corbyn so that he can jab his finger at him,” the source said. “We are not letting that happen. He’s a 70-year-old [sic] man. We have a duty of care … This is not a one-off. There is a culture of bullying. Maybe it’s a Blairite/Brownite thing.”

I'm no fan of bullying - a serious issue - but if someone is leader of a political party, he needs to be able to stand up to bullying or shouldn't be in that position....and the idea that he's going to be bullied 1-on-1 by his deputy?! 

Whatever anyone may think of Corbyn, he's been in politics for many decades, often adopting controversial positions or positions in conflict with his party leadership or the majority of his colleagues. The idea that he is going to be bullied by Watson is unbelievable. 

 

 

 

Bullies in the Labour Party? I'd never have believed it.     

[Alf Bentley]

Bullies in the Labour Party? I'd never have believed it.     

 

 

You're missing my point.

 

Parties can try to minimise bullying, but it will always happen as politics is a rough game. Farage is threatening Carswell with the sack to try to force him into line. There are allegations that a Tory activist was bullied to the point of suicide. I've no doubt that bullying happens within the Labour Party (e.g. there were allegations against Brown).

 

My point is that it is utterly ridiculous to imagine that a vastly experienced politician, the leader of his party, can be bullied by 1 person, his deputy. The idea of a leader refusing to meet his deputy 1-to-1 for that reason is also ridiculous (if true). If a leader really was that weak, he shouldn't be in the position in the first place. More likely, a group of people around him are preventing him seeing his deputy in case he is influenced in a direction they don't want (i.e. to resign).

[Guest MattP]

I can actually believe this as well, a lot of reporting this morning is claiming Corbyn is prepared to give it up but Milne and all the other acolytes are the ones forcing him to cling, a lot of these people haven't even supported the party for years.

The idea he can't have a 1 on 1 with his deputy because he might get bullied is so farcical I don't know where to start.

Labour has to rid of itself of these people and kingmakers like Len McCluskey or Tony Blair will go down in history as the last ever Labour leader to win a majority.

[Guest MattP]

I also bumped into Peter Soulsby yesterday at the New Walk art gallery. Nice fella.

[Guest]

I also bumped into Peter Soulsby yesterday at the New Walk art gallery. Nice fella.

 

Hope that was sarcastic. Otherwise he must've changed a lot over the last 30 years.

[Claridge]

I think everyone should be forced to wear the turban, that way I can create a designer brand, I would be like the Michael Korr of turban designers.

There is a difference between choice, and wearing something you believe in. Aslong it does not impeach on anyone else then why the issue. However clothing line the burka which is a barrier, should be avoided

Damn good idea about compulsory turbans.

Stop people calling me slaphead

[Thracian]

There's nothing wrong with "difference" so long as its lawful and there's respect for other people's "difference" and that "difference" doesn't unreasonably impact on anyone else's free choice and feelings of comfort and acceptability.

 

Unfortunately there's lots of intolerance of "difference" highlighted only this week when a school removed "the cross" from its badge. It was said that other faiths had no objection to the cross but that left the reasons for the decision a mystery.

 

My guess is that there were specific, perhaps isolated, and totally unofficial comments made.

 

I just don't accept the decision was made for no reason but explaining the reasons honestly might well have been seen to be making the situation worse. So - another compromise. More backing off. And being "different" gets subdued.

 

I wonder too, based on the arguments I've read, how the return of topless dresses would go down.

 

 They were quite fashionable for a short while but given the massive changes in our society I could well imagine massive pressure against them despite the vehemency on here to celebrate "difference". I don't see a problem at all.

 

I think women should be safe and properly respected whatever they wear and I really can't see that bare breasts are any more offensive than a bare midriff or short skirts. And if some considered his level of "difference" offensive should our society sacrifice its own values for someone else's or not?      

 

I'll be interested to hear, but it seems to me that difference is fine - but some "difference" is more tolerated than others.

 

As for your comment suggesting that clothing shouldn't create division, you're right, it shouldn't.

 

But it does. Absolutely no question. Nothing is more divisive (to some) than different sets of rival football fans in their respective colours. Or people wearing their political colours. Clothing is sometimes deliberately worn as a means of identity. And that, in some, provokes reaction.              

[Guest Bilo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04090yr

Prescott thinks he'd need 51 MPs to nominate him in the event of a new leadership election.

In which case, he's toast.

[Guest]

I'm listening to Angela Eagle and I think she's less electable than Corbyn.

 

WTF?