Article 50 and Labour Viewpoint

tuiip-siddiq

As Article 50 bill is getting ready, media is again highlighting conflicts within Labour.

I think these discussions are vital signs of an active party with supporters from all walks of life.

Internal Labour discussions are not much different from a REMAIN voted (then MP) PM presenting the Article 50 bill.

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn both supported REMAIN, but the country voted otherwise.

Being respectful of that decision, both leaders are asking their respective MPs to pass Article 50 bill so that the negotiations with EU and rest of the world could commence.

This being the case, why single out the internal difference within Labour?

The referendum was not discussed and voted based on party affiliations.  Instead, supporters from all parties (except UKIP of course) were intensively divided to support both sides of the argument.

One of the sides won.

Now leaders of both major parties are asking their MPs to vote to support invoking Article 50.

I do not see anything wrong with it.

If Tulip Siddiq cannot understand that democratic process, it is better for her to resign.

Advertisements

Journalism or Biased Propaganda?

negative

I intended to write on Labour and upcoming vote by parliament on article 50.

Instead, I am writing again on biased-journalism, because of one-sided trash they call news these days.

Is it only me, or have you noticed it as well?

Read following links and you will know what I mean:

  • Corbyn office sabotaged EU remain Campaign, by BBC in-house Corbyn-hater and political fabricator Laura Kuenssberg – against who, incidentally, even the regulator BBC Trust ruled that she inaccurately represented Corbyn.
  • YouGov on “How badly is Jeremy Corbyn doing?”
  • The Telegraph header on Jeremy backs down on vow to force Labour MPs to vote in favour of Brexit.
  • BBC on Corbyn not changed his mind on immigration.

Do you hear the underlying tone?

In all cases, they use as many negative adjectives as possible with “Labour” and “Corbyn” in the same sentence.

Ignore the politics and political reasoning for time being; we can discuss it later.

Instead, let’s check the syntax and attitude.

Take for example “Corbyn sabotaged EU Remain”. Had they said either “Corbyn supports Brexit” or “Labour supports Remain” it would have given a clearer message.  Also, it would have brought readers on at least one side of the topic closer to Labour.

Read the other article on Corbyn not his changed mind on immigration.  Corbyn clearly states that immigration to the UK is not too high and migrants play a valuable role in the society.   In next statement BBC says “Labour was not wedded to freedom of movement”.

Why cannot Laura and BBC use their backbones, stand straight and say clearly that Corbyn supports controlled immigration?

Because their backbones were long ago surrendered to the grand-alliance of Corbyn haters.

Yet another article in Telegraph: Jeremy backs down on vow to force Labour MPs to vote in favour of Brexit.

Wow!  How many negatives in just one header!

Does it still clearly explain in which way Labour wants its MPs to vote?

No, that message is obscured.

This is what the pen-pushers and Labour-haters want to achieve.  Create utter confusion regarding the stands of Labour and Corbyn and murk the message.

By using “no”, “not”, “force” and other negative remarks, they purposefully alienate Labour and Corbyn from either side of the argument.

Let me try – “Media, political parties and their trash-writers use manipulative language in their venomous uttering against Corbyn”.

See, I too have learned that way of writing!

Blame the propagandists!

Lost the mood to write on the topic I intended to; will come back later on Labour and Article50.

Till then, have a read on an earlier post on journalism.

Political Journalism – Is Fact an essential ingredient?

Journalism.png

I thought so, till i read Sarah Ditum’s article.

Yesterday, one of my good friends forwarded an article by Sarah Ditum in New Statesman, titled “Corbyn’s supporters loved his principles. But he ditched them in the EU campaign”.

As you might have guessed from the title, the article vainly and pathetically tries to establish how Corbyn deceived his supporters, due to his stand to stay with Remain.

First of all, I admire the author’s psychic powers in knowing how Corbyn and his supporters think!  Sarah Ditum “knows” without doubt that Corbyn “never supported Remain” and “Corbyn’s greatest supporters don’t rate him as a statesman”.

These are the abilities – ability to read other’s mind and ability to write sweeping statements which generalize and stereotype common public – that alienate a journalist from facts and their readers.

Authoring “Corbyn must go” and calling him liar are not characteristics of a journalist; instead they are the words of a politically-biased person, who is frustrated and bewildered by Corbyn’s increasing popularity – within Labour and in the country.

I support Labour.

I support Corbyn as Labour’s leader for his stands and principles.

I voted for Leave.

All of above might look contradictory to Sarah Ditum; but not for me.

Why?  There are a two main reasons:

  1. EU referendum was not debated and voted based on party or political affiliations.  Instead there were deep divisions within all parties (bar UKIP, of course) between LEAVE and REMAIN supporters.  Just like Tories, Labour supporters too were divided.
  1. As mentioned by Corbyn in his speech, “Labour party was overwhelmingly for staying IN” and as the leader of his party which believes in democracy, Corbyn stood with majority to support REMAIN. At the same time, a large number of Labour party members were equally convinced that a LEAVE vote was the right choice and went ahead with their Labour for Leave    The Labour Leave were not victimised or thrown out of the party.  Instead, they were respected for their stand.  Why? Refer #1

Does the EU referendum result force Cobyn to resign?  No.  Why?  Refer #1.

Does the EU referendum result, by any chance, a no-confidence in Corbyn as leader?  Emphatically no.  Why?  Refer #2.

If any, Corbyn’s stand to campaign for REMAIN gives more credibility to him as a leader, as he decided to stay with the majority decision within the party – even if that decision is against his will.  Be very clear, I do not have the same psychic powers of Sarah Ditum to say with absolute conviction that Corbyn in his heart and mind “never supported Remain”.  Merely agreeing, just to put forward my point.

Read this along with Corbyn’s apology on Labour’s role in Iraq war.  This is just one example for the true characteristics of a leader who while tirelessly fought against an unjust war in past, in present is apologizing for someone else’s wrong-doings.

The growth in Labour membership after Corbyn’s leadership is another indication how popular Corbyn and his ideologies are.  If I am correct, no other political leader can claim this popularity in UK’s modern political history.  Labour’s membership now stands at 500,000.  That is 100,000 more members after referendum results.  These quantifiable figures are just enough to show the hollowness of Sarah Ditum’s core argument.

Do not get me wrong.  I am not a Corbyn worshiper.  For me, Corbyn is not a demi-god, but someone who represents the wishes, demands, vision, will and political stance of Labour grass-roots.

I admire the audacity of Sarah Ditum that allows to pen statements like “Corbyn supporters should know this: he has failed you, and will continue to fail you as long as he is party leader.”

Thank you very much for the advice! But no thank you, the party has a way to find out who its leader should be, and the party voted for Corbyn as Leader with 60% support, only 10+ months ago.

Ditum continue to write that Corbyn “will achieve nothing beyond grinding Labour ever further into smallness and irrelevance”.   You do not need to be a journalist; any person who is interested in UK’s daily political news can clearly see who is grinding Labour into irrelevance by going against the grass roots.  At a time when the party should be working together to campaign against Tory austerities and the shallowness of current government, it is shameful that some of the Labour MPs are trying to sabotage the party’s will for their selfishness.

Let me repeat:

The “ability” to read other’s minds and to write sweeping statements which generalise and stereotype common public alienates a journalist from facts and their readers. 

Authoring “Corbyn must go” and calling him liar are not characteristics of a journalist; instead they are the words of a politically-biased person, who is frustrated and bewildered by Corbyn’s increasing popularity – within Labour and in the country.

 

Is “Two-leader” formula a better alternative to Labour’s future?

Two_Leader

Is “Two-leader” formula a better alternative to Labour’s future?

Before proceeding, I want to mention that:

  • Per me, the best possible resolution for current dilemma is: Eagle to step back and let Corbyn – who was democratically elected by more than 60% of the membership – to continue leading the party
  • I no way claim I know the intricacies of party policies, rule-books and inner-party activities.  Instead, this is a novice attempt of a Labour supporter, who just want the party to come out of current deep divisions and focus more on what the grass-roots want and aspire for.
  • In this post, I am just thinking aloud and playing around with the possibilities
  • By no means has this “Two-Leader” formula perfectly answered all open issues.
  • It needs to be ironed-out on how to approach government discussions / decisions on sensitive / security / foreign affairs

With those caveats in place, let me try to explain further!

By Two leaders, I mean

  1. Leader of the Labour Party, who is
    • Democratically elected by Labour members
    • Leads NEC
    • Governs day-to-day Labour Party activities
  2. Leader of the PLP, who is
    • Elected by the PLP members
    • Should be member of the NEC
    • Governs day-to-day PLP activities, but limited to PLP.

Some key points that support above formula are:

  • NEC is the ultimate authority within the party.
  • PLP is a subset of party, not over the party.  Think of PLP as an “elite branch” working within Westminster.
  • PLP leader is free from day-to-day party activities, though PLP decisions (with possible exclusions of sensitive items, I mean military, security etc.)  are discussed / endorsed with NEC
  • Party Leader is free from day-to-day government activities, though PLP decisions are still discussed within NEC.

Will try to extend this further, but what is your opinion on it, in its current form?

Let me know your thoughts!

Is PLP Larger than Labour?

Jeremy Corbyn

It’s a shame what is happening within Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP).

Not only it is shameless, but undemocratic, unrealistic and visibly out of touch of grass-root Labour too.

From when has it become more important for the Labour MPs to be in Parliament than working with its members?

From when has an MP seat become more important than inner-party democracy?

For the Labour MPs who are so disconnected from the party roots and common public, there is only one solution for all issues:  Corbyn’s resignation.

These MPs should remember one thing – Corbyn was elected as the leader of the party by a very large mandate – by a mandate not seen in the recent history of Labour.

A leadership contest is not in question at all, at this point in time.

There were no issues that have raised questions on Corbyn’s leadership in last weeks.  BREXIT vote should not be treated as a no-confidence on Corbyn.  BREXIT was debated and chosen by people from all wakes of lives.  Each political party had vicious conflicts and deep divisions within their own ranks.  Hence blaming Corbyn for a Leave vote by the country is not justifiable.

I take my own example.

I voted to leave EU.  That said, I am aligned with what Corbyn is standing for, for Labour party.

A LEAVE vote was the need of the times, and the country agreed on it.  While I and many others respectfully disagreed with Labour’s official stand on EU referendum and voted for leave, it was not a no-confidence on Corbyn.

Labour had wasted the opportunity to support BREXIT.  Now it should start the damage control as quickly as possible; otherwise vast majority of the working class will sleepwalk in to support racism and nationality- based violence.  Instead of blaming Tories and their austerity measures which generated current plights, working class of this country will blame their comrades from other countries.

Events at NewCastle, Romsford and East London are indications to a dangerous future.  A very dangerous future, where racism and nationalism will brainwash people in to thinking that it is colour of skin that cause their current troubles.

This is the ugliest divide and rule, carefully crafted to divide the working class based on the race and nationality and make them fight with each other.

Labour should not let this happen.

Coming back to PLP and its disgraceful stance.

MP’s do not choose the leader of the Labour Party; instead, the party does.

MPs are first Party members, and then MPs.

If there is a need for change in Labour leadership, it should come up from within party.  Parliament is not a place to play dirty politics.

If the PLP decides to go ahead with their own, selfish, seat-saving tactics, that seat will be safe only till next general election – which is bound to happen in coming months.

Corbyn is not just a person, but a representation of the left ideologies that is prominent in the Labour party.

BREXIT made it clear that the traditional Labour heartlands are not happy with the elite Labour MPs who are miles away from what the common public is looking for. At this juncture, a seat-greedy leader is only going to handover the party membership directly to Nigel Faragae’s UKIP or BNP on English Defence League.

Only a Labour leader who stands firmly on left of Labour politics could:

  • Pacify and keep the Labour members firmly within the party.
  • Unite the BREXIT-voted ordinary worker – and general public – who are fed up with the current capitalistic ideas unashamedly carried out by the Tories.

At this critical juncture of EU-vote-shocked country, Corbyn is the only leader who could unite Labour Party.

Next steps:

  1. Fight against the unnecessary leadership contest that is being forced up on Labour members
  2. Accept the deviation party had to go through during Blair/Brown era.  Present an alternate path
  3. Stand together with Corbyn to unite the Labour party.

All of above will ensure a better prospect for Labour in next election – not a leadership contest.

If a leadership contest is brought on Labour, full consequences of the same will be on the PLP.  It is very clear that Corbyn will win with even more mandate than last time.  The time lost on this futile exercise will only alienate or delay Labour’s re-connect with its disgruntled membership.  Period.

For the “progress” Labour MPs to read

For those “corporate”, “progress” or so-so Labour MPs – who whine about current Labour and its leaderhip, here is an eye opener.

Per Labour’s own website, the party was created as a “result of many years of hard effort by working people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of changing the British Parliament to represent the interests of everybody.”

Yes, from your own party’s archives; about it’s birth.

It’s time for your myopic eyes to re-focus.

It’s time to drag yourselves out of those £85 gala-dinners.

It’s time to EITHER sit quietly in back-benches OR to move ahead with those leaders who want to take Labour where its grassroots want the party to go.

Grass roots?

Yes, those silent majority who are not looking for the next safe parliamentary seat.  At least 59.5% of them now thinks party has taken its first step in right direction – after a long, very long time.

Get your cataracts removed and read the history, again:

Labour was created as a result of many years of hard effort by working people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of changing the British Parliament to represent the interests of everybody.”

Do you fit-in to any of the high-lighted, underlined words?

No? then it is time for you to decide which side you are on.

Should the UK Parliament vote to airstrike Syria?

Absolutely not.

Why?

I understand the sentiments of what happened in Paris.  Though not proven, I also understand that the barbaric, utmost condemnable act of murdering innocent French citizens could even have been committed by Syrian terrorists.

That still does not give Cameron and the UK government the permission to airstrike Syria.

If Cameron thinks that he could use this opportunity to boast bombing yet another foreign country during his tenure, even by ignoring his own conservative-dominated Foreign Affair’s Committee’s warning against attacking Syria, the Prime Minister is completely wrong.

If the parliament votes in favour, and RAF goes ahead with airstrike in Syria, that is considered terrorism by a country against another’s sovereignty.  The airstrikes will be a violation of Syria’s airspace, and hence illegal in UN terms.

The case is same, whether US or France bomb Syria.

The obvious next question is:  how Russian and Iran bombings are justified?

It is not.  If you ask me, bombing is not a solution for a political crisis.  A political crisis could be resolved only by a political solution.  That is the only amicable way.

That said, Russia and Iran could argue that their airstrikes are legal and comply with UN rules.

How?

Per UN books, Assad Government is still the recognized Syrian government.  Agree Assad is not the best, but he is still trying to keep terrorism out of Syria.  It is his recognized government who formally invited Russia and Iran to assist Syria from internal and external threats.

Any other strikes, by any other un-invited nation, is purely illegal; period.

UK should be careful not to get carried away and walk in to yet another war.  We should have learned our lessons from Iraq and Libya.  Just barging in and bombing will not bring peace to any country.  That is just school-bully mentality; which is what most of the actions of Cameron and his Chancellor could be attributed to.

Let us keep legalities aside for time being.  As mentioned earlier, bombing is not a solution for a political crisis.  A political crisis could be resolved only by a political solution.  That is the only amicable way. 

I agree with Jeremy Corbyn’s stand on this topic.   There should not be a vote for airstrike in Syria.  If one is orchestrated by Cameron, then the Parliament should defeat the motion.  We as a country should try to learn from past.   Iraq might have been a mistake, but Libya should not have happened.  Syria should be no-no.

Instead of bombing, UK should help UN to speak out loudly and confidently.  UK should divert all its efforts to re-instate the lost power of UN – which is currently completely ignored and side-lined by war-loving US and its allies.

That is what UK should be aiming for; and if succeeded, that is something Cameron could really be proud of.

What is your opinion?

The “right” direction…

House_of_Lords

“What party in its right mind would allow a combination of far-left enemies, militant trade unions and first-time supporters to decide its fate?”

Baroness Boothroyd is very right. No party with a “right” mind will allow left and trade unions to decide its fate; who allows first-time supporters to open their mouth and let them take part in decision making?  Decision making is reserved for the elite – pleb votes will follow, as we found out in last General Election.

Per “right”-minded Lords and Baronesses, a party should only allow that messiah to decide its fate, who ensures wealth creation by demanding £330,000 for a 20 minutes speech – even if the speech is to address the World Hunger Forum.

labour_clauseiv1Think again, traditional Labour never had a “right” mind. It used to listen more to working class and common man, than to Lords, Baronesses and £275/second charging bigmouths who removed working people from clause IV of party’s constitution; and I hope people who now vote for Corbyn look forward to re-write the party’s current history and imminent future – in the “right” direction.

Why Jeremy Corbyn is popular within Labour?

Because he is different, certainly.

Have a quick comparison of Jeremy Corbyn’s voting pattern in Parliament with that of rest of Labour leader candidates at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps; you will agree.

Different

Along with these points, one need to read following Corbyn statements:

“I don’t reply to personal abuse, to personal attacks, to personal criticism because the policies are more important, the issues are more important” – in response to collective abuse and constant criticism from Tony Blair and his ‘new-Labour’ followers.  Btw, why is Blair so worried about a Corbyn-led Labour? Just read #1 !

Public ownership of railways and in the energy sector – privatisation has put profits before people.

#5 and the last one in the list are good enough indications on how Labour could transform under Corbyn.

What if Corbyn Wins?

Blairite Labour leaders are prophesying doom under a future Corbyn leadership; this itself will be the first issue for Corbyn to tackle, if he wins the contest.  Though it appears Corbyn has support at grass-root level, he need to integrate the party and ensure that the the party, its leadership and Parliamentary representatives talk the talk and walk the walk the walk – together.

One thing is sure; results of 12th Sept will be just the first-half of what’s in store in coming years for an internally-divided Labour party.