Article 50 and Labour Viewpoint


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.


Journalism or Biased Propaganda?


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.

Is MP seat just another job?

careerStoke-on-Trent Labour MP Tristram Hunt has decided to quit his position to be the Director of V&A Museum.  A very nice career move – just look at the salary hike!  From £74,962 to a package worth at least £225,000-£230,000!

Well done, Director Hunt!

Apart from a hike in salary, I have also heard about other “positive” reasons, including “his parliamentary seat is about to be abolished, so Hunt will become jobless”.   Another one that the directorship of V&A is once-in-a-lifetime dream opportunity; why should someone not take it?

I agree, valid points from his personal view point.

But is an MP seat just a personal career position?  Is it just another job, a stepping-stone for one’s personal growth?  What about an MP’s commitments to his constituency and thousands of people who voted and elected her/him as their MP?

Let us take each of the viewpoints that are raised in support for Hunt.

His parliamentary seat is “about to be abolished” – not already abolished.  If one is in politics for the love of it, and was elected as an MP, they will continue the job they were elected for – till the time the post exists. That is what is least expected from an MP. Leaving a job half-done and running for another one – whether it is for publicity or money – is not what is expected from a politician.

Those who support Hunt’s personal growth are ignoring his constituency, its voters, the party he represented and the constraints Hunt put on the party due to his personal ambitions.

If one do not have commitment to their party and voters, then they should not take the pain to represent a constituency.

It is this “me-before-party” attitude that created current tension within Labour – and between Labour and its supporters.

From another angle, I feel it is better for Labour that those who destroyed its core values are getting out after all – along with their WMDs.  It is good that they are deserting, leaving Labour to its rightful owners.  It might take some time for Labour to make it ship-shape, but it’s worth the time.

Who knows how quickly Director Hunt will leave V&A for another lucrative position?

Let’s wait for the Linkedin update.

Political Journalism – Is Fact an essential ingredient?


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?


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!

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.

The “right” direction…


“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.