I'll say it now: I don't care if Tristram does turn out as a good MP and socialist, the behaviour of the party leadership in this matter is a fucking disgrace. For shame.
We don't know what these people interviewed like. Its a fault in the system itself that the members don't get to view the interview process, however we can't really judge the shortlist without as least seeing notes from the others interviews.
That being said I don't think the powers that be have done themselves any favours heres, this list looks like a stitch up. But a stitch up that didn't include two of the most disliked people in the CLP was not what I expected.
Yes, I am surprised Sarah Hill didn't make the short list - despite having a "problematic" relationship to some in the CLP she would have posed a serious challenge to Tristram.
I understand the candidate will be selected at Thursday's meeting, on the night. I might not be able to attend as I and a couple of other comrades fall foul of the six month rule, but we'll see what we can do about that.
It's a shame for Tristram, really. There will always be a question mark over his legitimacy because his most challenging opponents were excluded.
Election at a meeting with all the members. The voting members will be those that have held there membership in Stoke Central CLP for at least 6 months
"Yes, I am surprised Sarah Hill didn't make the short list - despite having a "problematic" relationship to some in the CLP she would have posed a serious challenge to Tristram."
Which is exactly why she didn't make the shortlist...
Indeed. The question is 'where now'? Will the CLP, which is infamous for guarding its independence from the party machine go along to the selection meeting this Thursday to choose a candidate or move a vote of no confidence in the short list? We shall see.
Phil, the 'problematic' relationship Mz Hill has with her CLP is that she refuses to attend and stand before them to apologise for her behaviour. I'm at a loss to see where she would gain more than 5 votes. Her weapon was the postal ballot and her failure is the attending vote. I'm told that her interview in London was a total disater. Verdict: No chance at all.
Jane Heggie:Regional mouthpiece but her interview was a succes. Verdict:No votes whatsoever.
Mervin Smith, Ex Deputy Elected Mayor and apologist for everything. Interview a success. Verdict: 5 votes.
All local people, Mayor apologists and a shame they aren't to face the mob!
The 'shoe-in' is because Nick brown and M'Lordship had a blazing weekend row over the carve up of the SSP seats and being seen to favour Brownites. Stoke Central was given to the Blairites as a consequence.
Byron Taylor, would have appealed to the CLP but his interview is considered a failure. Verdict: 50/50 split.
Tristram, Milliband supporter and wanted for the battle on 7th May. Interview a success. Verdict: 50/50 split.
Hmmmmm....so Stoke Central is a 'shoe-in' and a Blairite playthingy of the rich classes, is it? Thursday is a must.
Anonymous - I take it's you, Gary -_there's a certain something about your particular literary style which other people find so hard to replicate. What's the problem with postal ballots? Does it not give all the people who will not be able to get there tomorrow night (work, childcare, health, other commitments) chance to have their say? Is that not a good thing? Is what's happening not a reduction in opportunities for a democratic choice to be made by as many members as possible? And why on earth should such a process be seen as a 'weapon'on my part?
What's the matter with postal ballots? You may have wone, that's what;'s wrong with them! Also, if you'd have made the shortlist, you may also have won! So if you had made the shortlist and had a postal ballot, you may have won even more so! That's why you were booted off and shoed out for the shoe in!
The Regional Director took Sarah Hill as far as he could, but then the impersonal killing machine of the Leadership contest kicked in and the unknowns and not sures, were removed in favour of the knowns and the definites. It's true that Sarah Hill, regardless of the Sentinel's miss-reporting has almost nil support and that any support the other locals would have,would have gone to Sarah. The Sentinel sits on 33 unpublished letters from Labour members all of whom are activists and all of whom corrected Sarah's self imposed importance. 2 people are regarded as being responsible for the breakdown of Labour's inner strength, JH and SH in that order. MS is reponsible for knowing Meredith, and therfore, is guilty of all charges.
18 comments:
I'll say it now: I don't care if Tristram does turn out as a good MP and socialist, the behaviour of the party leadership in this matter is a fucking disgrace. For shame.
That sentiment will be reverberating around Stoke Labour circles for a while to come.
Just playing devils advocate here...
We don't know what these people interviewed like. Its a fault in the system itself that the members don't get to view the interview process, however we can't really judge the shortlist without as least seeing notes from the others interviews.
That being said I don't think the powers that be have done themselves any favours heres, this list looks like a stitch up. But a stitch up that didn't include two of the most disliked people in the CLP was not what I expected.
Yes, I am surprised Sarah Hill didn't make the short list - despite having a "problematic" relationship to some in the CLP she would have posed a serious challenge to Tristram.
So no local candidate made it through and nor did any woman... hmmm
So what happens now? Postal ballot or election at a meeting?
I understand the candidate will be selected at Thursday's meeting, on the night. I might not be able to attend as I and a couple of other comrades fall foul of the six month rule, but we'll see what we can do about that.
It's a shame for Tristram, really. There will always be a question mark over his legitimacy because his most challenging opponents were excluded.
Election at a meeting with all the members. The voting members will be those that have held there membership in Stoke Central CLP for at least 6 months
OH MY GODZ TEH LABOUR BUS HAS BROKEN DOWN!!ONE!1!
"Yes, I am surprised Sarah Hill didn't make the short list - despite having a "problematic" relationship to some in the CLP she would have posed a serious challenge to Tristram."
Which is exactly why she didn't make the shortlist...
Indeed. The question is 'where now'? Will the CLP, which is infamous for guarding its independence from the party machine go along to the selection meeting this Thursday to choose a candidate or move a vote of no confidence in the short list? We shall see.
Phil, the 'problematic' relationship Mz Hill has with her CLP is that she refuses to attend and stand before them to apologise for her behaviour.
I'm at a loss to see where she would gain more than 5 votes. Her weapon was the postal ballot and her failure is the attending vote.
I'm told that her interview in London was a total disater.
Verdict: No chance at all.
Jane Heggie:Regional mouthpiece but her interview was a succes.
Verdict:No votes whatsoever.
Mervin Smith, Ex Deputy Elected Mayor and apologist for everything. Interview a success.
Verdict: 5 votes.
All local people, Mayor apologists and a shame they aren't to face the mob!
The 'shoe-in' is because Nick brown and M'Lordship had a blazing weekend row over the carve up of the SSP seats and being seen to favour Brownites.
Stoke Central was given to the Blairites as a consequence.
Byron Taylor, would have appealed to the CLP but his interview is considered a failure.
Verdict: 50/50 split.
Tristram, Milliband supporter and wanted for the battle on 7th May.
Interview a success.
Verdict: 50/50 split.
Hmmmmm....so Stoke Central is a 'shoe-in' and a Blairite playthingy of the rich classes, is it? Thursday is a must.
Who actually does the membership really want?
Dam'n No local candidate and no women :|
vote for one of the other 2 if they are not really too crap. two fingers to the nec
ha ha.
same as it ever was.
Anonymous - I take it's you, Gary -_there's a certain something about your particular literary style which other people find so hard to replicate.
What's the problem with postal ballots? Does it not give all the people who will not be able to get there tomorrow night (work, childcare, health, other commitments) chance to have their say? Is that not a good thing?
Is what's happening not a reduction in opportunities for a democratic choice to be made by as many members as possible? And why on earth should such a process be seen as a 'weapon'on my part?
Perhaps, we all need to approach this with more open mind.
What's the matter with postal ballots?
You may have wone, that's what;'s wrong with them! Also, if you'd have made the shortlist, you may also have won! So if you had made the shortlist and had a postal ballot, you may have won even more so!
That's why you were booted off and shoed out for the shoe in!
The Regional Director took Sarah Hill as far as he could, but then the impersonal killing machine of the Leadership contest kicked in and the unknowns and not sures, were removed in favour of the knowns and the definites.
It's true that Sarah Hill, regardless of the Sentinel's miss-reporting has almost nil support and that any support the other locals would have,would have gone to Sarah.
The Sentinel sits on 33 unpublished letters from Labour members all of whom are activists and all of whom corrected Sarah's self imposed importance.
2 people are regarded as being responsible for the breakdown of Labour's inner strength, JH and SH in that order. MS is reponsible for knowing Meredith, and therfore, is guilty of all charges.
Post a Comment