Wednesday 23 March 2016

Jeremy's List

1. Surely it's a fake. When Paul Staines and his gophers, not noted for accurate intel on matters internal to the Labour Party can pick out glaring mistakes, something doesn't add up. Either the people in Jeremy's office are utterly clueless, or that the list has an air of Grimsby Docks about it.

2. Jeremy says the list didn't originate from his people and he doesn't recognise it. Fair enough. However, if a shit list didn't exist I would, well, be a little bit disappointed. It's elementary politics to identify who your support is, who your enemies are, and the gradation of waverers and opposition in-between. And the use of these kinds of lists are routine for anyone seeking to advance themselves, their slate/clique of comrades and chums, and - shock, horror - factions based around simon-pure socialist principle. Come on, when you have the likes of Jess Phillips saying she'd stab you in the front and repeat hostility from sections of the PLP, keeping a list is a minimum precaution. Politics is always a struggle of interest and power - forget that at your peril.

3. On the Daily Politics, Rachel Reeves said "we've all been working together on that, and a list like this which categorises us in this sort of childish way, I think it is really disappointing." Purrhlease. If being accurately classed as a "hostile" is childish, I wonder what Rachel would make of some of the things her PLP friends have said behind her back over the years. She and the others have to stop the faux hurt. The smart way they could have responded would be to cut the moaning and the "accidentally" sent expletive-ridden tweets and put a brave face on and refuse to be drawn because, you know, concentrating fire on the Tories in their worst week since the election might be more helpful. Alas, it seems no conclusions have been drawn by them from last summer's debacle.

4. As far as the members are concerned, there is a view that some PLP members are more interested in sticking it to Jeremy than the Tories, and the way this dodgy dossier has been seized upon by the usual suspects can only reinforce that impression. Nor has anyone had the wit to ask about the timing. A dead cat at the moment the government have been pushed into heavy concessions, their brand retoxified, and the heir apparent severely compromised? Convenient.

5. That isn't to say all is rosy. Unfortunately, it appears Jeremy has an Ian Lavery problem that warrants a serious response on Ian's part and action from the leader. If it's left to fester, it will become more problematic than nonsense about a list.


Phil said...

Rachel Reeves is disappointed to be classified as hostile? Rachel Reeves? This Rachel Reeves?

When it surfaced, I thought this was a non-story even on the basis of the list being genuine - everyone knows that most of the PLP isn't on Corbyn's side, and (as you say) it's elementary politics to differentiate the neutrals from the grumblers from the sworn enemies. Obviously I was underestimating the hypocrisy of Corbyn's opponents, not to mention their increasingly open disloyalty to the Labour Party.

paulocanning said...

Lavery should have gone immediately but this is the same leadership that keeps Livingstone and wheels him out representing the party, so I'm not expecting anything.

David Parry said...

'this is the same leadership that keeps Livingstone and wheels him out representing the party'

He's a good deal more representative of the party than the Blairite-Brownites are.

Gary Elsby said...

The issue here is that the Labour Party must change the rules to allow the sitting Leader an automatic entry onto any future ballot paper.
This protects everyone from any potential stitch-up.

Ultra_Fox said...

Surprised the rest of the MSM haven't run with the Ian Lavery story.

Agree he needs to provide a response, to kill it off asap.

Ultra_Fox said...

Turns out Ian Lavery has already responded, as shown here.