Deselection issue in Labour Party with respect to Luciana Berger

I have just heard Jack Monroe ( speaking on any questions) agreeing with the OP.

Some even manage to be on for a long time without even saying anything relevant......

Quite. Not everyone spends all day on here, although one or two seem to do...

She could be busy with other things trisher.

Baggs 'as gone quiet!

This is what Wavertree say.

twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/882980881933225985/photo/1

'A member of the new executive – who is not a member of Momentum – has demanded an apology from Ms Berger for her actions against Mr Corbyn last year, saying she should “get on board”. '

Can you explain why Momentum are being criticised for this, Baggs, when the person who said it is not a member?

Exactly, vampirequeen.
People who say otherwise do not understand democracy.

An MP relies on the CLP foot sloggers to get them elected. They're the people who keep the constituency running on a day to day basis. Get out on the streets to promote Party issues. Deliver leaflets, knock on doors and doing the hard work of electioneering.

The MP is not a god who can do whatever he/she likes. He/she has to work with his/her CLP. That means meetings and agreements. Why would/should they work hard to get someone elected who holds totally opposing views to them? The CLP select the candidate and can, if they choose, deselect the candidate. The candidate only becomes an MP when the constituency votes. We all agree that being an MP shouldn't necessarily be a job for life with no recourse for the constituency population to change their minds. Hence we have an election no later than every 5 years. The same goes for the CLP. If they don't like the way the MP does his/her job the can challenge the MP and ultimately deselect him/her and select someone else. That's democracy in action.

As you agree with my last four lines Baggs perhaps you would like to withdraw the statement
"I think her deselection, based on the opinions of these nine people, would be completely anti-democratic: an assault on the principles of representative democracy. Berger was chosen by her constituents to represent them. It is to them that she is accountable"
I think I have proved that it is not anti-democratic at all.

He is saying that she is answerable to Momentum, or the far left of the Party.

By the way, what is wrong with saying "she is answerable to us now."
Who do you tthink a Labvour MP should be answerable to?
She has to be selected by the members; therefore if she wants to be selected next time, she has to be answerable to them.

www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jul/06/robbie-gibb-no-10s-fair-flexible-and-very-modern-new-spin-doctor

BBC not exactly impartial, either.

skwawkbox.org/2017/07/02/anatomy-of-candidate-rigging-hackney-councillor-selections/

It works both ways.

There are other views which do not depend on the "hacked in?" Momentum article.

for instance "A left-wing "slate" of candidates had succeeded in taking almost all of the key offices on her local party's executive.

And one of the winners - Roy Bentham - had shared his thoughts with the Liverpool Echo.

He suggested that Ms Berger, who was re-elected last month with an increased majority, publicly recant her criticism of the party leader and for the avoidance of doubt he declared: "She is answerable to us now."

The local party secretary Angela Kehoe-Jones distanced herself from the remarks and suggested the branch was "united" in fighting the Tories.

But there is little doubt that Ms Berger - who is on maternity leave - feels her job is under threat.

And she is not the only one."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40533172

"She is answerable to us now" does sound very like the heavy hand of coercion.

I think that closes this thread dj

'A few weeks ago, a cut and paste article was posted onto South Tyneside Momentum’s Facebook site.

We would like to stress that this article was not posted by any member of the South Tyneside Momentum group.

We have been informed that our Facebook account was illegally hacked by certain elements that seek to discredit our group

The post contained a list of MPs who put forward an amendment concerning access to the EU Single Market.

Ridiculous claims have been made today that our Momentum group is promoting and, is in favour of deselection of MPs from the Labour Party.

We would like to point out that this is completely untrue.

As usual, we continue to fully support our local Members of Parliament, the General Election Manifesto and leadership, and to carry on our efforts to help elect a Labour Government.


Momentum South Tyneside.”

labourlist.org/2017/07/hard-left-plot-to-oust-mps-now-for-a-few-hard-facts-behind-that-rabble-rousing-story/

That just says about the votes. By the way, it's 80% of the 70% who voted.
Where did you get the information that it was momentum who want her deselected?

I'm off to bed now. It would be so nice if someone would engage on the definition of democracy instead of criticising my way of expressing myself on a quite complex idea, i.e. what actually constitutes the best kind of democracy regardless of Party politics

www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000795

She got just short of 80% of votes. That's four fifths.

Where did you get your information from, Baggs?

I think one needs to remember that posters are not usually attempting to write polished essays when they post on gransnet. I'm not, anyhow.

I also think that you are the one making personal remarks on this thread, trisher.

Thank you for your reply, trisher. I don't quite understand the first part where you say I make personal references. Do you mean that I cite the case concerning Luciana Berger as an example? If that is what you mean then, my citing that story is not personal; it's just an example. I'd never heard of Luciana Berger before this morning and I don't think I've said anything personal about her. I certainly never intended to. I was talking about the case in which her name occurs and stating what I believe to be fact about the number of votes she got. What is personal about that?

I don't think there was anything intrinsically wrong with the way I expressed what I wanted to say so I think your "if you had wanted to" is mistaken. I expressed what I wanted to say all along. My thoughts and my expression of them may not have been as clear to you as you wanted them to be but it was never a case of my being deliberately obtuse. Surely you can understand someone's exploration of an idea in less than perfect terms? I'm asking questions. I haven't decided in advance what the answers 'should' be. I said what I think at a certain point in time but I haven't closed my mind to changing my mind.

I have no quarrel with anything in your last four lines.

Firstly I m not "up in arms" about criticism of the Labour Party Baggs I do find it strange that you have posted a question in such detail with the many personal reference and then post
I'm arguing, as usual, about an idea, not a person. I don't care what Berger is like. If the electorate wants her to represent them, then I think that, democratically, they should have her represent them.
I simply pointed out that it would've been perfectly possible to do this had you wanted to.
As far as selection and de-selection goes in the Labour Party it is up to the local party who they select to stand. If they subsequently change their mind and support another candidate at the next election that is entirely fitting. If the candidate feels they have a personal connection with the constituency and will receive enough support nothing prevents them from standing as an Independent.