The Hit List 2016

I did not choose to involve Jo Cox in this thread, others did!

I posted an interview Jo Cox gave shortly before her death on this thread. She was a MP at the time the list was published.

Should we not speak of JFK, Dr, King, Gandhi, because they too were murdered ?

Jo Cox should not be air brushed out of history .

Not Blairites, we of the centre left have moved on, unlike the far left who have moved into the past. Forgetting the warning of Gerald Kaufman of the 1983 labour manifesto

“The longest suicide note in history “

This led to 14 years in the wilderness untill the centre left won three consecutive general elections .

chewbacca I assume it is because it is generally thought to be distasteful to involve someone like Jo Cox and her tragic death in such a political post, which tries to split the party she represented. It does also of course go against the "We have more in common" philosophy so perhaps using her name on such a deliberately divisive thread is unacceptable to many.

And the Times has no vested interest Annie? I do wonder about Labour List. I suppose it is possibke that in 2016 they were dominated by Blairites and hoped to get rid of Corbyn. It still doesn't give any credence to the list. It has as much as Blair's dodgy dossier.

Why are those, who are outraged that Jo Cox is named on the list, trying to airbrush her out? Does history have to be rewritten to make it palatable?

A spokesperson for Corbyn said ?

To misquote “ they would say that wouldn’t they”

I did read it - but why did LabourList reproduce it in full?

And state Allies of Jeremy Corbyn have drawn up a secret list ranking Labour MPs according to the loyalty to the party leader.
Not allegedly or 'according to the Times'

LabourList merely repeated what Corbyn's office said too about the source of the list..
The Times claims the list comes from a member of staff from the leader’s office and was written in January.
A spokesperson for Corbyn denied responsibility for the list, telling The Times: “It doesn’t come from this office and we have no knowledge of it”

iyswim
There is a difference

You're welcom Jalima I wish I'd started a thread about it so more people knew. Bit late now. It's a fantastic event with so much to see and do. And all for free!!!

I know the site. The point is the article contains statements that cast doubt on the origins of the list and its veracity, something most people don't seem to have bothered to read.

Oh, bloomin' heck, I didn't mean to copy and paste all that!
Sorry!

and thankstrisher re HODS

^Jump to search
LabourList

LabourList homepage in February 2009
Type of site
Blog
Available in
English
Owner
Company limited by guarantee[1]
Editors
Derek Draper (Jan 2009 – May 2009)
Alex Smith (May 2009 – June 2009)
Mark Ferguson (Dec 2010 – May 2015)
Peter Edwards (Jan 2016 – Feb 2018)
Sienna Rodgers (Feb 2018 – )
Revenue
£28,575 to November 2009, excluding advertising revenue (last publication)[1]
Website
www.labourlist.org
Alexa rank
19.860 (UK) (April 2018)[2]
Commercial
No
Registration
Required to comment on posts
Launched
10 January 2009
Current status
Active
LabourList is a British weblog supportive of, but independent of, the Labour Party, launched in 2009. Describing itself as Labour's "biggest independent grassroots e-network", the site's content includes news, commentary, interviews, campaign information, analysis and opinion from various contributors and sources across the Labour and trade union movement. It is funded by trade unions, adverts, and individual donors.^

From Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabourList

Its official site:
labourlist.org/

Yes it is Labour List MawBroon but the article contains the words I have posted. No link to the Times necessary. The words are there. The Times claims it is one thing. Corbyn's office denies it. There is no evidence for the truth of the list.

Sorry Trisher but clicking the link does not take me to a Times article, but a website called labourlist.org.

MawBroon It's just an example that you need to read the article and not just the headlines. About half way down
The Times claims the list comes from a member of staff from the leader’s office and was written in January.
Followed by
A spokesperson for Corbyn denied responsibility for the list, telling The Times: “It doesn’t come from this office and we have no knowledge of it”
Now forgive me but a list leaked by the Times doesn't have as much clout as one with an authorised and open source which as I have already said no-one seems to have been able to come up with. Just rumours and allegations. And this one isn't worth the paper it was written on (nor is the Times usually, if you want unbiased reporting)

Thank you Maw, I was so distressed by the tone of disapproval which followed I forgot it came from Labour List. Duh

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

What is of interest is those listed in the negative lists, several now face deselection.

Some have said at different times , on different threads, why centre left MP’s remain silent, this list give an explanation perhaps?

labourlist.org/2016/03/leaked-list-ranks-labour-mps-by-hostility-to-corbyn/

Is labourlist.org a publication owned by Rupert Murdoch?
It doesn’t sound like it to me?

Thank you LauraGransnet

Evidence? lemon. Lists have been much mentioned on this and other threads. It appears the only one to be found is one said by Rupert Murdoch's newspaper to come from Corbyn's office over 2 years ago. It's not only out of date, it probably never existed anyway, except in the mind of some enterprising Murdoch hack.

Thank you all who accept the truth as to why I started this thread .

Yes, the list was drawn up two years ago to show where Corbyn could find support or not, but as events are showing,
moderate LP MP's are being intimidated and harassed by activists who are working to try and get them deselected.

Can I add my voice too in support of this thread, as the majority of us enjoy rational discussion and can put forward different points of view without using foul/abusive language to make ourselves understood. Perhaps just offensive posts can be removed after an appropriate warning, not the whole thread?!