Deselection issue in Labour Party with respect to Luciana Berger

Sounding like Eastern Europe/N Korea.
Apologies to the former

There was a lot of controversy about her original selection in 2010. She wasn't 'chosen by her constituents', even if they voted for her since.
Her getting that percentage of the vote in that very safe seat is not surprising. The current constituency party does have the right to look for someone more in tune with them.

She was voted in by the constituency, Momentum want her and fifty more MP's deselected,

It seems that 'inclusivity' has been kicked into the long grass.
That was what JC spouted at at the Glasto love fest, wasn't it.?

Can you tell me where to look for the call for deselection info please?

I've found the report in the Liverpool Echo which talks about the apology. They're asking her to do what some other MPs have already done and admit that she got it wrong. Jeremy Corbyn has not been bad for the Labour Party. In fact, if the number of new members and the rise in opinion polls are accurate he's been very good for the Party. JC has voted against the Party leadership line many times in his career but how often has he been proven to have been right. Just look at the Iraq War and the subsequent events. He voted against not only because he believes that talking is better that fighting but he predicted that it would lead to the rise of extremists. I think the rise of ISIS proves his point.

CLPs are democratic organisations. Committee members are elected by the CLP members and do not just take control. If the CLP members want to swing to the left then they are entitled to do so just as if they want to swing to the right. Next year there will be more committee elections and, if the membership are not happy, there will be changes as other people are elected.

Early days Vampirequeen , early days

There has only been one example where voters(not party members) have selected a candidate to stand in a GE.The selection of the candidate is absolutely nothing to do in our system with voters whose role is to choose between the various candidates selected by their parties. And yes FWIW her selection in 2010 was very controversial. Some of you are just looking for trouble.

Yyyy to vampirequeen

The notion, not really spelled out, but implied (imo) that four fifths of voters would vote for just anyone so long as they belonged to the 'correct' Party (whichever that might be) is typical, I feel, of the patronising attitude of the political elite and its hangers on towards the common people, as if ordinary voters were just idiots with no real idea about what they want out of their politicians.

That said, I've also noted the comment about how parliamentary candidates are selected by constituency Party members. What I don't understand is why there is a problem with Berger's selection. Perhaps I have misread something, but I presume she was selected in the usual way.

The main point of the OP is to point out the irony of JC supporters, if this story is true, of demanding an apology from someone who didn't support the leader's line on the EU referendum. JC was only a back bench MP though when he was voting repeatedly against the Labour leadership stance, whereas Berger was a Shadow Cabinet member. Perhaps that's what makes a difference.

But, whatever it's about—an apology demand or a putative deselection—surely disagreement should still be tolerated. And, after all, she did step down from the Shadow Cabinet when she disagreed.

It's what everybody always knew that Momentum would do given half a chance.
They will be trying to do this in any place they can.

Baggs: Perhaps I have misread something, but I presume she was selected in the usual way.

Just look at her Wikipedia entry to see your presumption was wrong.

Oh don't be ridiculous Baggs you seem to have no idea of the shenanigans that go on with ALL political parties between the centre and the constituencies when it comes to selecting candidates - particularly for safe seats. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't go on - just that it's better covered up. And it's not patronising to say that most voters most of the time vote for the party not the individual candidate. I'd love to see you start a post that has a pop at the stories but that'll never happen will it?

Stories= Tories obvs

The notion, not really spelled out, but implied (imo) that four fifths of voters would vote for just anyone so long as they belonged to the 'correct' Party

Sadly very true in my town Baggs in fact I would go so far as to change the four fifths to nine tenths !

A lot of unpleasant stories can be told of the Tories, but it has absolutely nothing to do with people's everyday life and their experience of the way they are being governed.

This op can of course all be refuted. But can I be bothered?

Answer - no

With you there ww too hot here

rig just back from walking the dog by the river - knackered!! Slouched with Pimms now watching Wimbledon.

It's the intolerance that worries me and it is very evident in the way anyone dissenting on here is spoken to. Heaven help us if momentum Labour ever win an election.

ygg, I note your reference to Wiki and I will go and read it. Who wrote it? Not her I'll be bound, so it's not her Wiki entry but someone else's about her and her selection.

Back shortly.

Who's been intolerant? I thought I was joining in a debate. Some people like the way the Labour Party is moving and others don't. IMO that's healthy. However whilst you might disagree with the Party leader and at times vote against the Party line what you don't do is try to undermine said leader who has been elected by the Party members. I'm not a member of Momentum and tbh I don't know anyone who is but I am a supporter of JC. It's time the Labour Party returned to it's core socialist objectives and stop being a pseudo Conservative Party. For example I want a Labour Party that says to this government, "No privatising the NHS is wrong!" Not one that says, "Well we see where you're coming from but perhaps it could be tweaked slightly."

Well, as I suspected might be the case, there is a good deal of speculation and controversy about her selection. So far, therefore, any denial is equally as believable as any accusations.

I don't see anything wrong with "parachuting in" a perticularly good potential candidate though I'm open to being convinced otherwise by a good argument. As usual.

I agree that insisting on an all woman shortlist is not desirable.

Liverpool is one of the places where Militant Tendency was particularly active, wasn't it?

I expressed an opinion about what I believe is the existence of a snooty attitude to the electorate in the political elite in its entirety, rigby. I don't think there's anything ridiculous or biased about that.

I agree in principle about supporting one's Party leader, vamp. It would appear from verifiable records that Jeremy Corbyn doesn't or at least that he didn't until he became leader.

Berger resigned from the Shadow Cabinet when she disgreed with the leadership, which seems like a reasonable an honest thing to do. There is always disagreement within Parties, as others have pointed out. That is not the issue as I see it. If Berger thinks she acted honourably why should she apologise? Would you apologise for something you did that you didn't think was wrong?

reasonable and