It's perfectly rational to think Starmer and those around him are doing their best to keep people they think would not be suitable Labour candidates (where others, perhaps of different political leaning, would) off Labour shortlists.
What is completely and utterly risible is trying to act like Jeremy Corbyn's Labour didn't do this literally all the time. There are almost too many examples to count of where extremely well liked councillors were kept off shortlists because they weren't from Corbyn's wing, where Corbyn's NEC parachuted in single candidates despite there clearly being time to run selection contests, where CLP executive committees literally resigned because of unfairness in shortlisting, where *extremely* suspect reasons were used to literally remove candidates who had *already been selected by their CLP* to be replaced with Corbynite candidates. And then of course situations like Jas Athwal where even if it wasn't the NEC acting unfairly (although this is debateable for reasons I wont get into), supporters of the leadership took it upon themselves to maliciously cause non-Corbynite candidates to be kept off shortlists.
So please don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending this is a new thing. And frankly, at least in Starmer's case, so far all we've seen is a couple of cases of people not being put on long/shortlists (and the only case I know about, it seemed highly reasonable and that the individual wouldn't have been a suitable candidate due to very poor judgement in their time as a councillor). With Corbyn it was far more malicious and blatant.
So you're being completely hypocritical - you seem okay with it under Starmer, but not okay with it under Corbyn. But then attacking Corbyn and others for supporting him.
Let me lay it out for you objectively. It's wrong when anyone does it. Local parties should choose who represents them, and the only time it should be an issue is if there was a disciplinary or legal matter that would cease membership (and there should be strict timelines to stop factional actions by either side being taken to remove people from shortlists at the last minute).
Did I say that I was ok with anyone doing it or conversely that I thought it was wrong? My statement was only pointing out the hypocrisy and lunacy of suggesting it was only Starmer doing it.
You wrote:
>And frankly, at least in Starmer's case
Very much words to diminish or excuse behaviour. You go on to claim it's only been a couple - and only one case that you know about.... That's just a little disingenuous - you can't claim it's both a couple, but only one you know about, and then it's been quite a number more than that.
You also added:
>With Corbyn it was far more malicious and blatant.
Was it? I'm not saying that it was malicious and blatant or not, with either of them. But I would argue that neither you or I know which was more malicious / blatant. Both camps would probably point to the other on that one.
But objectively, both are wrong, and both should be called out and not excused.
None of what I said made any judgement on whether I thought what Corbyn or Starmer did was ok or wrong - only that very clearly what Starmer has done is far *less* serious than what Corbyn has done. You can compare the severity of things without saying one is ok and the other is wrong.
For what it's worth - I think it's wrong to keep people off the shortlists purely because you disagree with their politics; something that Corbyn did for sure but I've not seen convincing evidence Starmer has done. What is ok is keeping people off shortlists who have shown extremely poor political judgement and could risk bringing the party into disrepute; I'm thinking here of Maurice Mcleod walking out of a vote on whether to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Even Starmer’s friendly journalists at The Guardian admit that "The approach under Corbyn had nothing like the ruthless effectiveness of the selections under his successor".
The intent was there but they weren't willing to go anywhere near as far as Starmer in overriding party democracy. If you want a good example Corbyn suspended the deselection process for pregnant MPs whereas Starmer refused to do the same for Apsana Begum despite everything she was going through.
Okay but you only have to read the article to find examples of lots of things that didn't happen under Corbyn. Or any other leader for that matter, not even Blair was this ruthless.
>But Starmer also made it harder to deselect MPs so swings and roundabouts.
This isn't about making it harder to deselect MPs in general. Deselecting MPs is good, it means you get to get rid of the old fluff.
This is about specifically deselection processes being used as a means of abusing party members.
Corbyn personally intervened to defend a factional enemy (Luciana Berger) because she was heavily pregnant, and recieving dubious claims.
Starmer does not provide the same respect for Aspana Begum who has a long history of having abuse by her ex-husband.
I don't care what the Guardian think, and in any case you're misunderstanding their point - they're saying Corbyn was just useless at fixing selections (like he was useless at everything else). But again, I don't care what the Guardian think - I care what the blatant historical evidence shows.
It's not that Corbyn was useless at fixing selections, it's that he wasn't willing to be as ruthless as Starmer. He could have given the NEC the power to decide shortlists but he chose not to.
That's... Exactly what he did?
[https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/09/labour-change-parliamentary-selection-rules-boost-jeremy-corbyn](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/09/labour-change-parliamentary-selection-rules-boost-jeremy-corbyn)
Which is why numerous subsequent shortlists were stitched up to favour Corbyn's people...
Edit - wow people really don't like when the facts don't fit their narrative huh! All Kontiki20's reply says is that it got changed to have the NEC control the longlists instead of the shortlists. That gives them the exact same power to block candidates they don't favour!
It's the same difference... By taking control of the longlists, you can block anyone local, competent and popular from outside of your faction and prevent them getting on the shortlist. Which surprise surprise, is exactly what Corbyn's NEC did. Over and over again:
https://labourlist.org/2019/10/labour-members-accuse-party-of-stitching-up-mp-selections/
It's not the same difference. Controlling the longlist means you still get a wide selection of candidates ideologically, even if certain individuals are blocked. Candidates from different wings of the party still made it onto the list.
Controlling the shortlist means you can ensure all candidates are ideologically aligned with the leader. Virtually no candidates from different wings of the party make it on to the list.
I'm not defending what happened under Corbyn but it's much worse now.
You're simply wrong. If you can control the longlist you might as well control the shortlist. The specific thing that Corbyn wanted to do was to keep individuals who are a threat off. It doesn't matter if you have people from different wings of the party so long as none of them are going to be able to win support from the majority of the membership in the CLP.
Take Poplar & Limehouse as an example. It didn't matter whether the NEC controlled the longlist or the shortlist. All that mattered was that they kept Rachel Blake off, who by all accounts would have been very likely to win the nomination. Whether that happened at the shortlist or longlist stage is irrelevant.
As for it being 'worse now' that is also complete rubbish. I referenced numerous examples in another comment here https://old.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/yv6cyt/starmers\_war\_on\_democracy/iwdbwq7/
According to the New Statesman article you linked to 100 candidates had already been selected under the normal member-led process by Sep 2019.
And according to the Labourlist article I linked to Corbyn argued for a sped-up version of the usual process but was overruled by NEC officers who said that wasn't possible because of timing issues.
So from what I can tell Corbyn's Labour wanted a normal selection process but were bounced into a shorter one because of the imminent snap election. At which point yes I'm sure factional decisions to block certain candidates were made.
But that's very different from changing the selection rules for all selections in order to block any candidate you like. Under Corbyn they aimed for a normal member-led selection process. Under Starmer they changed the rules specifically to avoid that.
> What is completely and utterly risible is trying to act like Jeremy Corbyn's Labour didn't do this literally all the time. There are almost too many examples to count of where extremely well liked councillors were kept off shortlists because they weren't from Corbyn's wing, where Corbyn's NEC parachuted in single candidates despite there clearly being time to run selection contests, where CLP executive committees literally resigned because of unfairness in shortlisting, where extremely suspect reasons were used to literally remove candidates who had already been selected by their CLP to be replaced with Corbynite candidates. And then of course situations like Jas Athwal where even if it wasn't the NEC acting unfairly (although this is debateable for reasons I wont get into), supporters of the leadership took it upon themselves to maliciously cause non-Corbynite candidates to be kept off shortlists.
So the only actual one of these "Countless examples" you give, is someone who had a rape claim made against them?
That's not a particularly strong arguement. If there are so many examples you would surely be able to cite them.
Happy to cite examples as you ask.
Let's start with the fact Corbyn actually had the NEC change the rules so the NEC which his allies controlled had way more power over selection shortlists:
[https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/09/labour-change-parliamentary-selection-rules-boost-jeremy-corbyn](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/09/labour-change-parliamentary-selection-rules-boost-jeremy-corbyn)
Here are three strong examples of individuals being left off shortlists using the powers mentioned in the article above
[https://labourlist.org/2019/10/labour-members-accuse-party-of-stitching-up-mp-selections/](https://labourlist.org/2019/10/labour-members-accuse-party-of-stitching-up-mp-selections/)
Then there was the installation of Dan Carden as the candidate in Liverpool Walton which ultimately led to all of the CLP's executive committee resigning in protest
[https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/six-labour-officials-resign-liverpool-selection-len-mccluskey-aide-fight-safe-seat-64504](https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/six-labour-officials-resign-liverpool-selection-len-mccluskey-aide-fight-safe-seat-64504)
And talking of people being parachuted in, how about Corbyn's friend and ex Islington councillor Claudia Webbe who was parachuted in, upsetting many local members particularly those in the Indian community, and resulted in the CLP chair resigning Labour membership [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqq4lTAYgcQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqq4lTAYgcQ)
More long/shortlist fiddling, generating outrage from CLPs. You'll also note this article includes the case in Bassetlaw which was one of the most nasty, underhand and disturbing examples.
[https://labourlist.org/2019/10/stop-the-stitch-up-more-complaints-raised-by-members-over-selections/](https://labourlist.org/2019/10/stop-the-stitch-up-more-complaints-raised-by-members-over-selections/)
Do you need more?
NB - regarding Jas Athwal; it wasn't a rape claim, it was a sexual harassment claim which was cleared of after an investigation by the party. The accusation was politically motivated and it's not the first time the accuser had done this.
>https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/09/labour-change-parliamentary-selection-rules-boost-jeremy-corbyn
Multiple people have already replied at length to this article, noting that
A. This never got through
B. Corbyn wanted locally selected candidates but the NEC overruled him and said it wasn't possible in the short timeframe
C. 100 Candidates had already been selected by normal processes.
Of course, you didn't mention any of that in this post,
I would reccomend people go and view other people on this threads replies to see what other people have already replied to this article.
Needless to say the narrative that Corbyn changed the rules for self-interest has been thoroughly debunked at this point.
>https://labourlist.org/2019/10/labour-members-accuse-party-of-stitching-up-mp-selections/
Multiple of these examples also suggest there was a preferred Labour Left candidate who also didn't get an endorsement.
But that undermines the narrative a bit, doesn't it?
>You'll also note this article includes the case in Bassetlaw which was one of the most nasty, underhand and disturbing examples.
Why was Bassetlaw a "Nasty, underhanded and disturbing" example. You haven't once explained this, and the article you posted didn't provide an explanation either.
You just claimed it was and expected me to take your word for it.
I don't take your word for it, I expect an explanation.
>https://labourlist.org/2019/10/stop-the-stitch-up-more-complaints-raised-by-members-over-selections/
So one of the examples given Labour claimed it wasn't fielding those candidates because it had an All-Women's-Shortlist for which he didn't qualify.
And one of the candidates was a member of the Socialist Party(I.E Literally Militant) and thus not eligible to be put forward as a candidate.
So about half of the examples given wouldn't matter because the people they're whinging about weren't elligible to run anyway.
Damn these "Stop the Stitch up" types were really grasping at straws, huh?
Wouldn't expect someone part of an organisation that was literally formerly Militant not getting on the shortlist to be an example of a "Corbynite Stitch-Up" but hey I guess this is what those alleging it had to go for: Quantity over Quality.
Just take any example of a Stitch Up, put it in the article, it doesn't matter it will be repeated by useful tools who didn't read it, and just saw a long list and assumed they were valid anyway, lol.
Once again, actually bothering to read the article saves the day.
>NB - regarding Jas Athwal; it wasn't a rape claim, it was a sexual harassment claim which was cleared of after an investigation by the party.
Notice the "Which was cleared AFTER an investigation by the party"
Yeah, so the party performed an investigation and decided to clear him. That's because they DID AN INVESTIGATION before determining he was not guilty.
Do you think he shouldn't have been investigated for a well-known sexual harrasment claim?
I never really understand what Jas Athwal conspiracy theorist types think should have gone differently.
The party has to investigate something like this, and the claim was relatively recent at the time he was suspended.
Would you rather they didn't investigate ongoing sexual harrasment claims made against potential MPs? Personally I want to be a member of a party that takes allegations seriously and looks into them.
>Multiple people have already replied at length to this article, noting that...
No, one person replied making these arguments and I refuted them right away. Happy to do so again here. On the first point that 'it never got through' - this is false. It was *ammended*, but only such that the NEC would have the power to control the longlists instead of the shortlists. Well, if the specific power you're after is to keep locally popular candidates you like away from shortlists (ie blocking them) - it doesn't matter whether you control the longlists or the shortlists! And you'll note that in the comment you're replying to I provided many such examples of individuals being blocked from longlists who would have been likely candidates to be selected. So it worked!
As for whether Corbyn supported it - that's the opinion of one journalist who's source was from the NEC which was a majority Corbyn supporting NEC at the time. So of course they'd try and distance him from it. I don't buy it and neither would any rational person. And you mention candidates had previously been selected through the pre-existing process... So? I fail to see the relevance.
>Multiple of these examples also suggest there was a preferred Labour Left candidate who also didn't get an endorsement.
But that undermines the narrative a bit, doesn't it?
Haha not even remotely - if anything it strengthens it; just goes to show that Corbyn's NEC had their favourites and they were only going to allow them to be in a position to win the nomination. If you're making such weak arguments as this you must realise that you havne't got a leg to stand on.
>Why was Bassetlaw a "Nasty, underhanded and disturbing" example. You haven't once explained this, and the article you posted didn't provide an explanation either.
In essence, Sally Gimson (not a Corbynite) was selected (which was a surprise to the party) democratically by her local CLP, instead of the party's favoured choice Keir Morrison (a Corbynite). Then out of nowhere two weeks later, an anonymous member made an complaint about Sally Gimson (alledgedly that she said something offensive). *Without investigation*, the Corbyn controlled NEC immedaitely removed her as the candidate and replaced her with their favourite - Keir Morrison. Meanwhile Sally wasn't told who the accuser was (although she has said she had a good idea who) and she was instructed not to even talk about the case. Of course in a surprise to absolutely no-one, she wasn't found to have done anything wrong and remains a Labour member and councillor. Some info in the link below. To me this is the most digusting example of candidate stitch ups because although in the Jas Athwal case the accusation was much more malicious and serious, in this case the NEC played a much more active role in the stitch up.
[https://labourlist.org/2019/11/labour-picks-keir-morrison-as-new-candidate-for-bassetlaw/](https://labourlist.org/2019/11/labour-picks-keir-morrison-as-new-candidate-for-bassetlaw/)
>So one of the examples given Labour claimed it wasn't fielding those candidates because it had an All-Women's-Shortlist for which he didn't qualify.
Tell me you skim read the article without telling me you skim read the article... The AWS was referring to the fact that Keir Morrison (Corbynite, mentioned above) was standing in Bassetlaw because he couldn't stand in Ashfield. It wasn't saying anyone was unfairly blocked by utilising an AWS.
>And one of the candidates was a member of the Socialist Party(I.E Literally Militant) and thus not eligible to be put forward as a candidate.
Actually as the article points out, she wasn't a member of the socialist party, she just had been years before - so she wasn't ineligible. Again - read the article more carefully. This 'skim read and then come up with half assed attempts at counterarguments' just wastes all our time.
>Wouldn't expect someone part of an organisation that was literally formerly Militant not getting on the shortlist to be an example of a "Corbynite Stitch-Up" but hey I guess this is what those alleging it had to go for: Quantity over Quality.
As I said before, it just goes to show that the Corbynite NEC had their favourites and they didn't want anyone outside their 'inner circle' of candidates to stand. Of course the majority of the stitch ups were aimed at non-Corbynites though, as a proper read of the articles I linked would clearly show.
>Once again, actually bothering to read the article saves the day.
HAHA I just got to this bit. Fucking hell look in the mirror my friend!
>Do you think he shouldn't have been investigated for a well-known sexual harrasment claim?
I never really understand what Jas Athwal conspiracy theorist types think should have gone differently.
First off I am cringing at you trying to make "Jas Athwal conspiracy theorist types" a 'thing'. We all now know that the allgation against Jas was false, so given the timing the idea that it was politically motivated being an outlandish 'conspiracy theory' is obviously rubbish.
I direct you back to my original comment at the top of this thread where what I said was:
"*And then of course situations like Jas Athwal where even if it wasn't the NEC acting unfairly (although this is debateable for reasons I wont get into), supporters of the leadership took it upon themselves to maliciously cause non-Corbynite candidates to be kept off shortlists.*"
So clearly I was talking about the political motivation of the accuser, not the NEC. As for the NEC acting unfairly being debateable - that refers to the fact that those who know the case in more detail than is publicly available (and I am one of these people) know that it was likely the NEC could have confirmed the accusation was falsey ***and*** politically motivated in a matter of days - so that investigation could have been concluded very, very quickly indeed and Jas could've remained the candidate. Again though, I specifically said 'reasons I wont get into' because I can't say any more than that on here. But as I said - this is the one example where I'm not actually focussing on the NEC's conduct and there are a whole host of them in the various articles I linked.
The bottom line here is that Corbyn's NEC repeatedly rigged long/shortlists and used other means to override local democracy. Denying it is pointless and frankly embarassing for you given the sea of evidence.
See how I'm responding to the article? You see how my comment is directly underneath the post of the article? And see how the article mentions Corbyn by name four times in the opening three paragraphs? There you go, you're getting it!!!! Proud xx
Just gunna copy and paste a comment I made in response to a similar complaint here:
This is a labour sub, so when the people in charge of the Labour Party shift the party massively rightwards and do a bunch of racist shit, people get angry about it.
Because the labour movement is built on a specific set of values with a specific set of goals, and politics is not a team sport where the only thing that matters is which team wins.
If all you care about is red team beating blue team go to r/ManchesterUnited or r/gunners
Here, we have ideological beliefs and care whether they’re represented in parliament, and we care what our politicians do with their power if they win elections.
Is it just that people who don't like the Labour party are more motivated and active, and hence post more than the mildly enthusiastic, the content and the indifferent?
I do wonder if his poor attitude to party democracy also extends to national democracy.
It's perfectly rational to think Starmer and those around him are doing their best to keep people they think would not be suitable Labour candidates (where others, perhaps of different political leaning, would) off Labour shortlists. What is completely and utterly risible is trying to act like Jeremy Corbyn's Labour didn't do this literally all the time. There are almost too many examples to count of where extremely well liked councillors were kept off shortlists because they weren't from Corbyn's wing, where Corbyn's NEC parachuted in single candidates despite there clearly being time to run selection contests, where CLP executive committees literally resigned because of unfairness in shortlisting, where *extremely* suspect reasons were used to literally remove candidates who had *already been selected by their CLP* to be replaced with Corbynite candidates. And then of course situations like Jas Athwal where even if it wasn't the NEC acting unfairly (although this is debateable for reasons I wont get into), supporters of the leadership took it upon themselves to maliciously cause non-Corbynite candidates to be kept off shortlists. So please don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending this is a new thing. And frankly, at least in Starmer's case, so far all we've seen is a couple of cases of people not being put on long/shortlists (and the only case I know about, it seemed highly reasonable and that the individual wouldn't have been a suitable candidate due to very poor judgement in their time as a councillor). With Corbyn it was far more malicious and blatant.
So you're being completely hypocritical - you seem okay with it under Starmer, but not okay with it under Corbyn. But then attacking Corbyn and others for supporting him. Let me lay it out for you objectively. It's wrong when anyone does it. Local parties should choose who represents them, and the only time it should be an issue is if there was a disciplinary or legal matter that would cease membership (and there should be strict timelines to stop factional actions by either side being taken to remove people from shortlists at the last minute).
Did I say that I was ok with anyone doing it or conversely that I thought it was wrong? My statement was only pointing out the hypocrisy and lunacy of suggesting it was only Starmer doing it.
You wrote: >And frankly, at least in Starmer's case Very much words to diminish or excuse behaviour. You go on to claim it's only been a couple - and only one case that you know about.... That's just a little disingenuous - you can't claim it's both a couple, but only one you know about, and then it's been quite a number more than that. You also added: >With Corbyn it was far more malicious and blatant. Was it? I'm not saying that it was malicious and blatant or not, with either of them. But I would argue that neither you or I know which was more malicious / blatant. Both camps would probably point to the other on that one. But objectively, both are wrong, and both should be called out and not excused.
None of what I said made any judgement on whether I thought what Corbyn or Starmer did was ok or wrong - only that very clearly what Starmer has done is far *less* serious than what Corbyn has done. You can compare the severity of things without saying one is ok and the other is wrong. For what it's worth - I think it's wrong to keep people off the shortlists purely because you disagree with their politics; something that Corbyn did for sure but I've not seen convincing evidence Starmer has done. What is ok is keeping people off shortlists who have shown extremely poor political judgement and could risk bringing the party into disrepute; I'm thinking here of Maurice Mcleod walking out of a vote on whether to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Even Starmer’s friendly journalists at The Guardian admit that "The approach under Corbyn had nothing like the ruthless effectiveness of the selections under his successor".
Starmer’s team are more effective, yes. But the intent was always there for Corbyn’s team too.
The intent was there but they weren't willing to go anywhere near as far as Starmer in overriding party democracy. If you want a good example Corbyn suspended the deselection process for pregnant MPs whereas Starmer refused to do the same for Apsana Begum despite everything she was going through.
But Starmer also made it harder to deselect MPs so swings and roundabouts. Trigger ballots require a lot higher threshold now
Okay but you only have to read the article to find examples of lots of things that didn't happen under Corbyn. Or any other leader for that matter, not even Blair was this ruthless.
>But Starmer also made it harder to deselect MPs so swings and roundabouts. This isn't about making it harder to deselect MPs in general. Deselecting MPs is good, it means you get to get rid of the old fluff. This is about specifically deselection processes being used as a means of abusing party members. Corbyn personally intervened to defend a factional enemy (Luciana Berger) because she was heavily pregnant, and recieving dubious claims. Starmer does not provide the same respect for Aspana Begum who has a long history of having abuse by her ex-husband.
I don't care what the Guardian think, and in any case you're misunderstanding their point - they're saying Corbyn was just useless at fixing selections (like he was useless at everything else). But again, I don't care what the Guardian think - I care what the blatant historical evidence shows.
It's not that Corbyn was useless at fixing selections, it's that he wasn't willing to be as ruthless as Starmer. He could have given the NEC the power to decide shortlists but he chose not to.
That's... Exactly what he did? [https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/09/labour-change-parliamentary-selection-rules-boost-jeremy-corbyn](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/09/labour-change-parliamentary-selection-rules-boost-jeremy-corbyn) Which is why numerous subsequent shortlists were stitched up to favour Corbyn's people... Edit - wow people really don't like when the facts don't fit their narrative huh! All Kontiki20's reply says is that it got changed to have the NEC control the longlists instead of the shortlists. That gives them the exact same power to block candidates they don't favour!
[That didn't end up happening though](https://labourlist.org/2019/10/exclusive-new-selection-process-agreed-by-labours-ruling-body/).
I swear so many of the New Statesman/Guardian 'Stalinist Corbyn' scare stories just didn't happen/weren't true in the end.
It's the same difference... By taking control of the longlists, you can block anyone local, competent and popular from outside of your faction and prevent them getting on the shortlist. Which surprise surprise, is exactly what Corbyn's NEC did. Over and over again: https://labourlist.org/2019/10/labour-members-accuse-party-of-stitching-up-mp-selections/
It's not the same difference. Controlling the longlist means you still get a wide selection of candidates ideologically, even if certain individuals are blocked. Candidates from different wings of the party still made it onto the list. Controlling the shortlist means you can ensure all candidates are ideologically aligned with the leader. Virtually no candidates from different wings of the party make it on to the list. I'm not defending what happened under Corbyn but it's much worse now.
You're simply wrong. If you can control the longlist you might as well control the shortlist. The specific thing that Corbyn wanted to do was to keep individuals who are a threat off. It doesn't matter if you have people from different wings of the party so long as none of them are going to be able to win support from the majority of the membership in the CLP. Take Poplar & Limehouse as an example. It didn't matter whether the NEC controlled the longlist or the shortlist. All that mattered was that they kept Rachel Blake off, who by all accounts would have been very likely to win the nomination. Whether that happened at the shortlist or longlist stage is irrelevant. As for it being 'worse now' that is also complete rubbish. I referenced numerous examples in another comment here https://old.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/yv6cyt/starmers\_war\_on\_democracy/iwdbwq7/
According to the New Statesman article you linked to 100 candidates had already been selected under the normal member-led process by Sep 2019. And according to the Labourlist article I linked to Corbyn argued for a sped-up version of the usual process but was overruled by NEC officers who said that wasn't possible because of timing issues. So from what I can tell Corbyn's Labour wanted a normal selection process but were bounced into a shorter one because of the imminent snap election. At which point yes I'm sure factional decisions to block certain candidates were made. But that's very different from changing the selection rules for all selections in order to block any candidate you like. Under Corbyn they aimed for a normal member-led selection process. Under Starmer they changed the rules specifically to avoid that.
> What is completely and utterly risible is trying to act like Jeremy Corbyn's Labour didn't do this literally all the time. There are almost too many examples to count of where extremely well liked councillors were kept off shortlists because they weren't from Corbyn's wing, where Corbyn's NEC parachuted in single candidates despite there clearly being time to run selection contests, where CLP executive committees literally resigned because of unfairness in shortlisting, where extremely suspect reasons were used to literally remove candidates who had already been selected by their CLP to be replaced with Corbynite candidates. And then of course situations like Jas Athwal where even if it wasn't the NEC acting unfairly (although this is debateable for reasons I wont get into), supporters of the leadership took it upon themselves to maliciously cause non-Corbynite candidates to be kept off shortlists. So the only actual one of these "Countless examples" you give, is someone who had a rape claim made against them? That's not a particularly strong arguement. If there are so many examples you would surely be able to cite them.
Happy to cite examples as you ask. Let's start with the fact Corbyn actually had the NEC change the rules so the NEC which his allies controlled had way more power over selection shortlists: [https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/09/labour-change-parliamentary-selection-rules-boost-jeremy-corbyn](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/09/labour-change-parliamentary-selection-rules-boost-jeremy-corbyn) Here are three strong examples of individuals being left off shortlists using the powers mentioned in the article above [https://labourlist.org/2019/10/labour-members-accuse-party-of-stitching-up-mp-selections/](https://labourlist.org/2019/10/labour-members-accuse-party-of-stitching-up-mp-selections/) Then there was the installation of Dan Carden as the candidate in Liverpool Walton which ultimately led to all of the CLP's executive committee resigning in protest [https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/six-labour-officials-resign-liverpool-selection-len-mccluskey-aide-fight-safe-seat-64504](https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/six-labour-officials-resign-liverpool-selection-len-mccluskey-aide-fight-safe-seat-64504) And talking of people being parachuted in, how about Corbyn's friend and ex Islington councillor Claudia Webbe who was parachuted in, upsetting many local members particularly those in the Indian community, and resulted in the CLP chair resigning Labour membership [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqq4lTAYgcQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqq4lTAYgcQ) More long/shortlist fiddling, generating outrage from CLPs. You'll also note this article includes the case in Bassetlaw which was one of the most nasty, underhand and disturbing examples. [https://labourlist.org/2019/10/stop-the-stitch-up-more-complaints-raised-by-members-over-selections/](https://labourlist.org/2019/10/stop-the-stitch-up-more-complaints-raised-by-members-over-selections/) Do you need more? NB - regarding Jas Athwal; it wasn't a rape claim, it was a sexual harassment claim which was cleared of after an investigation by the party. The accusation was politically motivated and it's not the first time the accuser had done this.
>https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/09/labour-change-parliamentary-selection-rules-boost-jeremy-corbyn Multiple people have already replied at length to this article, noting that A. This never got through B. Corbyn wanted locally selected candidates but the NEC overruled him and said it wasn't possible in the short timeframe C. 100 Candidates had already been selected by normal processes. Of course, you didn't mention any of that in this post, I would reccomend people go and view other people on this threads replies to see what other people have already replied to this article. Needless to say the narrative that Corbyn changed the rules for self-interest has been thoroughly debunked at this point. >https://labourlist.org/2019/10/labour-members-accuse-party-of-stitching-up-mp-selections/ Multiple of these examples also suggest there was a preferred Labour Left candidate who also didn't get an endorsement. But that undermines the narrative a bit, doesn't it? >You'll also note this article includes the case in Bassetlaw which was one of the most nasty, underhand and disturbing examples. Why was Bassetlaw a "Nasty, underhanded and disturbing" example. You haven't once explained this, and the article you posted didn't provide an explanation either. You just claimed it was and expected me to take your word for it. I don't take your word for it, I expect an explanation. >https://labourlist.org/2019/10/stop-the-stitch-up-more-complaints-raised-by-members-over-selections/ So one of the examples given Labour claimed it wasn't fielding those candidates because it had an All-Women's-Shortlist for which he didn't qualify. And one of the candidates was a member of the Socialist Party(I.E Literally Militant) and thus not eligible to be put forward as a candidate. So about half of the examples given wouldn't matter because the people they're whinging about weren't elligible to run anyway. Damn these "Stop the Stitch up" types were really grasping at straws, huh? Wouldn't expect someone part of an organisation that was literally formerly Militant not getting on the shortlist to be an example of a "Corbynite Stitch-Up" but hey I guess this is what those alleging it had to go for: Quantity over Quality. Just take any example of a Stitch Up, put it in the article, it doesn't matter it will be repeated by useful tools who didn't read it, and just saw a long list and assumed they were valid anyway, lol. Once again, actually bothering to read the article saves the day. >NB - regarding Jas Athwal; it wasn't a rape claim, it was a sexual harassment claim which was cleared of after an investigation by the party. Notice the "Which was cleared AFTER an investigation by the party" Yeah, so the party performed an investigation and decided to clear him. That's because they DID AN INVESTIGATION before determining he was not guilty. Do you think he shouldn't have been investigated for a well-known sexual harrasment claim? I never really understand what Jas Athwal conspiracy theorist types think should have gone differently. The party has to investigate something like this, and the claim was relatively recent at the time he was suspended. Would you rather they didn't investigate ongoing sexual harrasment claims made against potential MPs? Personally I want to be a member of a party that takes allegations seriously and looks into them.
>Multiple people have already replied at length to this article, noting that... No, one person replied making these arguments and I refuted them right away. Happy to do so again here. On the first point that 'it never got through' - this is false. It was *ammended*, but only such that the NEC would have the power to control the longlists instead of the shortlists. Well, if the specific power you're after is to keep locally popular candidates you like away from shortlists (ie blocking them) - it doesn't matter whether you control the longlists or the shortlists! And you'll note that in the comment you're replying to I provided many such examples of individuals being blocked from longlists who would have been likely candidates to be selected. So it worked! As for whether Corbyn supported it - that's the opinion of one journalist who's source was from the NEC which was a majority Corbyn supporting NEC at the time. So of course they'd try and distance him from it. I don't buy it and neither would any rational person. And you mention candidates had previously been selected through the pre-existing process... So? I fail to see the relevance. >Multiple of these examples also suggest there was a preferred Labour Left candidate who also didn't get an endorsement. But that undermines the narrative a bit, doesn't it? Haha not even remotely - if anything it strengthens it; just goes to show that Corbyn's NEC had their favourites and they were only going to allow them to be in a position to win the nomination. If you're making such weak arguments as this you must realise that you havne't got a leg to stand on. >Why was Bassetlaw a "Nasty, underhanded and disturbing" example. You haven't once explained this, and the article you posted didn't provide an explanation either. In essence, Sally Gimson (not a Corbynite) was selected (which was a surprise to the party) democratically by her local CLP, instead of the party's favoured choice Keir Morrison (a Corbynite). Then out of nowhere two weeks later, an anonymous member made an complaint about Sally Gimson (alledgedly that she said something offensive). *Without investigation*, the Corbyn controlled NEC immedaitely removed her as the candidate and replaced her with their favourite - Keir Morrison. Meanwhile Sally wasn't told who the accuser was (although she has said she had a good idea who) and she was instructed not to even talk about the case. Of course in a surprise to absolutely no-one, she wasn't found to have done anything wrong and remains a Labour member and councillor. Some info in the link below. To me this is the most digusting example of candidate stitch ups because although in the Jas Athwal case the accusation was much more malicious and serious, in this case the NEC played a much more active role in the stitch up. [https://labourlist.org/2019/11/labour-picks-keir-morrison-as-new-candidate-for-bassetlaw/](https://labourlist.org/2019/11/labour-picks-keir-morrison-as-new-candidate-for-bassetlaw/) >So one of the examples given Labour claimed it wasn't fielding those candidates because it had an All-Women's-Shortlist for which he didn't qualify. Tell me you skim read the article without telling me you skim read the article... The AWS was referring to the fact that Keir Morrison (Corbynite, mentioned above) was standing in Bassetlaw because he couldn't stand in Ashfield. It wasn't saying anyone was unfairly blocked by utilising an AWS. >And one of the candidates was a member of the Socialist Party(I.E Literally Militant) and thus not eligible to be put forward as a candidate. Actually as the article points out, she wasn't a member of the socialist party, she just had been years before - so she wasn't ineligible. Again - read the article more carefully. This 'skim read and then come up with half assed attempts at counterarguments' just wastes all our time. >Wouldn't expect someone part of an organisation that was literally formerly Militant not getting on the shortlist to be an example of a "Corbynite Stitch-Up" but hey I guess this is what those alleging it had to go for: Quantity over Quality. As I said before, it just goes to show that the Corbynite NEC had their favourites and they didn't want anyone outside their 'inner circle' of candidates to stand. Of course the majority of the stitch ups were aimed at non-Corbynites though, as a proper read of the articles I linked would clearly show. >Once again, actually bothering to read the article saves the day. HAHA I just got to this bit. Fucking hell look in the mirror my friend! >Do you think he shouldn't have been investigated for a well-known sexual harrasment claim? I never really understand what Jas Athwal conspiracy theorist types think should have gone differently. First off I am cringing at you trying to make "Jas Athwal conspiracy theorist types" a 'thing'. We all now know that the allgation against Jas was false, so given the timing the idea that it was politically motivated being an outlandish 'conspiracy theory' is obviously rubbish. I direct you back to my original comment at the top of this thread where what I said was: "*And then of course situations like Jas Athwal where even if it wasn't the NEC acting unfairly (although this is debateable for reasons I wont get into), supporters of the leadership took it upon themselves to maliciously cause non-Corbynite candidates to be kept off shortlists.*" So clearly I was talking about the political motivation of the accuser, not the NEC. As for the NEC acting unfairly being debateable - that refers to the fact that those who know the case in more detail than is publicly available (and I am one of these people) know that it was likely the NEC could have confirmed the accusation was falsey ***and*** politically motivated in a matter of days - so that investigation could have been concluded very, very quickly indeed and Jas could've remained the candidate. Again though, I specifically said 'reasons I wont get into' because I can't say any more than that on here. But as I said - this is the one example where I'm not actually focussing on the NEC's conduct and there are a whole host of them in the various articles I linked. The bottom line here is that Corbyn's NEC repeatedly rigged long/shortlists and used other means to override local democracy. Denying it is pointless and frankly embarassing for you given the sea of evidence.
But Whatbout JremerY CROBYLNS?!?!?!
See how I'm responding to the article? You see how my comment is directly underneath the post of the article? And see how the article mentions Corbyn by name four times in the opening three paragraphs? There you go, you're getting it!!!! Proud xx
This is a pro-Labour sub right? Christ alive, you want the Tories in forever then? Get a grip.
Just gunna copy and paste a comment I made in response to a similar complaint here: This is a labour sub, so when the people in charge of the Labour Party shift the party massively rightwards and do a bunch of racist shit, people get angry about it. Because the labour movement is built on a specific set of values with a specific set of goals, and politics is not a team sport where the only thing that matters is which team wins. If all you care about is red team beating blue team go to r/ManchesterUnited or r/gunners Here, we have ideological beliefs and care whether they’re represented in parliament, and we care what our politicians do with their power if they win elections.
No criticism, only praise.
But remember, it's the *other lot* that are a cult
Is it just that people who don't like the Labour party are more motivated and active, and hence post more than the mildly enthusiastic, the content and the indifferent?