“It was Keith Vaz - a former minister who is not seen as politically close to Chris Williamson - who had the pivotal vote over whether to readmit the Derby North MP.
He is now calling the process into question and suggesting the whole thing could be re-run - an action replay that could give a different result and defuse a potentially explosive internal row.
Mr Vaz was brought into the process at the last minute and the theory being advanced by some in leadership circles is that he initially and mistakenly did what he thought Mr Corbyn wanted, the better to avoid a deselection threat.
When he saw the strength of the backlash, he suggested effectively re-running the process.
But Mr Corbyn is in a difficult position - one his internal opponents relish.”
(Was this written before the decision to re-suspend Chris Williamson?)
“There was a large backlash from Labour peers and MPs after Mr Williamson was allowed back into the party on Wednesday.
Deputy leader Tom Watson was among more than 100 of them to sign a letter calling for Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn to act and remove the whip from the Derby North MP.
Seventy-one Labour politicians also wrote to the chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), John Cryer, earlier, asking him to begin a process that could have lead (sic) to the whip being withdrawn from Mr Williamson if Mr Corbyn didn't act.
BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said the whip being removed again was "an attempt to defuse" the situation.
Mr Williamson said he "deeply" regretted the remarks and did not want anyone to think he was "minimising the cancer of anti-Semitism".
After his readmission, he told BBC Radio Derby: "Anybody who knows me, who knows my record, knows I'm someone who has stood up against bigotry throughout my political life and indeed beforehand.”
Does not having a single racist bone in your body include the backbone?
This earlier web post is roughly a written version of the broadcast I transcribed earlier. Maybe I needn't have bothered.
It still irks me to read that Mr Vaz's vote was the 'pivotal' one. In the broadcast, Watson explained why the Blairite member of the trio would have voted not to reinstate Williamson, but not a squeak about why the third member would have voted to reinstate him. If Williamson's suspension is for antisemitism, why isn't this lady's rather obvious antisemitism a matter of interest to the public?
Stephen Daisley on top form.
Stephen Daisley on top form.
It appears that the panel member Huda Elmi referenced by Sue is looking forward to the poet Rema Kanazi coming over to London for a Friends of Al Aqsa event:ReplyDelete
Kanazi is accused by at the following link of having justified terrorism, belittled the Holocaust and demonized Jews. Chapter and verse are given.
I think we know where Huda is coming from - like that other Huda, Huda Abedin in the USA, Clinton's closest confidante, who used to write for her parents' pro-Sharia journal.
The truth as always will be suppressed on the BBC.
Metaphorically, every time we concede and give ground it becomes impossible to regain that territory without a war. So inch by inch, little by little the enemy moves forward to capture our position. The progressive liberals can’t even see what is happening.Delete
This is very true.Delete
Ten years ago the late Christopher Hitchens was still allowed to express robust criticism of Islam on national TV. Then a few years ago the Tom Holland TV programme about Islam had to be abandoned for fear of violent repercussions - no one of note in the world of politics or the media spoke out in favour of free speech.
Now we have a situation where any real criticism of Islam is completely off limits on BBC, Sky, ITV, or Channel 4.
To use another metaphor, it's rather like the difference between taking two voluntary steps forward on firm ground as opposed to taking two steps forward on a conveyor belt which will then continue to carry you forward after you have taken the two steps.
For instance I noticed recently there was a story about a Scottish woman who has been charged with "controlling behaviour" in relation to her husband...essentially nagging him, the sort of thing wives do everyday to their husbands, nagging them about the time they spend with friends, especially any women friends, what clothes they wear to what social function and what they say to other people in public - that sort of thing. Whether she will be found to have committed a crime I have no idea but it seems yet again we have been taken against our will to a very weird place.
We have ended up with this absurd legislation because fanatical feminists like Stella Creasy and Jess Phillips wanted us to get on their conveyor belt to some fantasy degenderised future.
No sensible person would argue against the many sensible measures that have been taken to treat domestic violence seriously as a crime in recent years. But that was never going to be enough for the uberfeminists.
So we've ended up with this absurd, nebulous legislation about "controlling behaviour" which has ended up backfiring so we have the prospect of it being used against women who are just being women trying to get their men to be more like the men they want them to be.