Skip to main content

Tom Watson is talking nonsense

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/13/jeremy-corbyn-tom-watson-talking-nonsense


Tom Watson is talking nonsense – and he knows it



Sorry Tom, it is nonsense


Tom Watson is in the last desperate throws of his attempt to remove Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party. Having now been exposed as one of the prime movers in the failed coup attempt and the conspiracy of June last, Watson resorts to the old and now discredited "reds under the bed" tactic, so popular with the Parliamentary Labour Party and those who support them, over many years. The philosophy of this contemptible, but still frequently used smear is that when they, the PLP, are loosing the arguments and see their position of power and influence in rapid decline, they resort to distorting the facts into a grotesque parody of reality, and then shouting very loudly that anyone who disagrees is a "Trot" or "Entryist" or "militant extremist" or some other description designed to alarm or frighten ordinary people into submission and acceptance of their version of truth.





Coup organiser Tom Watson..







some of the conspirators



In this task, they are invariably assisted and encouraged by an enthusiastic media, who are most anxious to maintain, or as of now, reinstate the "status quo" of an all powerful PLP. The media presenter also plays an important role in this subterfuge by emphasising the allegations of "entryism" certainly, but also by inflating the image of those leading the stream of abusive smears.
Last night (Saturday 13th August) for example, the Sky News (who else) paper reviewers, when reviewing this Observer (Guardian) article, stated that Tom Watson had "great support" within the Labour party, basing their astonishing claim on last years leadership election figures. It is only necessary to look at the ballot results to see that in the First round of voting, Watson gained only 39.4% of the votes, and even with the allocation of 2nd preference votes, managed only 42% in the second round. Not until the 3rd round of vote allocation did Watson manage to scrape through and then with only 50.7%. It is doubtful whether many of those who supported him for the post of Deputy Leader, myself included, would support him today, given this latest episode of duplicity and his treachery over the last few months.
The media are supporting Watson with column inches and air time, peddling the unsubstantiated notion of "entryism" into the Labour party. Watson produces evidence of his claims with a four-page document, based on publicly available information, but essentially comprising 30 year old pamphlets and selective quotes from reviews of books by Michael Crick, published in 1984 and 1985, and a sprinkling of hostile opinions from a number of "reports" from right wing "think tanks".
By seeking to spread this mischievous smear, Watson reveals himself as an odious self serving hypocrite, still clinging to the delusional hope that one day he may lead the party.
In the mean time, Corbyn describes claims by Tom Watson of far-left infiltration of the party as “nonsense” adding, “and I think he knows it’s nonsense”.
A typically generous response from Corbyn that Watson does not deserve.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Enough of this hysterical nonsense

  http://style.uk.msn.com/royal-baby/how-will-the-royal-baby-look-as-he-grows-up Media generated hysteria.                           This is too much. For the last 36 hours (thought it seems more like 36 days) there has been wall to wall news coverage, media and television comment and reporting, with Sky News taking first prize for frenzied minute by minute reporting from the Palace, the hospital, from a village somewhere in England, from the studio and anywhere else that Burley, Botting and company could stick a microphone into some obscure "celebrity's" face and ask for yet another banal quote. All this galvanising the mass hysteria of some elements of the public, (who the media would have you believe is the reaction of "the whole world",) with their flag waving, dancing, singing and cheering over what is after all, no more than a woman having a baby. How will the royal baby look as he grows up? Now the latest absurdity, this time f

New Agenda on Sunday is out Sunday, Apr. 28, 2019

https://paper.li/f-1346065353#/ Good morning everyone. Last weeks scare regarding Megan and Harry being sent to live "somewhere in Africa" seems to have been dispelled, at least for the time being. It now seems that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will take up residence in California.  Unless  they are actually  doing  some proper work in "The Golden State", I hope that they are taken off the civil list so that we do not have to fund their life choice. The nauseating Daily Mail is at it again. A headline this week, which I will not even bother to reproduce here, screams out in disgusting and repulsive bias without any acknowledgement to the factual basis of their "story". Spewing out their usual smears and embellished distortions about Hamas, the IRA, Hezbollah and the rest, the Mail condemns itself with ample justification, for the closure of a "newspaper," which again abuses 10 fold, the privilege of "freedom of t

Northern Ireland and Brexit. The return of "The Troubles"

Northern Ireland: police attacked in another night of disturbances | Northern Ireland | The Guardian When the "Brexit" debate was still filling our newspapers and our television screens, readers may remember why I had changed my mind since voting to leave at the referendum vote. Apart from the economic arguments, which had become crystal clear after peeling away all the lies and misrepresentations trotted out by Bozo Boris and his "Get Brexit Done" conspirators, there was always the problem of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Would it be possible to have a border between the European Union and the United Kingdom where people, goods and services could pass freely between the two nations without customs restrictions, tariffs, duties and all the other formalities? Would it be possible to have one part of the United Kingdom treated differently from other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly when Scotland for example had voted overwhe