,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The motions:
"continually using media to criticise the man we all want to be prime minister"
"continuously criticising our leader when she should be working for a general election and opposing the Tories"
Berger "continuously criticises" Corbyn in the media over one issue only
"continually using media to criticise the man we all want to be prime minister"
"continuously criticising our leader when she should be working for a general election and opposing the Tories"
Berger "continuously criticises" Corbyn in the media over one issue only
This is what institutional breakdown looks like:
The motions were clearly about Berger's criticism of the leadership over antisemitism.
They followed immediately after she had been doing exactly that.
But enough plausible deniability for the Gen Sec to say everything's fine
The motions were clearly about Berger's criticism of the leadership over antisemitism.
They followed immediately after she had been doing exactly that.
But enough plausible deniability for the Gen Sec to say everything's fine
Read Formby's email carefully.
She has to alter the plain words of the motions to fit them into a narrative where they aren't about Berger's criticism of Corbyn over antisemitism
"instead refer to Luciana's lack of support for the Leader of the Opposition"
No they didn't!
She has to alter the plain words of the motions to fit them into a narrative where they aren't about Berger's criticism of Corbyn over antisemitism
"instead refer to Luciana's lack of support for the Leader of the Opposition"
No they didn't!
And the plain meaning of the CLP motions (which @tom_watson amongst many Labour MPs saw for what it was) was agonised over by commentators to show it wasn't really what it was, all part of the ecosystem of denial.
