Duncan ShipleyDalton Profile picture
Jul 24, 2020 5 tweets 1 min read Read on X
It is very annoying the way assumptions are made about supporting Corbyn. I supported him in 2015/2016. That does not mean I unequivocally agree with every decision or action he took or even with his views on every issue. I am an adult I can support someone but have differences.
I backed Remain and disagreed on Brexit, I am a Unionist and disagree on a UI. I think getting sucked into the 2019 GE was monumentally daft. I was unimpressed by many of his support staff. He was poor on Party reform and disciplinary issues. >
But if he ran for the leadership tomorrow I would vote for him again. I am no cultist but Jeremy still earns my trust and enthusiasm. I have 2 beliefs about him: 1. He genuinely, in his soul, cares about the well being of other people, >
2. He is not discriminatory or racist in any way and cares about people of every creed colour or faith.
For me what matters in choosing a leader is their underlying ethos and personality. All sorts can arise but their core values will determine how they act. >
I still trust in Jeremy's core values and that is why despite some major differences of opinion I would still support him. He really should have hired me in 2016 to be his speechwriter! 😋

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Duncan ShipleyDalton

Duncan ShipleyDalton Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BaronVonDuncs

May 30, 2022
Not a huge fan of Kettle. I don't really get the love in for Burnham. As Mayor he may have been OK but his actions as an MP were very different. People can change but equally people can blow with the wind for careerist purposes. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
This piece is not technically correct on the Labour Rules. r.4.II.2.B.iii requires for leadership that '...All nominees must be Commons members of the PLP...'. however r.4.II.1.A states these rules '...provide a rules framework which, unless varied by the consent of the NEC,..'.>
so under r.4.II.1.A the NEC can vary any of the rules relating to elections of national officers of the Party (e.g. by changing NEC CLP Reps to an STV election). The NEC clearly has authority to vary the nominee requirement and permit Mayors or First Minsters etc run for leader.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 28, 2022
A question for those interested in Human Rights law. It is accepted that private associations can restrict membership but in utilising disciplinary proceedings to remove members on the basis of their association with other organisations does that amount to a breach of ECHR Art 11
(ASLEF) v. United Kingdom(2007) seems to suggest that members cannot be removed even where a claim is made that their alternate membership is of an association advocating incompatible views. This was to an extent codified in the Equality Act 2010 in response to the ECtHR ruling
Considering the approach taken in Grainger and Forstater v CGD Europe [2021] does the expulsion of members from Labour on the grounds of 'support' for other associations amount to a a breach of Art 11 (Art 10?).>
Read 6 tweets
Nov 16, 2021
@glynbmil @Fruitandvegdon @charliemansell @johnmcdonnellMP @MarkSeddon1962 @David__Osland It is absurd. 2.I.8 states 'No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party.' The conduct in this instance is the circulation of the resignation letter
@glynbmil @Fruitandvegdon @charliemansell @johnmcdonnellMP @MarkSeddon1962 @David__Osland The creation of the content of the letter is the conduct of the Chair who resigned. The letter was circulated only to members. Gross means 'very obvious and unacceptable', detriment means 'the state of being harmed or damaged'. Exactly how did the circulation of the letter by>
@glynbmil @Fruitandvegdon @charliemansell @johnmcdonnellMP @MarkSeddon1962 @David__Osland Crispin, only to Party members in his CLP, cause obvious harm or damage to the Party? He is not responsible for the content of the letter. The NEC has a discretion to decide if conduct is grossly detrimental but they are still limited by the need for it to be >
Read 6 tweets
Feb 17, 2021
18th Feb in approx. 15 mins. That is the date Jeremy is due to have the Whip restored. My understanding of the PLP Standing Orders is that under the Code of Conduct a member has the Whip suspended for a fixed period at the discretion of the Chief Whip. Once that period >
expires only the Parliamentary Committee of the PLP has the discretionary authority to extend the suspension period. If they do not extend it then it would automatically end by operation of the PLP rules. So unless the Parliamentary Committee meets on Thursday and votes by >
majority to extend the suspension then at midnight on Thursday 18th Jeremy Corbyn automatically gets the Whip returned. (A caveat to this is that the set of PLP SO I have seen are a few years old so it is possible they changed. I am assuming they have not substantially changed.)
Read 4 tweets
Oct 4, 2020
As far as the allegations made against a leading Cllr go I have no knowledge of the events or the evidence so I cannot make any judgement about the veracity of any claims. My assumption in relation to those accused is that they are innocent until proven guilty. >
The Labour disciplinary system should make the same assumption and treat people as such. Effective automatic suspension is unnecessary and should only be used when exigent circumstances effectively exist. In a matter as serious as sexual assault allegations it is quite frankly>
absurd for the Labour Party to operate as some kind of Police agency and investigate such matters. Serious allegations should be referred to the Police. If Police and Prosecution action results and a person is convicted then the Party should take proportional disciplinary action.
Read 5 tweets
Aug 12, 2020
@terryfuck45 @DurstApologist The NEC and therefore the GS has no authority in the rules to dictate what is 'competent business' for a CLP to discuss. The only authority is in Chap 1, VIII, 3.E-"The NEC shall from time to time, issue guidance and instructions on the conduct of meetings..." CONDUCT not CONTENT
@terryfuck45 @DurstApologist Conduct is a noun meaning 'the manner in which an activity is managed or directed.' That is not the same as the content or subject the meeting deals with. The NEC can issue guidance on how a meeting can be run/organised but not dictate what motions are competent business.
@terryfuck45 @DurstApologist Secondly, the idea discussing the IHRA will "...undermine
Labour’s ability to campaign against any form of
racism..." is so absurd as to be in the realms of irrationality. As previously stated the NEC/GS has no authority in the rules to dictate this. If what is being threatened>
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(