The key findings of the #LabourLeaks were obstruction of complaint processes, factional "purges" to influence the leadership election, and factional misuse of party funds. The nasty messages were merely a telling adjunct. theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
This is, sadly, typically partial and selective reporting from a publication that no longer seems committed to pluralism, democracy or truth.
theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
The #LabourLeaks were evidence of a tiny milieu of right wing party apparatchiks colluding to undermine the democratically elected leader of the party and undermine the party's chances of forming a government. It was, as such, an attack on democracy itself.
The self-image of the @guardian is one of unflinching commitment to liberal democracy. That self-image, I'm afraid, is no longer rooted in any sort of verifiable reality. It has repeatedly disgraced itself by misinforming and under-informing its readers.
Why has the Guardian never, at any point, reported on the Labour right's organisational base, Labour First? Why has it featured so few Palestinian voices in its 'Comment Is Free' section? Why has the Guardian taken it upon itself to deem Corbynism politically illegitimate?
The Guardian has- inadvertently or otherwise- facilitated the ruinous- and frankly completely anti-democratic- post-referendum Remain campaign, and the related wrecking campaign of right wing Labour MPs who hold democracy in total contempt.
Most shamefully of all, it had colluded in the invisiblising of the Palestinian people who continue to endure a barely-reported humanitarian crisis.
