ketsbaia-
So he should have sacked them, then?
If they had done something illegal or against the rules, yes. Otherwise, he should have stopped the infighting from happening in the first place, which he didn't. Either way is a failure of leadership.
-
o he should have sacked them, then?
Question...does it work both ways? Starmer is leader of Labour. There are elements on the left of the party who are taking every opportunity to undermine him...should he sack them?
-
Probably yes. Corbyn did seem to struggle at controlling the various elements of the party and probably did need to be a bit more personally ruthless, even if that involved getting rid of people.
The whole thing reads like a shitshow with factions more focussed on battling each other and everything being a weapon rather than being dealt with sensibly. Anti-semitism was the most obvious example with one faction suggesting that it was all a big conspiracy and the other faction suggesting it was a giant issue whereas in reality it needed to be accepted it was an issue, deal with it and move on.
To be honest I assumed that most of the senior non-elected staff from that period had been shuffled out, are a lot still in?
You are reading a single comment by @ketsbaia and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Stonehedge
aggi
No, its a total failure of leadership to allow it to happen.
Besides, the report only highlighted a small amount of it. Wasn't it something like £150k spent on leaflets in total?
I'm not sure that creating a budget code in the finance system to pay for some campaign leaflets qualifies as a clandestine system to channel money away from winnable seats.