aggi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 12:45 pm
Oh there's plenty of things to attack him about, which would be the case for any DPP. It's similar to the issues I have with people complaining about Corbyn with **** like "he hates the country". There's enough real stuff without having to resort to making things up.
I seem to remember there were issues with the pathologist in the Ian Tomlinson case which is why the initial decision was not to prosecute. Wasn't he struck off afterwards and the decision reversed.
Some of the stuff on the link seems a bit weak too. Treating benefit fraud where there is evidence of
aggravating features such as multiple offences, abuse of position or substantial loss to public funds. Professionally planned frauds, the use of a false or stolen identity and cases involving attempts to dispose of the evidence will also be targeted. the same as other types of fraud seems reasonable and the story on the lawyers for rape cases doesn't seem to be based on the full guidelines.
On a broader note the labour membership (or at least the vocal part of it which I imagine is in reality a small minority that gets itself heard) seems to be virulently attacking the candidates they don't support wanting to show just how bad they are. It may get their candidate elected in the short term (although obviously only one can win) but I don't think it helps the party in the long term.
Whilst I can't speak for the Labour membership, I can offer an interpretation of what's going on, and it's not the same as yours.
Broadly speaking, there appears to be 3 groups that make up Labour. There are the liberals - young, graduate, urban, public sector (or all four). Then there are the Blairites. Lastly the socialists. I've listed them in weighted order - but there are, obviously, overlaps. The socialists are probably the smallest group. Out of nowhere, the socialists suddenly got their man in charge, but the Blairites did everything they could to wreck him right from the off. So much so, that it became obvious a lot of them would rather Labour lose than win with a socialist in charge (remember Stephen Kinnock's face when the 2017 exit poll was announced?). The result is an awful lot of bad blood between these two groups, and I think it's safe to say a lot of socialists would now rather Labour lose than win with a Blairite, too.
The problem is, none of these groups have anything like the numbers to win an election. Without all 3 voting the same way, Labour will
never win an election. But the advice that the leadership contest should be conducted in a genteel way so as not to overly damage the eventual winner is of no use. If a Blairite wins, the socialists won't care if they've damaged them in the process - they don't want him to win an election anyway. Same with the blairites if a socialist wins (which is what happened when Corbyn won).
So the only hope of a Labour win is a candidate representing the liberals, and hope enough socialists and blairites stay on side. But I don't think they will. Starmer means nothing to me, so I'd lose all interest immediately, for instance. How would the blairites react to a Starmer win (IanMcL opinion?)? I honestly don't know.
That's why it's not looking good for Labour right now, and why everyone appears to be at each others throats.