I walked past a tower at Wandsworth almost every week, and the day after Grenfell I could tell by looking at it it had the same cladding. Its now been redone as a priority - took almost 10 months. For ten months people sleep in this tower, wondering about the flammable cladding. "Obsession"

But that's not the point, the point is why did Jess Philips use this example? Why did she castigate the concern about causes as an "obsession"? Why did monkey describe that as "less achievable"?

This is a straightforward fight for the Labour party - a choice between people who will say and do the right things (or appear to) when things inevitably go horribly wrong, and people who want to reduce the occurrence of the wrong in the first place. Its what it is. As I have suspected, monkey is simply only attracted to this cosmetic stuff - let's reskin the Tories, basically. Fuck, that. Jess Philips is a plague on labour, she won't even win. She cannot win, she will lose the lefties and be laughed at by the working class voters. And if she does win nothing. Will. Change

Remember when Jeremy Corbyn called terrorists friends and you were all apoplectic about his misjudged use of a single word and didn't give him any benefit of the doubt. 
Good times.

Monkey, what was the point of that sentence? The rest of it works entirely fine without including a weird reference to the 'obsession' of the media and Parliament over the cladding. What is she using it for if not for a pop at the Media and Parliament?

Diluted Dante wrote:

Monkey, what was the point of that sentence? The rest of it works entirely fine without including a weird reference to the 'obsession' of the media and Parliament over the cladding. What is she using it for if not for a pop at the Media and Parliament?

The media wasn't going on about rehousing them. It was going on about something else. So every time they went on tv they were asked about cladding and they were like 'well yeah but we also need homes.'

I can't add anything more here. I'm just repeating the same stuff. You either read that and take away what she meant or you focus on one word and assume she wants people to die horribly because she's a-ok with society as it stands.

No one is arguing she wants people do die. 

We're arguing that she's used Grenfell to score points against the media and Parliament. If she was trying to say something else, she's said it incredibly badly, in a way that it makes a completely different point.

Unless her speech was her reading out her book, I'm not sure what your point is?

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Wow.

Edit: this bit

The implication in Jacobin was that she thinks any discussion about cladding was besides the point or unneccesary. She doesn't say that. She just recognises that it wasn't their objective, and if it had been, would have been less achievable, and would have detracted from their main goal of getting everyone rehoused.

I mean, wow. Reread this post, monkey.

Ominous ain't it. Not achievable.

Anyway, here is what monkey posted, here is what the Jacobin says. Any fair minded reader should see they say the same thing.

In the most startling passage in her book, Phillips condescendingly praises the Grenfell United action group for not having fixated unnecessarily — as she sees it — on the causes of the Grenfell Tower disaster, and just getting on with helping former residents instead. She compares this favorably against the “long obsession in the media and in parliament with the types of fire-resistant cladding on buildings.” Heaven forbid. No wonder the right-wing press, which has been routinely vicious to so many of her Labour colleagues over the past couple of years, has such a soft spot for Phillips: they know she poses no threat.

The whole point is the same. Jess Phillips is no threat because she does prioritise something which matters less to the elite (restorative justice after something goes wrong) - and derides as an obsession that which is a threat (the systemic eradication of unfair risk - or plainly "justice")

And she sells it. She sells that stuff, clearly very well as we can see from this thread. A politician's job isn't just to fix things that have gone wrong. On one view, it isn't that at all - their job is to make sure the justice system can do that.

But it is their job to learn from what's gone wrong and do what is sensible to prevent it from happening again - that's the "obsession" with cladding. Among other things.

Edit can't be arsed

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Wow. Edit: this bit

The implication in Jacobin was that she thinks any discussion about cladding was besides the point or unneccesary. She doesn't say that. She just recognises that it wasn't their objective, and if it had been, would have been less achievable, and would have detracted from their main goal of getting everyone rehoused.

I mean, wow. Reread this post, monkey. Ominous ain't it. Not achievable.

Anyway, here is what monkey posted, here is what the Jacobin says. Any fair minded reader should see they say the same thing.

In the most startling passage in her book, Phillips condescendingly praises the Grenfell United action group for not having fixated unnecessarily — as she sees it — on the causes of the Grenfell Tower disaster, and just getting on with helping former residents instead. She compares this favorably against the “long obsession in the media and in parliament with the types of fire-resistant cladding on buildings.” Heaven forbid. No wonder the right-wing press, which has been routinely vicious to so many of her Labour colleagues over the past couple of years, has such a soft spot for Phillips: they know she poses no threat.

The whole point is the same. Jess Phillips is no threat because she does prioritise something which matters less to the elite (restorative justice after something goes wrong) - and derides as an obsession that which is a threat (the systemic eradication of unfair risk - or plainly "justice") And she sells it. She sells that stuff, clearly very well as we can see from this thread. A politician's job isn't just to fix things that have gone wrong. On one view, it isn't that at all - their job is to make sure the justice system can do that. But it is their job to learn from what's gone wrong and do what is sensible to prevent it from happening again - that's the "obsession" with cladding. Among other things.

I'm going to have one more go but this is more or less a reiteration of what I've already said. That book is about how powerless people can accomplish something. She should definitely have a different approach if she's Leader of the Opposition and does have some actual power. If she doesn't she's an idiot. If her ambitions are really that limited, then yes it's a problem. But you can't take something that was said in one specific context and apply it to another. She said powerless people should do this so...powerful people should also do exactly the same? It doesn't work does it? 

Obsess is a pejorative word and not the best way to describe the media focus on an important subject. Fine. The leap you're making from that though is just implausible. Cladding wasn't the immediate priority of people who didn't have a roof over their head. Cladding wasn't irrelevant. But it was irrelevant to them, at that point. Not their 'obsession'.    

I've got no idea about the rest of the stuff in that article. The Uber thing isn't in that Google preview. But the Grenfell bit is a misrepresentation in my view.

I'd need to read the page in her book to judge this. Jacobin throwing condescendingly into the mix makes me think this is just the usual Labour open warfare being played out.

If it was her simply saying that she approves of this group for having a single objective and focusing on it, it's hard to get angry. I would be worried that her single objective is becoming leader of the Labour Party.

Iran ends nuclear deal commitments as fallout spreads

Is this an attempt at a pun?!?

Paul the sparky wrote:

I_R wrote:

I'd need to read the page in her book to judge this. Jacobin throwing condescendingly into the mix makes me think this is just the usual Labour open warfare being played out.

If it was her simply saying that she approves of this group for having a single objective and focusing on it, it's hard to get angry. I would be worried that her single objective is becoming leader of the Labour Party.

Aye, what I did find while searching for the Grenfell quote is her putting her foot in her mouth about how much of the manifesto can be expected to be delivered by Labour if they get in. It's got me thinking that as leader she'll have a manifesto with one easily achievable target on it and that'll be it. One thing at a time, let's not get ahead of ourselves, we need to focus and concentrate our efforts etc.

Inspirational!

So glad this cunt fucked off.

Tom Watson wrote:

The one that I worry about – but I don’t know what she stands for – when I look at Rebecca Long Bailey, she’s really the continuity candidate. She stands for Corbynism in its purest sense.

Im really fucking annoyed that Watson gets to stand on the sidelines and just kind of shrug and say how shit he thought the response to the anti semitism investigations were. Per his interview on LBC this morning.

Motherfucker you were the deputy leader, dickhead, if Corbyn was not doing enough and you knew it was hurting the party, why didn't you just take it off his plate, you're the fucking deputy leader what was he gonna do? Say "oh no thanks Tom, I'm content to carry on fucking this up so I'll just hang onto it, ta."

Get the fuck out with this trash. I hope the party membership elects another left leaning socialist leader and the blairite/centrist career lot get the fucking message that what the membership want is not what the fucking conservative owned press will ever accept.

It brings balance to the force