RugbyRebels

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I may be missing something but this seems like a total non-story. Labour were going to have one security firm at their conference and now have another. And?

It's a cock up of their own making.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I may be missing something but this seems like a total non-story. Labour were going to have one security firm at their conference and now have another. And?

It's a cock up of their own making.

What's the cock up? Not every change is a cock up.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I may be missing something but this seems like a total non-story. Labour were going to have one security firm at their conference and now have another. And?

It's a cock up of their own making.

What's the cock up? Not every change is a cock up.

I don't know the ins and outs but ......... The original security suppliers where G4S. The NEC dropped G4S as they supply Israeli jails. They then tendered for other suppliers and none came forward or want too much money or some other reason. So, the NEC went back to G4S who said the timescale was too short and now they're using this new supplier who must be charging them an absolute fortune.

They can't be any worse than G4S though, surely?

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: It's a cock up of their own making.

What's the cock up? Not every change is a cock up.

I don't know the ins and outs but ......... The original security suppliers where G4S. The NEC dropped G4S as they supply Israeli jails. They then tendered for other suppliers and none came forward or want too much money or some other reason. So, the NEC went back to G4S who said the timescale was too short and now they're using this new supplier who must be charging them an absolute fortune.

They might be. Or they might be glorying in their ability to provide services where G4S can't. Or, given that they are the venue security they may just be reasonable.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
What's the cock up? Not every change is a cock up.

I don't know the ins and outs but ......... The original security suppliers where G4S. The NEC dropped G4S as they supply Israeli jails. They then tendered for other suppliers and none came forward or want too much money or some other reason. So, the NEC went back to G4S who said the timescale was too short and now they're using this new supplier who must be charging them an absolute fortune.

They might be. Or they might be glorying in their ability to provide services where G4S can't. Or, given that they are the venue security they may just be reasonable.

All true. The cost of the security is really a side issue, though. It's the incompetence of the NEC that is the crux of the matter. It's also yet another sign of a poorly managed party.

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I don't know the ins and outs but ......... The original security suppliers where G4S. The NEC dropped G4S as they supply Israeli jails. They then tendered for other suppliers and none came forward or want too much money or some other reason. So, the NEC went back to G4S who said the timescale was too short and now they're using this new supplier who must be charging them an absolute fortune.

They might be. Or they might be glorying in their ability to provide services where G4S can't. Or, given that they are the venue security they may just be reasonable.

All true. The cost of the security is really a side issue, though. It's the incompetence of the NEC that is the crux of the matter. It's also yet another sign of a poorly managed party.

Again, I don't get that the allegation of incompetence is made out. They had one security firm and changed it to another in plenty of time for the event. That doesn't seem like incompetence to me. Maybe there is other information I don't have, but it seems like an entirely confected story to keep pushing the "Labour Party in turmoil" narrative.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
They might be. Or they might be glorying in their ability to provide services where G4S can't. Or, given that they are the venue security they may just be reasonable.

All true. The cost of the security is really a side issue, though. It's the incompetence of the NEC that is the crux of the matter. It's also yet another sign of a poorly managed party.

Again, I don't get that the allegation of incompetence is made out. They had one security firm and changed it to another in plenty of time for the event. That doesn't seem like incompetence to me. Maybe there is other information I don't have, but it seems like an entirely confected story to keep pushing the "Labour Party in turmoil" narrative.

Plenty of time? Not really, the conference is not that far off and there is plenty of planning g to do for such a thing, including potentially hiring staff for the event.

This also wasn't a decision that was taken in a competent manner. If they had a problem with G4S then putting the contract out to tender would have been a reasonable solution. Instead they tried to replace them, failed, tried to resign th contract which G4S refused then went for another company. I suggest that if OCS made the most sense, they Luke have gone for them initially rather than try another company that their union supporters refused to sanction.

Frankly, it's been a bit of a shambles. I

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: All true. The cost of the security is really a side issue, though. It's the incompetence of the NEC that is the crux of the matter. It's also yet another sign of a poorly managed party.

Again, I don't get that the allegation of incompetence is made out. They had one security firm and changed it to another in plenty of time for the event. That doesn't seem like incompetence to me. Maybe there is other information I don't have, but it seems like an entirely confected story to keep pushing the "Labour Party in turmoil" narrative.

Plenty of time? Not really, the conference is not that far off and there is plenty of planning g to do for such a thing, including potentially hiring staff for the event.

This also wasn't a decision that was taken in a competent manner. If they had a problem with G4S then putting the contract out to tender would have been a reasonable solution. Instead they tried to replace them, failed, tried to resign th contract which G4S refused then went for another company. I suggest that if OCS made the most sense, they Luke have gone for them initially rather than try another company that their union supporters refused to sanction.

Frankly, it's been a bit of a shambles. I

This is nonsense. You're basically starting from the premise that it's a shambles and working backwards. There may be things to do but they can easily be done in the time left. There may have been changes of mind but so what. "Not that far away" is a nebulous idea which you've only pursued in order to push the idea that they are a shambles. They had to organise security in time for conference. They have. Any other organisation does this and no one blinks an eye, least of all the Tory press. Hell the Mail would probably extol the virtues of the open market and how it's possible to pick and choose and still get it all done.

Eugene makes a good point. This narrative is so passé now.

Zhivago wrote:Eugene makes a good point. This narrative is so passé now.

Well yes and no. Labour it seems to me isn't currently a shambles. It's just a party going through a leadership election. The problems they'll have will come in the bloodletting after the leadership election which too may not be a shambles so much as surgical excision of any part of the party that doesn't agree with Momentum.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Eugene makes a good point. This narrative is so passé now.

Well yes and no. Labour it seems to me isn't currently a shambles. It's just a party going through a leadership election. The problems they'll have will come in the bloodletting after the leadership election which too may not be a shambles so much as surgical excision of any part of the party that doesn't agree with Momentum.

It won't be an excision. It's a broad church. Corbyn has been very accomodating. The idea that there'll be some excision or 'purge' is just the media creating a news narrative without needing to base it on fact.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
They might be. Or they might be glorying in their ability to provide services where G4S can't. Or, given that they are the venue security they may just be reasonable.

All true. The cost of the security is really a side issue, though. It's the incompetence of the NEC that is the crux of the matter. It's also yet another sign of a poorly managed party.

Again, I don't get that the allegation of incompetence is made out. They had one security firm and changed it to another in plenty of time for the event. That doesn't seem like incompetence to me. Maybe there is other information I don't have, but it seems like an entirely confected story to keep pushing the "Labour Party in turmoil" narrative.

So, you think sacking your supplier on ethical grounds, unsuccessfully going out to tender, going back to the supplier you'd previously sacked, being rejected and then employing a last resort is good practice? I'd love to be the office manager at your firm. Must be a doddle.

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: All true. The cost of the security is really a side issue, though. It's the incompetence of the NEC that is the crux of the matter. It's also yet another sign of a poorly managed party.

Again, I don't get that the allegation of incompetence is made out. They had one security firm and changed it to another in plenty of time for the event. That doesn't seem like incompetence to me. Maybe there is other information I don't have, but it seems like an entirely confected story to keep pushing the "Labour Party in turmoil" narrative.

So, you think sacking your supplier on ethical grounds, unsuccessfully going out to tender, going back to the supplier you'd previously sacked, being rejected and then employing a last resort is good practice? I'd love to be the office manager at your firm. Must be a doddle.

Certainly not smooth, granted. But the attention paid to the situation by the media is completely OTT.

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Eugene makes a good point. This narrative is so passé now.

Well yes and no. Labour it seems to me isn't currently a shambles. It's just a party going through a leadership election. The problems they'll have will come in the bloodletting after the leadership election which too may not be a shambles so much as surgical excision of any part of the party that doesn't agree with Momentum.

It won't be an excision. It's a broad church. Corbyn has been very accomodating. The idea that there'll be some excision or 'purge' is just the media creating a news narrative without needing to base it on fact.

It's not remotely a broad church. Corbyn hasn't remotely been accommodating. Even if you are prepared to believe that he is neither directing nor sympathetic to Momentum, then to say that there won't be campaigns to get rid of MPs who aren't supportive of Momentum's aims is either naive or stupid.

It's something that's been jumped on because Corbyn is a shitty party leader, and this contributes to the broader picture of him sucking at his job. hth

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Again, I don't get that the allegation of incompetence is made out. They had one security firm and changed it to another in plenty of time for the event. That doesn't seem like incompetence to me. Maybe there is other information I don't have, but it seems like an entirely confected story to keep pushing the "Labour Party in turmoil" narrative.

So, you think sacking your supplier on ethical grounds, unsuccessfully going out to tender, going back to the supplier you'd previously sacked, being rejected and then employing a last resort is good practice? I'd love to be the office manager at your firm. Must be a doddle.

Certainly not smooth, granted. But the attention paid to the situation by the media is completely OTT.

It is a shambles, but yes, it's had too much coverage. If it were a standalone story it probably wouldn't have been covered quite so much, but off the back of all the ructions in and around the NEC anything like this will get attention.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Well yes and no. Labour it seems to me isn't currently a shambles. It's just a party going through a leadership election. The problems they'll have will come in the bloodletting after the leadership election which too may not be a shambles so much as surgical excision of any part of the party that doesn't agree with Momentum.

It won't be an excision. It's a broad church. Corbyn has been very accomodating. The idea that there'll be some excision or 'purge' is just the media creating a news narrative without needing to base it on fact.

It's not remotely a broad church. Corbyn hasn't remotely been accommodating. Even if you are prepared to believe that he is neither directing nor sympathetic to Momentum, then to say that there won't be campaigns to get rid of MPs who aren't supportive of Momentum's aims is either naive or stupid.

His shadow cabinet included the right wing of the party. Any notion that there may be deselections has been dismissed by Corbyn and co. It's pure media fantasy.

cashead wrote:It's something that's been jumped on because Corbyn is a shitty party leader, and this contributes to the broader picture of him sucking at his job. hth

Wasn't really anything to do with Corbyn, though. Beyond, I assume, his supporters on the NEC vetoing G4S initially.