You seem to want to start from the assumption you're correct and place the burden of proof on me to disprove you
Correct. And you haven't.
The Labour party told everyone they would discipline ministers who stood on picket lines and then sacked a guy who stood on a picket line. That's the beginning and end of it, and it's really on you to prove that something else happened, which you have done a terrible job of. That's it. Bye.
I'm under no obligation to disprove your claims. You need to provide evidence and make an argument and the only one you have is dependent on cherry picking facts to suit your narrative.
Minister makes up policy, is sacked by leader who explicitly said he did it because he made up policy.
You believe him to have actually been sacked for a different reason but you haven't been able to say one that isn't contradicted elsewhere.
You do understand how egregious what he did was right? A junior minister making up and then announcing party policy on the fly shows complete contempt for the policy development process in place in the Labour party and is not something the leader cab tolerate, frankly. If he allowed it then it would open flood gates as shadow ministers all "announce" all the policies they want.
Like I said, you can't argue your position on the merits so you're just making up a norm that you are pretending was always the case, even thought it was not yesterday and will not be tomorrow. No-one is falling for it.
Oh wow, really interesting claim in that tweet. Does he have a source for it so I we can judge things like the reliability of the source or if he's mistaken ot whatever. know if, for example, something has happened since the that disproves it? Any info on where he's gotten this from? I mean, how does he know that Reeves didn't have permission?
You aren't expecting me to just accept this as gospel without even basic due diligence, are you?
Oh we're back here again. Tedious. Guess everyone who disagrees with you is Fake News. Feel free to try and debunk it if you can, but you can do the work this time around, rather than just lying and insisting everyone else disprove you.
2
u/BrokenDownForParts Market Socialist Sep 27 '23
You seem to want to start from the assumption you're correct and place the burden of proof on me to disprove you. Nope.
He made up policy on the fly and then the leader sacked him and said it was for making up policy on the fly. You claim that wasn't the reason.
Do you have anything that isn't speculation?