Osamor triggered – ‘by people who deselected all black councillors’

Kate Osamor with Labour’s Alf Dubs

Edmonton Labour MP Kate Osamor has been triggered by local members today. A local source said,

The same people who deselected all the black councillors in the [Enfield] borough have just triggered our only black MP.

Ms Osamor’s mother Martha was blocked from standing in the Vauxhall constituency parliamentary election under Neil Kinnock, in favour of ‘parachute’ candidate Kate Hoey.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

37 responses to “Osamor triggered – ‘by people who deselected all black councillors’

  1. I would not say that Kate has been triggered because of the colour of her skin any more than I would say Hodge has been triggered because she is Jewish. As I have stated previously CLPs have an absolute right to deselect unsatisfactory MPs and the Mps in question have only themselves to blame for the situation they now find themselves in.
    If I lived in Edmonton I would not support Kate’s reselection for a number of very good reasons not least that she continues to occupy social housing on an MPs salary along with expenses and other perks . She had the cheek to eulogise about the joy, after a period of homelessness, of receiving a key to her home, totally indifferent to the fact that by continuing her tenancy when she no longer needs social housing she is denying some homeless family that same joy. Her selfish behaviour needs to be called out.
    I have posted on this subject before and my comments have been met with outrage. However I continue to think it is a total disgrace that any wealthy person especially a Labour MP should be occupying property designed to provide accommodation for low income/benefit dependant families.

    • I think that your comments about social housing are naive, and inadvertently reinforce the Tory stereotype. After all – as just proved – the situation of an MP isn’t (and shouldn’t) be a permanent sinecure.

      That apart – I’ve no firm views about this trigger ballot – beyond reiterating an old saying about sauce, goose and gander. You (general ‘you’) really can’t have it all ways.

      • I have said my piece I know it is not a popular view but it really does stick in mt throat when somebody on approx 2.5 times the average wage plus is so selfish that she holds on to social housing she can well afford to vacate. Her position is indefensible in my opinion.

    • Whether Osamor is a good MP is for her constituents to decide. However, One person should not be held responsible for council house building being largely abandoned for decades. Nor is it any good to adopt the idea that council housing is some sort of ghetto, whose inhabitants can only be lesser/different to so-called ‘normal people’.
      One way of keeping the quality of state provided housing up, is to make it fit and desirable for everyone.

    • Smartboy….Propery is very expensive in London,whats the average price multiply by 3.5her income and explain why she has to.leave friend s and relatives behind.,because council houses are considered welfare accommodation by the Torys…It used to be a badge of honour for a good socialist mp to live amongst her people.,and very few Labour mps like to live amongst real working class people..Sorry I agree with much of your postings but not on this.

      • Those of us old enough to remember pre 70s council housing will recall that the council housing was not regarded as a ghetto and was in large part occupied by the relatively well paid skilled working class.

      • SteveH – That’s absolutely right. I was proud of the council housing in my ward that couldn’t be matched in quality by any Wimpy new-build. The design standards were way ahead of later, mean constructions.

        And people were happy to live there – making a genuinely mixed community that demanded a quality envioronment and came down hard on those who trashed it.

      • Reply to Joseph O’Keefe
        I understand where you are coming from but Kate’s position really does stick in my throat. I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one Comrade

    • “…she continues to occupy social housing on an MPs salary along with expenses and other perks ”

      Disgraceful accusation. Social housing is allocated according to NEED, not income! MPs salary? If she loses her seat she is to be jobless AND homeless? is that how you want it?

      • Why would somebody on 67,000 a year plus expenses , in good health and in full possessions of her faculties be in need of social housing? The fact that Kate has retained her Housing Assoc /Social Providers tenancy while earning a substantial salary is not an accusation – its a fact.She has the means to house outside the social housing sector but is too selfish to do so
        If Kate loses her seat she will receive a handsome pay off and will receive a pension. She will never be poor again unlike many of those families sleeping on other peoples sofas or living in hostels. Her pension will provide her with a permanent cushion against poverty and homelessness. I do not begrudge her this but it disgusts me that in her affluent circumstances she has retained a social housing tenancy

      • SmartBoy (or not!)
        she will have gained social housing based on NEED, not income. Are you saying we should be evicting social tenants who have a joint income of ??? If so, you are in the wrong party.

      • No I’m not suggesting we evict anyone. I think that anyone who was homeless, like Kate, and was thrown a lifeline by her landlord so that she had a roof over her head which enabled her to turn her life round should have the decency to terminate her tenancy when she is on her feet, wealthy and not in need of social housing. This would mean some other family would get the same chances she got. The fact that she talked about her delight when she first got the tenancy shows she has no empathy understanding or sense of shame in this matter. I fail to see how my opinion means I am in the wrong party. I think the reverse is actually the case.

      • reply to SteveH
        No, subsidising the wealthy at the expense of the poor whether it be with tax breaks, VAT concessions on private schools or in this case providing a wealthy MP with low cost housing while poor people are homeless is a Tory trait not a Labour one. Its not me who is digging.

      • Smartboy 13/10/2019 at 2:51 pm

        … and yet here you are again, shovel in hand.

    • For someone who refers to themselves as Smartboy, I can only say you ain’t too smart. For starters, if you are living in the South east, an MPs salary ain’t that big, particularly when compared to Private Sector Pay, NGO Pay and a plethora of other positions.

      But, just to underscore how crass your comment is, may I remind you that Bob Crow remained in his Council House until the day he died, preferring his own community to that of his supposed betters.

      I suggest you have a go at those who actually do deserve it, such as those who own more than one home, those who invest in housing as it its a commodity to be traded, and those who stop social housing being built to accommodate all our homeless persons.

      Oh, and if we take your advice, as they do in Hong Kong, once you earn above a certain level, you can lose your social housing and be forced to rent, and renting ain’t cheap, be it in London, the South East of Hong Kong.

      • I’m sorry you think I am stupid and crass for holding the view that social housing should be allocated to low to average earners and those on benefits. I have worked with homeless people and frankly Kate’s behaviour in holding on to a social housing tenancy when she doesn’t need to and which could be allocated to a homeless family disgusts me. If you think its OK thats up to you and I won’t insult you for having a view thats different to mine

      • Well said Christopher Rogers. Smartboy sounds like any number of angry right wingers/tories/ukipers/libdems who populate comment columns in local papers. What on earth is he doing in the LP, if in fact he is in the LP?

      • Reply to Marty
        Yes Marty I am a fully paid up member of the party. I’m also a Socialist and a returner. I left during the New labour years and re joined to support Jeremy Corbyn because of the chicken coup.
        I support our anti austerity policies , have experienced hard times and know what its like to be kicked when you’re down. I was fortunate enough to get out from under but I don’t forget what it was like having very little and I know that so many are in this position today.
        However I was fortunate enough to always have a roof over my head even if the accommodation had little in the way of amenities – no central heating ,no hot water and a toilet in the yard – it was the 1970s and millions of us lived in these conditions.
        Kate has forgotten what it is like to be poor and have nothing. That is why she is holding on to her tenancy. That is her right and she has chosen to exercise it to the detriment of others. I can’t condone this and I would suspect that homeless families in Kate’s area don’t condone it either.

      • Calling yourself a “socialist” means nothing nowadays. It can mean whatever you want it to mean…

      • The point is that people can call themselves “socialist” whilst endorsing policies that would not be out of place in the Nasty or LibDum parties…

      • And who arbitrates Marty – who decides whether a person is a socialist or not ? You?

    • I totally disagree with ‘Smartboy.’ 1. Nye Bevan forced through council housing for the benefit of everyone. Worker, doctor, professional, all benefiting and interacting with the concept of council housing. Thatcher changed all that. Bob Crow was vilified for continuing to live in his council home, refusing to pander to the Thatcherite ‘Right to Buy’.2. How dare Smartboy vilify Kate Osamor who is continuing Bevan’s legacy. I detest these ‘smartarses’ who have no concept of history.
      .

      • I am not vilifying Kate. I am simply commenting on her behaviour.

  2. This is clearly a case of racism and also discrimination against Kate on grounds of race and/also gender. I thought we left this kind of disgusting behaviour confined to history. Sadly it does not seem to be the case……

  3. It appears that local tensions are at the root of this.

    Critics of Osamor claim that she is not present enough in the constituency, does not attend as many party meetings as they would like and did not make efforts to organise members ahead of the trigger ballot meetings.

    One local member told LabourList that the MP had aligned herself with members on the Labour left in Enfield who do not turn out to meetings in sufficiently large numbers. The source said it was perceived that Osamor had alienated too many groups in the local party, including members of the Turkish-speaking community.

    Supporters of the sitting MP say that this result emanates from tensions that have been present for a number of years in the constituency, and that it is linked to events in the borough of Enfield – where there were controversial council deselections last year.
    https://labourlist.org/2019/10/kate-osamor-in-edmonton-becomes-fifth-triggered-mp/

  4. Boo-fucking-hoo, osamor’s ONLY on £74k per annum PLUS expenses
    – for this, that and the bleedin’ other.

    What about your average common or garden blue collar worker? Doesn’t get a third of osamor’s bunce and any of the perks. Has to move hundreds of miles away to find an affordable palce to live because of the benefit cap.

    And where’s your (faux) outrage at THAT? Never heard a peep from any of you about that, did we?

    Smartboy’s entirely right. People rightly villified prescott for paying a meagre rent on a gaffe for years after becoming an MP; why should osamor be exempt from any such criticism?

    Because a load of you depreately want to appear ‘right-on’ is why.

    Osamor can afford to privately rent. She should do.

    • Glad you agree with me Toffee that a well off MP should not be in social housing thereby depriving a homeless family of a roof over their heads.
      I have been insulted and called names and had Nye Bevan held up to me as supporting Kate’s right to social housing – Nye Bevan would be turning in his grave – because of this.
      I see SteveH has posted an extract from Labourlist saying that Kate has alienated groups in the local party. It would not surprise me if her social housing tenancy was an issue for some of them particularly homeless campaigners

      • Osamor being in social housing probly IS a cause of resentment. Are those people critical of our way of thinking seriously telling us those people have no right to query or complain; some are saying it’s because she’s a black, female labour MP?

        They can GTF if it’s the case.

        Once someone – ANYONE – earns enough to rent or save enough to get a deposit then AFAIC a council tenancy then becomes a perk; and especially when there’s a chronic and desperate shortage.

        I also noted nobody mentioned the monarchy not paying any rent on the houses WE own. They’ve got hundreds upon hundreds of spare rooms and don’t pay bedroom tax on a single one. No being forced to move hundreds of miles from where they were brought up because they’re being priced out of the local market.

        They’ve got (our, stately) houses spread out like sh*t in a wind tunnel anyway so it doesn’t matter to them.

        I’ll bet those complaining about osamor resent that fact without any sense of hypocrisy..

      • So, where are you gonna draw the line re income? 30k? 40K? What if there are two people earning 30k? Gonna make them leave too? Suppose there on a potential short term contract earning 79k?

        This is a tory idea and should find no sympathy amongst so-called “socialists”

      • Marty,

        Dare you to tell a roomful of people on any council house waiting list that osamor’s just as deserving and in need of a council house than they are.

        Dare you to tell them to stop complaining. See how long you last.

        ‘So-called socialist’ is it?

        Nowt more ‘socialist’ than clinging on for dear life to something that you can well afford to give up to help your neightbour (Or in this case, constituent) out, is there?

        If you were on the housing list in her constituency I’m sure she’d count on YOUR vote, eh, ‘comrade’?

  5. Oh, did I say £74k?

    Apologies, I meant £79,468. That’s £79,468 more than the poor sod who became ‘intentionally homeless’ for missing rent payment(s) or a massive shortfall due to universal credit fuck-ups. and now finds themselves kipping on a park bench.

    It’s probly 3-4 times (depending on region) more than the family of 5 living (illegally) in single-roomed B&B accommodation for months or years because of the benefit cap.

    Yeah – you’ll all criticise MP’s spurious expenses claims (And rightfully so) but they’re ‘within the rules’.

    Well THIS is an MP’s claim of sorts. And some of you’ll happily let this go because it’s ‘within the rules’.

    Make your bleedin’ minds up.

Leave a Reply