The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[TrentVilla]

 

No apology required as no offense taken but appreciated nonetheless.

I'm not saying he condones it, just simply he has failed to condemn it or act in any way to stop it even when an opportunity presented itself. I understand your point in relation to 'representing something bigger' I just don't really agree with it as I don't see what how this is damaged in any way by letting people vote in private for the benefit of their security, safety and mental well being. We will have to agree to disagree on that point as I'm certainly not going to change my view.

On the last point, it wasn't taken as a personal insult more as you say badly worded, though it did imply Johanna Baxter was being overly emotional.

Anyway I'll stop also before Corbyn's rabid attack dogs track my IP with the help of Theresa May who I've also been giving stick.

[hippo]

2 hours ago, dAVe80 said:

I’ve been left pretty disillusioned by the Labour Party over the past few days. It seems they’re making decisions now which are going to come back to bite them on the backside, and burning bridges with the new members. On top of the decision not to allow them to vote / charging them £25, they are now stopping all local meetings until the leadership elections. This means that they are stopping open dialog between members, and making it harder for people to get information from local officials. At the end of the day, regardless of if they support Corbyn or not, the new members are people who potentially are going to help them win elections in the future. Alienating them and removing them from processes, means pissing off core support and potential lifelong paying members. My feeling is that this is being done to weaken support for Corbyn’s election back to leader of the party, and I think there’s chance this may be enough to put people off (which is obviously what they’re hoping for). At the same time though, they’re just affirming the belief that the game is rigged, and destroying the hope that politics can change for the better. The fight will go on though, and for those of us who won’t walk away from this, it’s making our desire for change stronger.

Allowing anyone to pay £3 one day and vote in a leadership election the next day - is always open to abuse. There has to be a qualifying period - the £25 is only for people who want just to vote now. You can still join the labour party much cheaper - pay your monthly subs (around £5) and join in or not and be eligible to vote next time.

Lifelong paying members aren't affected in any way.

As footnote party leaders haven't always been elected - as late as the 1960's the Tories were still appointing leaders. The idea that each member has a vote on the leader is quite new - democracy and labour party existed before it

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, hippo said:

as late as the 1960's the Tories were still appointing leaders.

 

 

Mate, as late as yesterday the Tories were still appointing leaders. 

[dAVe80]

3 hours ago, hippo said:

Allowing anyone to pay £3 one day and vote in a leadership election the next day - is always open to abuse. There has to be a qualifying period - the £25 is only for people who want just to vote now. You can still join the labour party much cheaper - pay your monthly subs (around £5) and join in or not and be eligible to vote next time.

Lifelong paying members aren't affected in any way.

As footnote party leaders haven't always been elected - as late as the 1960's the Tories were still appointing leaders. The idea that each member has a vote on the leader is quite new - democracy and labour party existed before it

I'm more disappointed about the fact that people who have joined as full members (not the £3 members) aren't getting the chance to vote. My take is that if you've made the effort to join the party, and are paying your monthly subs, you should get a say straight away. The six months thing just seems ridiculous, and it seems as if it's been done with the purpose of weakening Corbyn's support. I also believe that £25 is far too high a price to pay, especially as there are many Labour supporters who will struggle to afford to pay that much. It seems to be totally at odds with what the Labour Party should be about. You can have a say, but you're going to have to pay.

[hippo]

14 hours ago, dAVe80 said:

I'm more disappointed about the fact that people who have joined as full members (not the £3 members) aren't getting the chance to vote. My take is that if you've made the effort to join the party, and are paying your monthly subs, you should get a say straight away. The six months thing just seems ridiculous, and it seems as if it's been done with the purpose of weakening Corbyn's support. I also believe that £25 is far too high a price to pay, especially as there are many Labour supporters who will struggle to afford to pay that much. It seems to be totally at odds with what the Labour Party should be about. You can have a say, but you're going to have to pay.

£25 and the qualifying period is pretty much standard - the Tories do it - its to stop people from other parties joined with the sole purpose of electing a duff leader.

Like I say can you can join as regular member for a lot less - and monthly subs of around £5. - In due course you get to vote in leadership elections. 

The Labour party is (was !)  a parliamentary force - it was born out of the trade unions - and did good things like the NHS and workers rights - this was acheived by winning elections - not necessarily by recruiting hundreds of thousands of members - it needs voters more than members. The Tory party in my time have been more successful electorally - yet have always had a smaller membership.

I think Corbyn citing increased membership as an endorsement is nothing really significant - it won't worry the Tories - Tony Blair achieved similar without the £3 voter thing.    

 

 

[Davkaus]

On 7/14/2016 at 12:50, chrisp65 said:

I'm sure people are already aware of this website, but it might be worth a memory jogger:

They Work For You

I've linked it to Angela Eagle

Consistently voted for the Iraq war

Consistently voted against an investigation into the Iraq war

 

Yep. That sounds like the sort of person the PLP would want leading them.

[Jon]

4 hours ago, hippo said:

 In due course you get to vote in leadership elections. 

 

 

 

What does that mean? That wasn't specified 6 months ago when people were joining in their droves. It's undemocratic, and really poor form. Labour should be embracing new members, not trying to sideline and ostracise them. It's almost as if they don't want any new members, or rather they think the new members are Corbyn fans and not 'Centrists', so don't want them. It's bonkers.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Jon

[Jon]

4 hours ago, hippo said:

 

I think Corbyn citing increased membership as an endorsement is nothing really significant - it won't worry the Tories - Tony Blair achieved similar without the £3 voter thing.    

 

 

Membership under Jez now easily exceeds membership under the War Criminal, even discounting the £3 voters as they are not actually full members. 

[Jon]

4 hours ago, hippo said:

£25 and the qualifying period is pretty much standard - the Tories do it - .    

 

 

I would imagine your average Tory voter/mamber would find it much easier to part with £25 than the average Labour voter/member. That is 1 of the despicable things about setting a high price IMO. It deters the least wealthy (aren't these the kind of people Labour are supposed to be representing/championing?). The PLP has lost its focus, its raison d'etre.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Jon

[dont_do_it_doug.]

On 13/07/2016 at 09:01, Chindie said:

I invariably spoil my ballot at every election. But I would vote for Corbyn, not necessarily because I agree with him on everything but I think he could spark a change in the political sphere in the UK, and in the meantime perhaps improve things in the lives of many disadvantaged people at a fundamental level.

But now were there a snap election tomorrow, I couldn't put my cross by Labour. The snakes in that party are despicable, and deserve no support. The party is done for a very long time in my eyes, and as a younger member of the electorate, sooner or later they'll want my vote, along with many others of my ilk. I sincerely hope they never have it after the nonsense of the last few months.

Never? Based on a few months of, admittedly, ineptitude at best and corruption at worst? Never, ever, ever?

The Labour Party is eating itself. It will invariably succeed, or it will implode and something new will rise up in its place. To say you hope that new thing never has the opportunity to earn your vote is ludicrous, unless I've misunderstood your statement?

[Chindie]

7 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Never? Based on a few months of, admittedly, ineptitude at best and corruption at worst? Never, ever, ever?

The Labour Party is eating itself. It will invariably succeed, or it will implode and something new will rise up in its place. To say you hope that new thing never has the opportunity to earn your vote is ludicrous, unless I've misunderstood your statement?

The Party that the PLP wants will never have my vote.

If they can come through this changed, away from Blairite and Red Tory ideas, and away from corruption and deceit, they'll possibly have my vote if I don't spoil.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

I agree. 

[hippo]

2 hours ago, Jon said:

What does that mean? That wasn't specified 6 months ago when people were joining in their droves. It's undemocratic, and really poor form. Labour should be embracing new members, not trying to sideline and ostracise them. It's almost as if they don't want any new members, or rather they think the new members are Corbyn fans and not 'Centrists', so don't want them. It's bonkers.

True - the retrospective thing I have some sympathy with.

But to have people join who only only want to vote in a leadership contest - was always a daft idea - charging only £3 was even worse - (why not make it free ? !!!)

The door isn't closed to new members as you seems suggest - just that you can't rock up with £3 - and vote in the leadership contest - you can still join as a regular member though.

I don't think it is Bonkers - its not unique to labour. I suspect any other party would do the same - if say a load of CND - or even BNP minded people started joined the tory party in droves - do you think the Tories would stand idly by ? - of course they wouldn't.

The £3 voters was a mistake - belatedly Labour has sought to put it right.

 

[hippo]

2 hours ago, Jon said:

Membership under Jez now easily exceeds membership under the War Criminal, even discounting the £3 voters as they are not actually full members. 

500,000 under Blair, 550,000 under Corbyn.

In any case the tories have won election after election - never coming anywhere near those figures. I don't really see it as significant in terms of uk politics.

 

[chrisp65]

57 minutes ago, hippo said:

500,000 under Blair, 550,000 under Corbyn.

In any case the tories have won election after election - never coming anywhere near those figures. I don't really see it as significant in terms of uk politics.

 

I thought the absolute peak of membership for Blair was 405,000 and started going down as soon as he was in power - where's that 500,000 sourced from?

labour membership

Quote

For Blair, getting people to join was not just a statistical exercise, it was a means of recasting the party altogether. He told Brian Walden in September 1993, ‘This mass membership – extending the membership of the party – that’s not a glorified recruitment drive to me, it’s about transforming the way the Labour party works and it operates and it thinks… We are changing the whole culture of the party and the way it works’

 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, Blair said:

it’s about transforming the way the Labour party works and it operates and it thinks… We are changing the whole culture of the party and the way it works’

That quote from Blair kind of gets to the core of what's happened.

The MPs got elected at the last election under the leadership of Miliband and on a manifesto they drew up. So they have every right to stand by what they said at that time, what they promised their constituents who voted them in.

The members, new and old have paid their money and if they joined to support Labour in the image of Corbyn after he was elected, then they have the right to do that.

So you've got two groups, both with a degree of right on their side in terms of the direction of the party.

Changing the voting system for the membership and leader elections has made it more democratic in some ways and less in others - the wider membership has more of a say and the MPs in the parliamentary party have less of a say about who leads them in their day to day work.

it wouldn't matter if there wasn't such a massive gap between outlooks and approaches between the two groups.

They'll have to basically split, or stay way out of power or influence for a very long time.

[villaglint]

Unless there is enough will to unite behind someone. There's a pretty big incentive to do that so I wouldn't rule it out just yet even though things look pretty bleak. 

I just read this on Hegel which gives a a different perspective on this issue and the feeling that the world is unwinding more generally. 

Note - apologies for posting philosophy at 7pm on a Friday I have had two beers.

http://www.thebookoflife.org/the-great-philosophers-hegel/

[darrenm]

Pretty much my feelings

http://twitter.com/reclaimocracy/status/753842858004668420?s=09

Edited July 15, 2016 by darrenm

[jon_c]

3 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Pretty much my feelings

http://twitter.com/reclaimocracy/status/753842858004668420?s=09

I might not have voted for Brexit or the Tories, but other people did. That is exactly what is democracy. 

 

[darrenm]

Yeah that's what it says