Davkaus Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 How does a secret ballot cause more bullying than a public ballot in which there can far more easily be reprisals based upon your vote? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 14, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 14, 2016 15 minutes ago, darrenm said: I read about it on the BBC. From what I could tell, her entire issue was that Corbyn (amongst others) had voted for a secret ballot. And apparently that causes bullying and she is upset by that. I'll try and find the video in case it's a completely different story. You need to have another read as somehow you've got it completely the wrong way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 14, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, Davkaus said: How does a secret ballot cause more bullying than a public ballot in which there can far more easily be reprisals based upon your vote? It was the other way around. Some of the members have been subject to some vile abuse and threats, thus the motion to have secret ballots. Corbyn voted against it, Baxter was throughout her interview visibly shaking, holding back tears and clearly deeply affected by the situation. I doubt anyone who had actually seen it would think she had been 'wheeled out'. Personally I think it's disgusting people are being made to feel like that, being made to feel scared for their personal safety. I think Corbyn had a duty to try and protect people from that but he voted to continue to exposue people to the bully boys that champion him. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 12 hours ago, TrentVilla said: Increadible interview with Joanne Baxter on Channel 4 at the moment. Corbyn coming across as allowing bullying. The guy is simply not fit to be in the job. I don't think he is allowing Bullying - but his leadership skills are so close to zero, he is powerless to stop it. A bit like people saying his campaign for remain was half hearted - Im not sure he just isn't very good at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 14, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 14, 2016 1 minute ago, hippo said: I don't think he is allowing Bullying - but his leadership skills are so close to zero, he is powerless to stop it. A bit like people saying his campaign for remain was half hearted - Im not sure he just isn't very good at it. You are missing the point, he had an opportunity to try and stop it and opted not to do so. He voted against secret ballots which continues to put people at risk of the targeted campaigns against those who oppose him. He acted out of self interest and failed to protect some clearly quite frightened people within his party. I think that is inexcusable personally. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) Trent you are in danger of getting a bit biased here which I think is beneath you as you always strike me as a thoughtful fellow. Starting point is to remember there is always three sides to any storey. Seeing as this was essentially a vote for the soul of the Labour Party I think it is pretty obvious why he wouldn't have wanted it to be a secret ballot. You call it self interest but he would call it defending the interests on which the Labour Party was originally set up to protect (or the left of the party) and the interests of the many many members who support him. Granted this has led to a lot of bullying etc I heard the interview and it was moving but again this is because so much is at stake ideologically and the various factions are so opposed. It is difficult to see how they keep all this together in the medium term. I completely agree that someone with stronger leadership skills could have done more to calm the whole situation. I watched him make a statement asking for calm but as ever he is not a man to lead and manage a news cycle just react to one. I just joined Labour and I'll be paying my £25 because as much of a piss take as it is it remains an absolutely crucial decision. Even though the party is frankly embarrassing right now the Country desperately needs an opposition. I just hope everyone can calm down a bit because the pants wetting on all sides is painful and counter productive. Let's just get a list of people who are up for it and start debating. Not vagaries and wishes but ideas and policies. Edited July 14, 2016 by villaglint 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 10 minutes ago, villaglint said: Trent you are in danger of getting a bit biased here which I think is beneath you as you always strike me as a thoughtful fellow. Starting point is to remember there is always three sides to any storey. Seeing as this was essentially a vote for the soul of the Labour Party I think it is pretty obvious why he wouldn't have wanted it to be a secret ballot. You call it self interest but he would call it defending the interests on which the Labour Party was originally set up to protect (or the left of the party) and the interests of the many many members who support him. Granted this has led to a lot of bullying etc I heard the interview and it was moving but again this is because so much is at stake ideologically and the various factions are so opposed. It is difficult to see how they keep all this together in the medium term. I completely agree that someone with stronger leadership skills could have done more to calm the whole situation. I watched him make a statement asking for calm but as ever he is not a man to lead and manage a news cycle just react to one. I just joined Labour and I'll be paying my £25 because as much of a piss take as it is it remains an absolutely crucial decision. Even though the party is frankly embarrassing right now the Country desperately needs an opposition. I just hope everyone can calm down a bit because the pants wetting on all sides is painful and counter productive. Let's just get a list of people who are up for it and start debating. Not vagaries and wishes but ideas and policies. Good post. Who you voting for then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I'm waiting to hear them speak before I make up mind! Crazy I know! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, TrentVilla said: You need to have another read as somehow you've got it completely the wrong way around. Ah yes sorry it's that he voted against a secret ballot. Still it seems a bit of a stretch that he's directly responsible for someone getting upset because he voted one way and not another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Apparently there is to be a legal challenge as to corbyns inclusion on the ballot. Bad move in my book - The rebels scored a significant and much underrated victory in securing a qualifying period to vote - and increasing the fee to £25. Both very sensible rules imo - and I believe in line with other political parties. Corbyn won't go on forever - and going forward that rule change is more significant than JC being on the ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Agreed the bullying etc is because people are fighting (initially metaphorically and now literally) for the left of the party. He could have done more to stop that no doubt but given that he too is fighting (metaphorically) it seems understandable that he wouldn't have voted for a secret ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 On the radio yesterday evening they gave a new figure of 520,000 members and rising. That's more than they've had since forever and should be seen as a success. It certainly absolutely cannot be put down to 365,000 new members of the SWP signing up. But they hadn't accounted for new people joining a political party actually being interested in politics and having annoying left wing views. Previously, the ever decreasing membership was there in significant numbers because to get access to cheap beer and a skittle alley you needed to join a club. But the panic measure of stopping meetings just shows the lack of understanding of what they have. Locally, our Labour councillors have stopped engaging on social media. No official meetings. No 'Labour' leadership. However, similar to England with its Momentum grouping, this area has a grouping called Grassroots. Well they haven't been able to stop Grassroots members meeting and discussing things. So we now have no official traditional Labour communications. But the upstart Grassroots movement is still functioning. I'm not absolutely sure they've thought it through. I do not have a clue where they go from here. Other than hope they end up with a leader the media will tolerate, a support that votes for them regardless and the good fortune of a massive economic collapse under May's Brexit government. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 14, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 14, 2016 3 hours ago, villaglint said: Trent you are in danger of getting a bit biased here which I think is beneath you as you always strike me as a thoughtful fellow. Starting point is to remember there is always three sides to any storey. Seeing as this was essentially a vote for the soul of the Labour Party I think it is pretty obvious why he wouldn't have wanted it to be a secret ballot. You call it self interest but he would call it defending the interests on which the Labour Party was originally set up to protect (or the left of the party) and the interests of the many many members who support him. Granted this has led to a lot of bullying etc I heard the interview and it was moving but again this is because so much is at stake ideologically and the various factions are so opposed. It is difficult to see how they keep all this together in the medium term. I completely agree that someone with stronger leadership skills could have done more to calm the whole situation. I watched him make a statement asking for calm but as ever he is not a man to lead and manage a news cycle just react to one. I just joined Labour and I'll be paying my £25 because as much of a piss take as it is it remains an absolutely crucial decision. Even though the party is frankly embarrassing right now the Country desperately needs an opposition. I just hope everyone can calm down a bit because the pants wetting on all sides is painful and counter productive. Let's just get a list of people who are up for it and start debating. Not vagaries and wishes but ideas and policies. I find the accusation of bias or approaching bias a little odd to be honest for a number of reasons, the first of which is I rarely, very rarely comment in either of the politics threads despite a deep rooted interest in the topic. This is largely because I'm all too aware of how politics can completely alter the views you hold about people who you otherwise get on well with. Secondly, because to a degree anyone who has any real interest in politics has by definition an element of bias. Until recently I've passed no comment on Corbyn despite the fact I've always thought he wasn't the right person to lead the party, a party I've always voted for I should add. I said when he was elected leader of the party that the membership had just handed the Tories the next general election result and everything I've seen from him since has I think vindicated that view. But still I've not really commented. I would say I'm no more or less biased than anyone else with more than a passing interest in politics is on this or any other event, yourself included. I'm perfectly aware there are always three sides to a story. I don't though see that a vote on ballots being held in secret was in itself a vote for the soul of the party, particularly given the reasons why the vote was proposed in the first place. To recap, the vote was proposed because of the bullying and intimidation of Labour party members by those who are angered by people not backing Corbyn. Through his vote Corbyn not only helped defeat the motion but he tacitly endorsed bullying and intimidation, I don't see how that can be viewed as being anything other than self serving. You seem to be saying that he was protecting the interests of those who support him within the party but surely members of Labour's National Executive Committee should be able to vote without being victimised? Surely they too have the interests of party members at heart irrespective if you agree with them or not. The Labour party isn't the cult of Corbyn but it is fast becoming that and becoming a party in which dissenting voices are silenced one way or another. The accusation in this thread earlier was that Johanna Baxter was 'another person wheeled out' to attack Corbyn. Well she is a trade union official and part of the National Executive, she had never been critical of him previously but was reduced to the verge of tears by his actions yesterday and spoke out, that is serious. That is quite an indictment of his leadership and his character in my view which some seek to trumpet as being one of his strengths. It isn't that someone with better leadership skills could have done more to calm the whole situation, it appears he doesn't want to do something about it based on that vote yesterday. I don't think I've heard him speak to condemn the actions taken by some Labour members and activists against their follow members either. To be honest I find the "calm down" and "pants wetting" comments both a little offensive and symptomatic of the problem with the Labour party and politics in general, people don't seem to be able to be allowed to hold perfectly rational opposting view points without having insulting labels attached. I personally don't think people being threatened is acceptable, I don't think those complaining about it need to calm down, or those that think Corbyn should have voted differently are "bed wetting". You seem to be forgetting that not very many weeks ago a Labour MP was murdered by someone who didn't agree with her view, now that was in no way related to Corbyn of his supporters but it demonstrates the very real and tangible fear felt by these "bed wetters" some of whom probably knew Jo Cox, her former party leader just voted in favour of allowing people to be put in the firing line. Frankly appalling by Corbyn. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 14, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 14, 2016 3 hours ago, darrenm said: Ah yes sorry it's that he voted against a secret ballot. Still it seems a bit of a stretch that he's directly responsible for someone getting upset because he voted one way and not another. I don't think it is when people are getting personal abuse and threats and the leader of their party opts not to try and help protect them from it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Promising a referendum on Brexit deal is an interesting move from Smith. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 14, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 14, 2016 3 hours ago, darrenm said: Ah yes sorry it's that he voted against a secret ballot. Still it seems a bit of a stretch that he's directly responsible for someone getting upset because he voted one way and not another. How can it be a stretch when the person who was upset specifically says that is why she was upset? This isn't my theory, this isn't 2+2=5 stuff. It is as clear as day that she is upset directly as a result of his actions it really can't be argued otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 14, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 14, 2016 4 hours ago, darrenm said: From what I could tell, her entire issue was that Corbyn (amongst others) had voted for a secret ballot. And apparently that causes bullying and she is upset by that I watched it on Ch4 News last night. Definitely totally genuine, not a put up job. The reality these MPs are faced with is that people are targeting them for abuse, intimidation and hatred because they hold a different viewpoint to the momentum lot. Not so long ago a friend of many of the Labour MPs was murdered by a nutter - nothing to do with momentum, or Corbyn, but from the MPs perspective it's clearly a genuinely alarming and concerning time, and getting death and rape threats, bricks through windows, trolling on social media is a disgrace. A secret ballot would have given an element of protection from being targeted by these horrible people, but Corbyn refused to allow it. He refused to allow people to be protected from bullying and worse. Classy. 3 hours ago, villaglint said: this was essentially a vote for the soul of the Labour Party I think it is pretty obvious why he wouldn't have wanted it to be a secret ballot. You call it self interest but he would call it defending the interests on which the Labour Party was originally set up to protect (or the left of the party) and the interests of the many many members who support him. There are loads of MPs across the Labour party who would want to and do protect the interests of working and poorer people but who happen to think Corbyn is a terrible leader and that losing the next election will again lead tories to control the country, which doesn't help anyone. These MPs, the good, the bad and the indifferent should not be being threatened and abused and targeted in the way they have been, whether you think they're right or wrong. They are the parliamentary labour party, they were democratically elected. The labour party is just self destructing since Corbyn took over. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 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, but obviously they are all on there. It goes in to some detail on voting records. When you are 'informed' that a particular MP is left right top middle or bottom it's sometimes worth having a quick look to see how they vote and how often they tow the party line. Not making a point about any one politician. Just an aid to people that want to judge for themselves, and not just be told by twitter that politician 'x' has the same voting history as Oliver Letwin. As I read about someone this morning and it proved to be an utter fabrication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Trent - I can't respond to each bit of your post as I'm on my phone so I'll just to do a more general response. First off apologies clearly my post came across as some kind of personal attack and that was not my intention. I was merely trying to point out something I felt you had missed. I guess it boils down to this, both you and Blandy seem to be insinuating that Corbyn wants or cordones this violence/bullying in my opinion that is to misjudge the man. Just my opinion. Could he have done more to stop it yes and I said as much in my first post but did he have valid reasons for not wanting that vote to be secret in my opinion again yes. Not to say I agree with those reasons but just to say he is representing something beyond himself and I can see why he did it when there was so much potentially riding on it. On the calm down/bed wetting bit. Again apologies my last intention was to insult you. That was my (perhaps poorly worded) attempt to ask for just what you suggested that we have rational debate of the positions/policies rather than the aggressiveness that seems to come with it. I was not suggesting that Johanna Baxter was wetting the bed or getting emotional for no reason at all but an Internet forum is nothing if not a medium for quick fire misunderstanding. We really need to write essays to avoid all the pitfalls and before I do I'll stop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts