HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » United Kingdom (Group) » Corbyn on ballot.

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 02:49 PM

Corbyn on ballot.

This is breaking, so no media sources yet, this is off Twitter.

40 replies, 3376 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Corbyn on ballot. (Original post)
Denzil_DC Jul 2016 OP
Denzil_DC Jul 2016 #1
Denzil_DC Jul 2016 #2
Denzil_DC Jul 2016 #3
muriel_volestrangler Jul 2016 #6
Denzil_DC Jul 2016 #7
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #9
Denzil_DC Jul 2016 #15
Matilda Jul 2016 #32
Denzil_DC Jul 2016 #33
Matilda Jul 2016 #34
Denzil_DC Jul 2016 #36
Denzil_DC Jul 2016 #26
LeftishBrit Jul 2016 #4
RogueTrooper Jul 2016 #12
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #19
RogueTrooper Jul 2016 #21
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #22
RogueTrooper Jul 2016 #24
muriel_volestrangler Jul 2016 #25
T_i_B Jul 2016 #5
non sociopath skin Jul 2016 #8
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #10
T_i_B Jul 2016 #11
non sociopath skin Jul 2016 #13
T_i_B Jul 2016 #18
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #35
Denzil_DC Jul 2016 #14
non sociopath skin Jul 2016 #17
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #20
BooScout Jul 2016 #27
T_i_B Jul 2016 #28
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #29
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #23
Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2016 #30
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #31
Denzil_DC Jul 2016 #16
T_i_B Jul 2016 #37
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #40
Denzil_DC Jul 2016 #38
T_i_B Jul 2016 #39

Response to Denzil_DC (Original post)

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 02:53 PM

1. Via Channel 4 ITN News's Michael Crick:

Michael Crick ‏@MichaelLCrick 4m4 minutes ago

Corbyn on ballot by 18-14

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Original post)

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 02:56 PM

2. From The Guardian liveblog:

Jeremy Corbyn will be on Labour leadership ballot, party's executive rules - live

Jeremy Corbyn’s name must appear on the ballot paper in the forthcoming leadership election triggered by Angela Eagle’s challenge, Labour’s ruling national executive committee (NEC) has ruled.

The Guardian’s Heather Stewart has filed a full story on what has just transpired during a crunch meeting at Labour’s Victoria headquarters, which Corbyn attended, and what it now means for the party:

Iain McNicol, the party’s general secretary, had sought legal advice over the interpretation of a key paragraph of the rules for electing a Labour leader, which were revised by Ed Miliband.

Rule 2Bii in the party’s rule book, says: “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attracting this threshold shall be null and void.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jul/12/labour-nec-jeremy-corbyn-leadership-from-labour-leadership-ballot-would-be-sordid-fix-politics-live


I'm going back to me beer - not celebratory. What a clusterfuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 03:15 PM

3. LOL

Éoin
@LabourEoin

Labour HQ disputing the legality of the NEC decision. The Machine is taking this to the courts to defeat their own elected leader.


Back to me beer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 04:48 PM

6. The replies to that tweet seem to say that's meaningless

That "Labour HQ" is, at best, some staffers who can't do anything in legal terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 05:14 PM

7. Hence the LOL.

But given the state of things at the moment ...

Laura Kuenssberg Verified account
@bbclaurak

Will labour HQ challenge the decision in court?


Laura Kuenssberg Verified account
@bbclaurak

Highly likely that Labour Party itself will challenge the decision in the courts


Which gets translated on the BBC website to:

The BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg said it was highly likely that the Labour Party itself would challenge the decision in the courts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36778135


If she crosses her eyes and wishes hard enough, you never know.

Any legal ructions are more likely to focus on the NEC's decision to backdate restrictions on new members' voting rights. People signed up and paid money on the express promise they'd have a vote in the leadership election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 10:24 PM

9. What is the deal with Laura Kuenssberg and Corby anyway?

 

She has been blantly anti-Corbyn(a public position a journalist is NOT supposed to take in regards to any politician)and has been obsessed with getting him removed as leader.

She's a BBC correspondent, not a Labour politician...what's it to her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 07:14 AM

15. I don't know how she got the job.

We have our own complaints about BBC news coverage up here in Scotland, and you folks are seeing some similar reasons why nowadays. She's blatantly biased, and should be replaced. But the whole of the BBC's continually cowed by threats to the licence fee etc. The old ideals of impartiality, while obviously being the voice of the Establishment it was originally set up to be, have gone by the wayside.

I pay some attention to its international coverage, which, if you allow for the usual national filters, is still reasonably good on the whole, but on domestic matters, it's just another voice among the hubbub nowadays. Channel 4/ITN News's coverage knocks spots off it on a nightly basis with a far smaller budget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 15, 2016, 05:02 AM

32. This is eerily similar to the ABC here in Australia.

The Board is weighted with hard-line r-wingers, and the new MD is a former (take that with a grain of salt) employee of Rupert Murdoch.

Their journalists, once accused by the right of all being socialists, are now blatantly right-wing, arguing and cutting off Labor politicians in interviews, and skewing news reports in the Libs' favour.

It's known that Murdoch thinks the ABC should be broken up into multiple entities and sold off, which would benefit him enormously.

Does he have similar views and influence regarding the Beeb?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matilda (Reply #32)

Fri Jul 15, 2016, 06:44 AM

33. I'm sure Murdoch loves the idea.

George Osborne met Rupert Murdoch twice before imposing BBC cuts

George Osborne met Rupert Murdoch twice in June, days before the Treasury foisted a controversial funding deal on the BBC in which the broadcaster was told it would have to pay the £700m cost of funding TV licences for the over-75s.

The chancellor also met senior News Corp executives and editors four more times after the general election on 7 May before informing the BBC about the proposed funding settlement officially on 3 July. It was publicly announced three days later.

The records published by the Treasury do not give a precise date for the Murdoch meetings other than to say they were in June, and their purpose is described as “general discussion”.

...

As well as his meetings with Murdoch, the chancellor also had lunch with News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson on 31 May, and met the then Sun editor, David Dinsmore, the following month.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/18/george-osborne-rupert-murdoch-bbc-cuts-news-corp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #33)

Sat Jul 16, 2016, 12:07 AM

34. That's the style we know all too well here.

Politicians of both persuasions fall over themselves to give him what he wants - which ultimately, is more power.

Our media laws, aimed at keeping diversity across all media and forbidding cross-ownership, have steadily been eroded, mainly since the Hawke/Keating and Howard eras to the point where Murdoch now owns 70% of all print media, and it's expected the LNP government will repeal cross-media ownership laws during the current term.

The irony is that the more power they give Murdoch, the more afraid of him they become, so they give him more of what he wants, then they become even more afraid of him.

Yet I think that although he has the cunning of a sewer-rat, he's not an intelligent man and has appalling judgment (he backed Tony Abbott to the hilt). (Gough Whitlam, having been backed for Prime Minister in 1972 by Murdoch, then refused to meet with him because he thought he was boring - every Murdoch news outlet came out against Gough in 1975, and he was history.)

I do also wonder how much influence Murdoch had in Blair's decision to back the Iraq war - Murdoch favoured it (thought it would lead to cheaper petrol prices), and I'll bet Blair wasn't about to cross him.

Should be in jail over the hacking scandal. Evil litle man.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matilda (Reply #34)

Sat Jul 16, 2016, 07:00 AM

36. Blair and his entourage definitely ran scared of Murdoch on all sorts of issues.

Which morphed into one of the weirdest high-level friendships/alliances over the years:

In 1995, at the instigation of Peter Stothard, then editor of the Times, Blair was invited to address Murdoch's annual power-fest, that year's event being held on Hayman Island, off Queensland.

Keen to placate the Sun – Murdoch's baby and always under his direct, near-daily guidance, even now – which had savaged Neil Kinnock, Blair dismayed his party by accepting. He, his communications chief Alastair Campbell and his school chum turned Praetorian Guard, Anji Hunter, were feted ("we'd never flown first class" and Blair made a well-pitched speech – "enough for the News Corp lot, enough for the anti-Murdoch neuralgics" at home, Campbell confided to his diaries.Australia's Labour prime minister, Paul Keating, chaperoned them himself: never put up income tax, he warned "Bambi" Blair. And Murdoch is "a big bad bastard" who despises politicians ("they get in his way" unless you convince him you can be one too, he added.

The friendship that developed in the years that followed has been much-analysed. But on one point both sides of the Blair-Deng allegations row still agree. "They had very robust arguments on things like Europe and there were issues on which Tony never compromised with him. Murdoch was always more interested in foreign affairs than the domestic agenda," recalls one Blair aide who witnessed some sessions. "On Europe or press intrusion they would disagree. Sometimes Murdoch would persuade Tony on a point, sometimes Tony would persuade him," says another.

For Campbell, an old friend of Kinnock's, such dealings with Murdoch were a necessary evil, though Murdoch was complicated. As a chippy Australian pluotcrat he had an outsider's instinctive dislike of the British establishment. He was anti-gay (Deng softened that) and anti-racist (he has several mixed-race grandchildren). The romantic streak which made him a near-Marxist at Oxford never quite died. "He admires the Queen, but in his heart he's a republican, he'd like to be left wing," insists the insider.

It was the same Murdoch who pushed Blair hard to back George Bush in invading Iraq and repeatedly annoyed him by foolishly saying Britain's relationship with the EU should be like Switzerland's.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/14/tony-blair-rupert-murdoch-deconstruction-friendship-wendi-deng


In Tony Blair's uneven but occasionally startling autobiography, A Journey, published in 2010, there is a chapter that makes particularly interesting reading now. It covers his final, slightly besieged years as prime minister, from mid-2005 to mid-2007. "In this time," writes Blair, "I was trying to wear … a kind of psychological armour which the arrows simply bounced off, and to achieve a kind of weightlessness that allowed me, somehow, to float above the demonic rabble tearing at my limbs. There was courage in [this behaviour] and I look back at it now with pride," he concludes. "I was … not unafraid exactly, but near to being reckless about my own political safety."

The chapter's title is "Toughing It Out". Last week, during the phone-hacking trial of Rebekah Brooks, an email from the former News of the World editor emerged, sent the day after the disgraced rightwing tabloid was shut down in 2011 and six days before she was arrested. To her then boss, James Murdoch, Brooks wrote: "I had an hour on the phone to Tony Blair. He said … Keep strong … It will pass. Tough up. He is available for you, KRM [Rupert Murdoch] and me as an unofficial adviser but needs to be between us."

As Labour leader and prime minister, one of Blair's defining characteristics was his readiness – canny or disgraceful, according to political taste – to make accommodations with powerful rightwing interest groups, not least the Murdoch press. The Brooks email, the latest in a succession of sometimes jaw-dropping revelations about Blair's behaviour since he abruptly left Westminster politics seven years ago, suggested that his ease with the left's traditional enemies had in fact deepened: into an instinctive feeling that he and they were on the same side.

... In 2010, weeks before the general election at which Murdoch's papers did their best to drive Labour from office, Blair secretly became godfather to one of Deng and Murdoch's daughters.

"You couldn't make it up," says a former member of the New Labour inner circle. "Just when you thought Tony's behaviour couldn't get any more bizarre … His actions would be strange even for the most dyed-in-the-wool capitalist ex-prime minister, but for a Labour one, I think it looks terrible. It makes mugs of many of the people who supported him in office. He's trashed the New Labour brand."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/26/tony-blair-new-labour-hero-political-embarrassment-murdoch


May's reshuffle means Murdoch's now lost a major ally in government, ex-Culture Secretary John Whittingdale:

Rupert Murdoch has transformed the media in Britain not once but twice. If it wasn't for him we would still have grubby newspapers run by trade unions that strike at the drop of a hat. And he launched satellite TV. Also Kelvin MacKenzie - because he is courageous, funny and very often right.


The man deciding the future of the BBC cites Rupert Murdoch and Kelvin MacKenzie as his media heroes.

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-resharing-this-terrifying-john-whittingdale-quote-about-rupert-murdoch-from-2006--bkfDAnThRzZ


And on why the media were so reluctant to report on Whittingdale's "colourful" personal life:

There is also a wider campaign that the Whittingdale story fits into. It is a years long agenda by Murdoch titles against the BBC, in the interests of the media magnate to increase his share of the market and extinguish the national hold of the Public Service Broadcaster in the UK. Rupert Murdoch’s British media interests in 2009 included The Times, The Sun, The News Of The World (before it’s ceremonious closure in light of phone hacking), Sky, 39.1% of BSkyB, and 17.9% of shares in ITV.

With Whittingdale a close friend of the Murdochs, this campaign is ever more relevant.

A revolving door between Murdoch and Conservative camps since 2009, has resumed in earnest a relationship that began in the eighties.

The same year saw a step change in Rupert Murdoch’s campaign – his News international titles, including The Sun, published 515 articles in one year attacking the BBC according to a Fleet Street database highlighted by journalist Nick Davies.

http://realmedia.press/whittingdale-murdoch-bbc-cover-context/


Whittingdale's replacement, Karen Bradley, doesn't seem to have overt ties to Murdoch, so we'll have to see what becomes of the relationship via his other allies in government (Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has been a notable one). The change does at least seem to have put plans to privatize Channel 4 TV (state-owned, but commercially funded) on hold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 14, 2016, 07:35 AM

26. There IS going to be a legal challenge, apparently not welcomed by either "side":

Labour donor to mount legal challenge over leadership ballot

...

Michael Foster, a former parliamentary candidate, will lodge the application at the high court on Thursday afternoon.

“The issue raised by my application to the court is the proper interpretation of the rules of the party,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, saying that Corbyn being automatically on the ballot paper for the leadership election was “essentially a legal issue”.

...

Foster, a former showbiz agent who has given more than £400,000 to the party since 2010, came to prominence during the last Labour party conference, after he confronted Corbyn at a Labour Friends of Israel reception, angered the Labour leader had not mentioned the word “Israel” in his address to the meeting.

“Say the word ‘Israel’,” he shouted at Corbyn, who is a longstanding pro-Palestinian campaigner.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/14/labour-donor-to-mount-legal-challenge-over-leadership-ballot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Original post)

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 03:50 PM

4. Well, he ought to be on the ballot, as he's the leader.

That doesn't give him an automatic right to renomination, but surely he has right to be on the ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 05:09 AM

12. This allows him to be on the ballot without being re-nominated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #12)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 06:48 PM

19. As it should be, because the MPs would refuse to nominate him

 

and also refuse to nominate anyone else on the left.

They would rig the contest to elect Angela Eagle without challenge. They probably wouldn't even let Owen Lewis on the ballot.

Never mind that imposing Eagle like that would instantly cost the party hundreds of thousands of members and bring in so new supporters to even replace them, let alone do anything to actually increase Labour support in the polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 14, 2016, 03:14 AM

21. It's ironic 'though

that the socialist leader of the Labour Party uses privilege to maintain his position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #21)

Thu Jul 14, 2016, 04:34 AM

22. It's the party rules, not "privilege"

 

And this has nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn seeking to "maintain his position".

Corbyn, whatever else you can say about him, is probably the most egoless political figure in the English-speaking world.

What he is protecting is democracy within the Labour Party-the right of the membership of the party to have a real say in who leads the party and what it stands for, rather than the choice of leader being determined solely by the MPs(who would, if they had their way, guarantee that no one to the left of Yvette Cooper-and if they REALLY had their way, no one to the left of Liz Kendall or professional poorbasher Rachel Reeves)would be allowed onto the leadership ballot at all, thus making the leadership contest meaningless.

Corbyn is defending the rank-and-file, who no longer want the party to be Blairite, against the MPs, the only people in the entirety of the party who want Labour to stay within millimetres of the Tories on the issues(and who, in some cases, want the party to be even further right than it was in 2015, calling on Labour to take a "no new taxes" pledge and support the benefits cap and the Tory "budget charter"-i.e., thus abandoning what were, after the 2015 election, the only remaining meaningful differences between Labour and the Tories). The only way he could do this was to insist the he be guaranteed a place on the leadership ballot as incumbent, as the party rules clearly guarantee.

BTW, a new IPSOS/MORI poll has just been released showing Labour five points ahead of the Tories, 38% to 33%, with the UKIP vote down from 15% in the 2015 election to only 7% now. A rational group pf Labour MPs would take that as a sign that they should stop trying to depose their leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #22)

Thu Jul 14, 2016, 05:06 AM

24. That is not what the pollster is saying about that poll

But my comment was about the irony of a person, who preaches equality, for whatever the reason, expecting to be treated differently because of his position. It is the definition of privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #24)

Thu Jul 14, 2016, 06:17 AM

25. No, it's not 'privilege'. He will have to get the votes of the party, just like challengers

He is leader of the party, not of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The party rules explicitly give one set of rules for nominating a candidate for leader when there's a vacancy, an another for nominating a challenger when there isn't. It talks about the challengers needing nominations, not 'candidates'. What the rule does is require a few more MPs/MEPs to overturn a previous vote by the party membership. The MPs have that 'privilege'.

It wouldn't even make sense that an incumbent leader would need more nominations than they needed when there was a vacancy. You don't make it harder for someone to keep their position than you did for them to get it. In all kinds of situations, you set a higher bar for an action that upsets the current situation (changing a constitution, sacking someone and replacing them, etc.).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Original post)

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 04:14 PM

5. Keeping him off the ballot would have been sucicidal

It would have reeked of a stitch up.

The moderate wing of Labour now needs to up it's game, because Labour cannot continue like this. Britain needs a fully functioning democracy, which cannot be provided when the opposition is as badly lead as it is at present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 07:04 PM

8. So which of the Monarchs-over-the-Water will you be rooting for, TiB?

Angie the Pink, Owen "Empty Taxi" Smith or Undeclared of Hampstead?

The Skin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to non sociopath skin (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 10:25 PM

10. Ooh...a Stuart loyalist metaphor...don't see many of those anymore...

 

Well-played.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to non sociopath skin (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 01:10 AM

11. Don't know enough about Owen Smith

Angela Eagle has flaws, although she stands more of a chance of avoiding a split in the Labour movement than Corbyn does.

Corbyn may come across as decent and honourable, but it has become clear that he isn't able to run a large organisation, especially one as fractious as the Labour party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 06:41 AM

13. Maybe you should hold out for Undeclared of Hampstead?

Now that Smith is standing against the "Unity" candidate, s/he may be the anti-Corbynites' best last hope.

"Corbyn may come across as decent and honourable ..." So you don't think he is, then?

The Skin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to non sociopath skin (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 12:45 PM

18. Never met him personally

I have seen him making speeches at close quarters when I was protesting against the Iraq war but that's as close as I've got.

And on that note, I should say that whilst Corbyn is no rousing orator, he still comes across as a much better public speaker than Angela Eagle!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 16, 2016, 12:28 AM

35. There's always Dick Whittington's cat.

 



He's already got a campaign poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 07:00 AM

14. T_i_B, it's clear from past experience with the PLP

that it's so fractious, even when there's been a seemingly secure whip setup that rewards loyalty with promises of job security and career advancement, disruptive splits are the norm.

Blaming Corbyn while an influential and dogged set of factions, with strong links to media only too keen to focus on dissent (like the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg, who's overstepped the mark into conspiring with some "rebels", are intent on strutting around moaning "You're not the boss of me" like disgruntled adolescents just sets up any future leader for the same problems that dogged Miliband and earlier leaders. The problem's not new, and it didn't arrive with Corbyn, it's just exaggerated in the current situation.

And Eagle's already split the movement. She's lost what little respect she commanded among many over the past few days, and currently spends most of her media time complaining about "bricks through windows" (in reality only one brick and only one pane so far, though it'd be nice if that was an end to it) and calling for Corbyn to make denouncements he's already made, while proclaiming, with no evidence, "I CAN lead. I CAN win." It's not persuasive. She's an embarrassment.

As for Smith, he's completely unimpressive, and I don't think he's the Messiah Labour's looking for. I don't even think he'd make a decent fist of being a caretaker. The fact Labour's looking for a Messiah and doing the whole People's Front of Judea schtick isn't new, but it's maybe time to embrace that "new kind of politics," enter the 21st century, and for the PLP to stop being so Stalinist in approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #14)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 09:12 AM

17. Well said, Denzil.

The Skin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #14)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 06:49 PM

20. The PLP tried to depose Attlee as leader...right after the 1945 Labour victory was announced.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #11)

Thu Jul 14, 2016, 08:00 AM

27. I'm beginning to wonder...

.....if anyone is capable of controlling or uniting the Labour Party. They have become somewhat a sad joke. Their membership clearly want a more leftist governance of the party, whilst the MPs are bound and determined to hold on to their Tory-lite position even as it destroys the party and loses them votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Reply #27)

Thu Jul 14, 2016, 01:20 PM

28. The scary part of this to me....

Is that the divide in Labour between a good portion of the PLP and the parties grassroots is only one part of Labour's current malaise.

When you consider that Labour was founded to help the little guy, this divide becomes even more toxic. Although it's not the only point of division within Labour at present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Reply #27)

Thu Jul 14, 2016, 04:35 PM

29. Absolutely. n/t.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 14, 2016, 04:42 AM

23. The "moderates" need to accept the need to restore internal party democracy.

 

They should support returning full control of candidate selection to the constituency parties, a requirement that ALL sitting MPs submit to reselection before every general election(the SNP has this as policy for its MSPs, and it is an effective tool to hold the MP accountable to those who will have to do the work of getting her re-elected and to weed out corrupt or incompetent MPs without putting Labour retention of the seats at risk). There was never any justification for the idea that sitting MPs should be guaranteed automatic reselection until they stand down, lose the seat or die. They're MPs...not liege lords.

And control over policy should cease to be the exclusive purview of the leader and her advisors, but once again should be decided democratically at the annual party conference.

Supporting those things, and ceasing to treat everyone who isn't an MP as underlings deserving of no voice and no respect, would do a lot to help "moderates" regain trust and credibility within the party.

Dialing back the militarism wouldn't hurt, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #23)

Thu Jul 14, 2016, 07:22 PM

30. No, they need to bury it at a crossroads with a stake through its heart.

The requirements of democracy are that you get to decide which party to vote for, and if you want to, you get to start your own. It doesn't mandate any particular form of internal power structure for a party, and its clear that the one the Labour party currently has doesn't work.

If, as seems depressingly likely, the Labour party doesn't survive Corbyn's leadership, he will be remembered partly as author of its demise, but Ed Milliband's catastrophic decision to extend internal democracy will also earn him a share of the blame.

A system which can enable someone to remain as "leader" after 80% of his colleagues have expressed no confidence in him cannot work.

We need to be moving power from the hands of the membership - who, in the main, are professional teachers, plumbers, surgeons, cleaners, etc - to the hands of the elected MPs, who are professional politicians, not in the other direction. They're not liege lords, but they are mostly experts, and despite what Gove thinks, that matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #30)

Thu Jul 14, 2016, 09:33 PM

31. You've just made an astoundingly antidemocratic post.

 

Last edited Thu Jul 14, 2016, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)

You just compared internal party democracy to a vampire.

Labour would be at exactly the same place it is in the polls if a cynical, activist-hating reactionary like Yvette Cooper was leading it.

If control over the party were to be given totally to the MPs, that would instantly make Labour a party that stood for nothing(which is what having "moderate" policies means...not fighting for the workers and the jobless and the poor, having no compassion, putting
austerity and war ahead of human needs).

It would mean no policies that disagreed with Tory policies on anything.

It would mean no spending increases or programs to help the poor(as even you would have to concede, supporting the benefits cap and the Tory budget charter would make it impossible for a Labour government to do anything even mildly social democratic).

Other than the left minority in the PLP, none of the current MPs want any meaningful break with the solely political choice to cut the social wage and give corporate power permanent control of the economy. Or an end to what has now been thirteen pointless and solely destructive years of military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world.

No one out there in the wider UK electorate is demanding that Labour become a bitterly anti-left party of the sort you want.

One party of the status quo is enough.

btw...what's so terrible about surgeons, teachers, plumbers and cleaners having a say in what Labour stands for? if the party doesn't listen to people like them who SHOULD it listen to?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Original post)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 08:46 AM

16. This couldn't be more blatant:

Labour has suspended all local party meetings until the high-stakes leadership contest has been completed to curb the levels of abuse faced by MPs, the Huffington Post UK can reveal.

In a dramatic ruling by Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC), local branches were banned from meeting until Jeremy Corbyn’s fate as leader of the party has been decided.

...

A special paper on the leadership contest, passed to HuffPost UK, said the move to suspend local party meetings was to prevent further intimidation and violence of MPs and members.




Great excuse for avoiding even more votes of no confidence in sitting MPs, and even more CLP votes of confidence in Corbyn.

Sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #16)

Sat Jul 16, 2016, 12:36 PM

37. So my local Labour branch can't hold meetings....

...but my local Momentum Branch can.

I can see how this might work out to Corbyn's advantage.

Although the raising of the fee for registered supporters to vote from £3 to £25 has pissed off just about everybody. That much I consider indefensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #37)

Fri Jul 29, 2016, 09:03 PM

40. It's not the fault of Corbyn and his supporters that your local branch can't hold meetings.

 

Corbyn didn't want that to happen. Nor did his supporters.

It's the anti-Corbyn majority on the Labour NEC that made that decision.

They barred branch meetings because the CLP's (which are generally pro-Corbyn) kept passing no-confidence motions against the anti-Corbyn MPs they had just worked hard to elect or re-elect in 2015.

The only reason Corbyn was put on the ballot was thay a few of the anti-Corbynites realized barring him from it would have delegitimized the election of anyone else as leader.

The last thing those people would do would be to give special privileges to Momentum.

And, for whatever it's worth, I think your local branch should be able to have meetings.

BTW...I respect your opinion as a person of good intent who opposes Corbyn simply because you don't feel he was the most effective leader Labour could have, so I'd like to ask you this:

Would you agree, as a person who wants a leadership change, that those in the PLP who made the decision to go after Corbyn, whatever their motivation, made this situation much more toxic than it had to be when they decided to not only push for replacing Corbyn, but also decided to anathemize(and perhaps expel) Momentum, to fight against the restoration of internal democracy, AND to make the ridiculous claim that the whole Corbyn phenomenon had no genuine popular backing or sincere grassroots support, but instead was nothing but a Tory-Trotskyist anti-Labour plot? Why didn't they just argue for Corbynism minus Corbyn? Why didn't they just say "we don't want to crush your dreams and drive you away-we just want someone who might be more effective at fighting for those dreams as our party's leader"?

Was it really necessary for Benn & Co. to be quite so arrogant and imperious about all of this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Original post)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 11:02 AM

38. Corbyn STILL on ballot

Labour leadership: Corbyn ballot challenge rejected

A judge has rejected a challenge to Labour's decision to allow Jeremy Corbyn to automatically stand for re-election as leader.

Labour donor and ex-parliamentary candidate Michael Foster was challenging Mr Corbyn's inclusion without having to get MPs' nominations.

Mr Corbyn called the court case a "waste of time and resources".

Mr Foster said he would not be challenging the decision: "We wanted the courts to adjudicate... they have."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36909862

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 12:57 PM

39. That's a relief!

At least the leadership contest won't get any more farcical in that fashion. Although it can always get even more farcical in other ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread