Corbyn and his supporters(and please stop talking about Momentum as if it is an anti-Labour conspiracy...its place in the party is at least as legitimate as Progress, and certainly more legitimate than Portland Communications)WANT the branch meetings to go on.
The reason the anti-Corbynites(they did this in an illegitimate move when Corbyn and his allies had left the meeting, which was supposed to adjourn as soon as Corbyn's ballot status was resolved, as there were no other items on the agenda) banned branch meetings is that the overwhelming majority of the branches are pro-Corbyn and kept passing motions of no-confidence in the anti-Corbyn MPs the branches had just been responsible for re-electing in 2015.
I don't despise anyone. I disagree with anti-democratic actions and any attempts to prevent Labour from breaking with the pre-2015 status quo. There was simpy no reason for Corbyn's opponents not to be content with launching a leadership contest under party rules(rules that clearly mandate Corbyn's presence), or, at the least, not to agree to implement at least most of the policies the Corbyn movement-a movement which comprises the overwhelming majority of the party outside of the PLP-supports.
If they just wanted a different leader, they had no good reason not to agree to those things.
Instead, they made it clear that they would settle for nothing short of Corbyn's resignation, the exclusion of Corbyn or anyone even close to him on the issues from the leadership ballot, and the erasure of the entire Corbyn movement from the party.
What right did they have to be so arrogant, autocratic and inflexible on all of this?
Why could they not, at the least, played fair and acted democratically?
I don't hate them as people...I simply find their actions indefensible.
= new reply since forum marked as read