Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
......Challenger rules
There is a dispute in the party about whether, as leader, Mr Corbyn would be automatically given a place on a new ballot, or whether he would need the backing of MPs and MEPs to do so.
Anyone wishing to challenge Mr Corbyn needs the backing of 20% of Labour MPs and MEPs - which currently means 51.
Some say Mr Corbyn would also need this backing to be able to stand, but his supporters say he has an automatic place as leader.
A long-standing member of the National Executive Committee, Christine Shawcroft, told the BBC the relevant section of the rulebook refers only to "potential challengers".
And Unite union leader Len McCluskey has said excluding Mr Corbyn would be "a declaration of civil war" and warned of "the mother of all splits" if he is kept off the ballot paper.
But Harriet Harman, former deputy Labour leader, insisted that Mr Corbyn would have to have the support of 20% of the party's MPs to get on a new ballot "because the leader needs to lead an alternative Labour government".
Mr Corbyn received the backing of only 40 MPs in a confidence vote in which 172 expressed opposition to his leadership of the party.
Analysis
By Ross Hawkins, BBC political correspondent
Jeremy Corbyn has suggested he may go to court if he's not automatically on the ballot paper in Labour's leadership election.
His rivals say he needs the support of a fifth of Labour MPs and MEPs to compete; he says he doesn't.
Two different and completely contradictory bits of legal advice have been obtained. Who's right? This is the key passage in the party rule book:
Labour rulesImage copyrightLABOUR
Do the words "in this case any nomination" apply only to challengers, or do they suggest the sitting leader needs the backing of MPs and MEPs too?
Mr Corbyn's opponents say there is a precedent. When Neil Kinnock - then leader - was challenged by Tony Benn in 1988 Lord Kinnock says he sought nominations.
One barrister active in Labour politics, and a fierce critic of Mr Corbyn, Jolyon Maugham QC, told the Today programme the rules had changed since then and the words above do not force the current leader to find Parliamentary friends.
Don't be fooled into thinking this is just a legal dispute though; the rulebook is another battleground for a bitter political scrap.
Labour's ruling committee, the NEC, will decide and their decision may then be challenged in court.
Whatever the result, the losing side in the dispute won't cheerfully accept it.
Those trying to replace Mr Corbyn argue any leader who can't get the support of 20% - just 51 - of his MPs is a pretty hopeless leader.
The other side say the argument shows the Labour leader's challengers are afraid of a fair fight.....
Surely Corbyn must have some idea of how much support he has? If he really cannot get such support, even though legally he may not need it, he would be more of a fool than I think he is now.
If he can't muster 50 MP's, he's shot as an effective leader. Even if he refuses to leave his throne, he'll spend 4 years reading letters out in Parliament and being increasingly ignored by everyone.
He's done for, but he doesn't want to be. The question is, will he hand the Tories an easy four years in power?
Ketara wrote: If he can't muster 50 MP's, he's shot as an effective leader. Even if he refuses to leave his throne, he'll spend 4 years reading letters out in Parliament and being increasingly ignored by everyone.
He's done for, but he doesn't want to be. The question is, will he hand the Tories an easy four years in power?
Not so much Corbyn but maybe labour has to in order to find out what the hell they stand for so they are in some position to challenge in 2020.
The party is all about getting into power. Something Corbyn is as guilty of as anyone inspite of his new politics bluster.
This putsch against Corbyn seems very underhanded. They know he has the support of the party membership, so they're trying to force him out before triggering a fair leadership contest they know they cannot win.
I'm no Corbyn fan and I'll never vote for him but this is despicable. I thought my contempt for Labour couldn't get any stronger. I was wrong.
BBC sources have been told that George Osborne is no longer planning to be in Brussels tomorrow to attend a meeting of EU finance ministers, with Financial Secretary to the Treasury David Gauke attending in his place. Make of that what you will...
Hah! Looks like someone won't be Chancellor on Wednesday anymore.
Also, Owen Smith has announced he will also stand against Corbyn. So there's two candidates in the ring now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/11 18:12:08
I think its more that the Labour party is done for. At the moment its the the leader and the membership Vs the PLP.
There is little that the PLP can do at this point other than crash the Labour party entirely. They could try and oust Corbyn but if , and its a big if, they do there will almost certainly be a wave of deselections for the next GE and whatever horror that the Tory's managed to transform themselves into will be guaranteed another 5 years in power. At least at that point there may be something approaching a genuine Labour party for the first time in decades.
The PLPs best option by far would have been to wind their necks in and be something even approaching an effective opposition. Or join the Torys like they secretly want to.
I think its more that the Labour party is done for. At the moment its the the leader and the membership Vs the PLP.
There is little that the PLP can do at this point other than crash the Labour party entirely. They could try and oust Corbyn but if , and its a big if, they do there will almost certainly be a wave of deselections for the next GE and whatever horror that the Tory's managed to transform themselves into will be guaranteed another 5 years in power. At least at that point there may be something approaching a genuine Labour party for the first time in decades.
The PLPs best option by far would have been to wind their necks in and be something even approaching an effective opposition. Or join the Torys like they secretly want to.
In an ideal world there would be a split. There should be.
The Labour name is still a valuable asset so I continue to believe that the party will be ridden with infighting, backstabbing and general skullduggery albeit not as practiced as the Conservatives.
Kilkrazy wrote: Absolutely. The workers' councils seem to work very well in Germany, for example.
It's just ironic that the power elite that reacted with horror to these EU initiatives when proposed now plans to bring them into the UK in preparation for leaving the EU.
Of course it's probably all just talk.
My concern is that May is still tory through and through. I'd be more suspicious that this is a long game of reducing even further the unions to reduce the risk of strikes and ballots because 'the workers now have their say'.
May's voting record is not that impressive either and so I'm not entirely sure I believe anything she said to be honest. I think we will see a few civil liberties being eroded under her tenure with a more aggressive snoopers charter and stronger powers to detain people without due process as that has always been something she has been keen on. I also expect that if we leave the EU that a number of rights we currently have will be abolished (so maximum number of working hours except by agreement). We have to remember that May was supportive of the notion that workers could give up their rights for a few shares in their companies, effectively exposing those with limited long term realisation to company exploitation for a small temporary monetary gain. All of the choices were poor but this one still leaves me with the shivers.
Fortunately I don't see her lasting longer than June 2020 but by that time the damage may well have truly already been done, and we could be in a worst situation by then if UKIP grabs too many of disillusioned Brexiters from the Tories and Labour (which we can only hope might be at least offset by dissatisfied Remainers moving over to Lib Dems).
If Labour had any sense they would put aside the internal squabbles and hammer the tories with everything they have got. After all most recession parties are at the fortune of the global stage - the coming recession can be solely placed at the door of Tories. Labour should hammer home again and again that they can no longer be considered the party of fiscal sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/11 20:04:44
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
More trouble within Labour. Only 24 hours notice being given to an NEC meeting regarding whether Corbyn will be allowed on the ticket (likely be a secret ballot) -
There are 33 NEC members and Corbyn is likely to have a majority of around 4 if everyone turns up but at least 2 NEC members are on holiday and those more likely to be able to support him are less likely to be able to attend a meeting in London at such short notice. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was planned that way to give him the double blow of not getting enough votes from the parliamentary party and then not getting enough votes from the NEC.
But what does this mean? Will Brexit occur? Will Bremain happen?!
I find it funny how the Leave party have all been jousted for the race to PM by a background Remainer.
I'm not following much of the news at the minute, other the pound against the dollar (which was 1.30 last I checked). Am saving what money I can though, just in case Brexit is handled badly.
Everyone pegging May as potentially a good thing because "stability" is rather ignoring the fact that the status quo is hardly an appealing prospect for the people May and her pals have been vigorously and relentlessly bum fething for the last decade.
Personally the idea of a May-run Tory Brexit with Labour in a shambles makes my blood run fething cold.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
UK politic's won't be a saying anymore soon at this rate. We're off and Ireland will get together again. The UK is now done for and it's all about how now. Roll on #indyref2
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This putsch against Corbyn seems very underhanded. They know he has the support of the party membership, so they're trying to force him out before triggering a fair leadership contest they know they cannot win.
I'm no Corbyn fan and I'll never vote for him but this is despicable. I thought my contempt for Labour couldn't get any stronger. I was wrong.
It's politics.
Corbyn got in from the huge influx of £3 cheapo memberships. He's got the support of these newcomers, (at least we assume he has, but if that is definitely the case why would a challenge to his leadersip by a threat?) but not necessarily the long term party members. IDK where he stands with the unions or the general electorate.
Remember that MPs are looking for a leader they think can give them a better chance of keeping their seats at the next election. There is no point in a political party that cannot get itself elected to power. Policies are irrelevant if they cannot be brought on to the political stage.
MPs are often in good touch with their local party and the mood of the non-party electorate in their constituency and may hold significant loyalty from local party and electorate whatever their situation with relation to the party leadership and the floating £3 members. For example, the Beast of Bolsover kept his seat throughout the New Labour revolution despite his suddenly unfashionable hard left views, because his local party and electorate liked him. (I like him myself.)
The fact that so many MPs are against Corbyn suggests not that they are mad Blairites wanting to make a secret conspiracy to get Blair or Brown back into power that will get them deselected. It suggests they have come to the conclusion that Corbyn is a terrible party leader and hasn't got a cat in hell's chance of boosting the party at the next general election.
They want to get Corbyn out now and have four years to establish his successor so the party can fight the next election with a decent chance of winning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Like I said, they know they can't beat him fairly in a leadership contest so they're trying to rig the process and force him out. ...
...
Or to look at it a different way, Corbyn is so abysmal a Labour leader that he doesn't know how to use the party playbook in his favour.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/11 23:31:55
......Challenger rules
There is a dispute in the party about whether, as leader, Mr Corbyn would be automatically given a place on a new ballot, or whether he would need the backing of MPs and MEPs to do so.
Anyone wishing to challenge Mr Corbyn needs the backing of 20% of Labour MPs and MEPs - which currently means 51.
Some say Mr Corbyn would also need this backing to be able to stand, but his supporters say he has an automatic place as leader.
A long-standing member of the National Executive Committee, Christine Shawcroft, told the BBC the relevant section of the rulebook refers only to "potential challengers".
And Unite union leader Len McCluskey has said excluding Mr Corbyn would be "a declaration of civil war" and warned of "the mother of all splits" if he is kept off the ballot paper.
But Harriet Harman, former deputy Labour leader, insisted that Mr Corbyn would have to have the support of 20% of the party's MPs to get on a new ballot "because the leader needs to lead an alternative Labour government".
Mr Corbyn received the backing of only 40 MPs in a confidence vote in which 172 expressed opposition to his leadership of the party.
Analysis
By Ross Hawkins, BBC political correspondent
Jeremy Corbyn has suggested he may go to court if he's not automatically on the ballot paper in Labour's leadership election.
His rivals say he needs the support of a fifth of Labour MPs and MEPs to compete; he says he doesn't.
Two different and completely contradictory bits of legal advice have been obtained. Who's right? This is the key passage in the party rule book:
Labour rulesImage copyrightLABOUR
Do the words "in this case any nomination" apply only to challengers, or do they suggest the sitting leader needs the backing of MPs and MEPs too?
Mr Corbyn's opponents say there is a precedent. When Neil Kinnock - then leader - was challenged by Tony Benn in 1988 Lord Kinnock says he sought nominations.
One barrister active in Labour politics, and a fierce critic of Mr Corbyn, Jolyon Maugham QC, told the Today programme the rules had changed since then and the words above do not force the current leader to find Parliamentary friends.
Don't be fooled into thinking this is just a legal dispute though; the rulebook is another battleground for a bitter political scrap.
Labour's ruling committee, the NEC, will decide and their decision may then be challenged in court.
Whatever the result, the losing side in the dispute won't cheerfully accept it.
Those trying to replace Mr Corbyn argue any leader who can't get the support of 20% - just 51 - of his MPs is a pretty hopeless leader.
The other side say the argument shows the Labour leader's challengers are afraid of a fair fight.....
Surely Corbyn must have some idea of how much support he has? If he really cannot get such support, even though legally he may not need it, he would be more of a fool than I think he is now.
You need to understand corbyn.
He knows where his power base is, with the more extrme unions, fringe hard left MP's (an insufficient minority) and with a portion of the party membership on the £3 list, many of whom joined specifically to vote for him.
Corbyn doesnt need the Labour party, he nereds the Labour vote. When the parliamentary Labour party was considering a vote of no confidence in him rather than try to fend it off he ignored it and attended a rally of left wing activists. Corbyn showed he knows where his power lies, it is worriting because it means if Labour win under Corbyn we wont get the Labour we are used to but an extreme left variant not seen since the time of Michael Foot.
The other notable thing is that any other politician would have gone by now. Corbyn isnt any other politician, he doesnt care if he has no mainstream support so long as he wins and can unleash his leftist vision. The man screams out as extremely dangerous demogogue who should not be allowed anywhere near power.
Hopefully the public see this too, or at least see it over thier disdaijn for yet more Tories.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This putsch against Corbyn seems very underhanded. They know he has the support of the party membership, so they're trying to force him out before triggering a fair leadership contest they know they cannot win.
I'm no Corbyn fan and I'll never vote for him but this is despicable. I thought my contempt for Labour couldn't get any stronger. I was wrong.
It's politics.
Corbyn got in from the huge influx of £3 cheapo memberships. He's got the support of these newcomers, (at least we assume he has, but if that is definitely the case why would a challenge to his leadersip by a threat?) but not necessarily the long term party members. IDK where he stands with the unions or the general electorate.
Remember that MPs are looking for a leader they think can give them a better chance of keeping their seats at the next election. There is no point in a political party that cannot get itself elected to power. Policies are irrelevant if they cannot be brought on to the political stage.
MPs are often in good touch with their local party and the mood of the non-party electorate in their constituency and may hold significant loyalty from local party and electorate whatever their situation with relation to the party leadership and the floating £3 members. For example, the Beast of Bolsover kept his seat throughout the New Labour revolution despite his suddenly unfashionable hard left views, because his local party and electorate liked him. (I like him myself.)
The fact that so many MPs are against Corbyn suggests not that they are mad Blairites wanting to make a secret conspiracy to get Blair or Brown back into power that will get them deselected. It suggests they have come to the conclusion that Corbyn is a terrible party leader and hasn't got a cat in hell's chance of boosting the party at the next general election.
They want to get Corbyn out now and have four years to establish his successor so the party can fight the next election with a decent chance of winning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Like I said, they know they can't beat him fairly in a leadership contest so they're trying to rig the process and force him out. ...
...
Or to look at it a different way, Corbyn is so abysmal a Labour leader that he doesn't know how to use the party playbook in his favour.
If you ask me I thinks it more likely it´s just a growing discrepancy between the party elite and the party base.
*edit*
Orlanth wrote:The other notable thing is that any other politician would have gone by now. Corbyn isnt any other politician, he doesnt care if he has no mainstream support so long as he wins and can unleash his leftist vision. The man screams out as extremely dangerous demogogue who should not be allowed anywhere near power.
What? This is only getting more hilarious, has Corbyn transformed into chairman Mao over the last few days or whats going on?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/11 23:44:32
Yodhrin wrote: Everyone pegging May as potentially a good thing because "stability" is rather ignoring the fact that the status quo is hardly an appealing prospect for the people May and her pals have been vigorously and relentlessly bum fething for the last decade.
Personally the idea of a May-run Tory Brexit with Labour in a shambles makes my blood run fething cold.
The clear point is that no-one anywhere is in a position to challenge May, however horrific her policies may or may not turn out to be in reality.
Cameron, BoJo, Gove and Farage gone. Corbyn hanging on by his eyebrows. Osborne probably nervous given he is Cameron's right hand man.
The most impressive politicians we have left are Scottish and may be leaving in a couple of years to make their own country, and good luck to them.
The UK is set to get a new prime minister in a matter of days, with Theresa May claiming victory in the Conservative leadership election after her opponent Andrea Leadsom dropped out of the race. Current prime minister David Cameron has just announced he plans to vacate his office by Wednesday evening.
As prime minister, May’s top priority will be tackling the fallout from the UK’s vote to leave the European Union, but what will a May premiership mean for science and technology issues in the UK?
May has been home secretary for the past six years, where she has overseen two bills that demand the scientifically impossible. Earlier this year, MPs voted the Psychoactive Substances Act into law, essentially banning almost anything with the potential to alter your mental state – a definition researchers have warned is scientifically meaningless and potentially harmful.
And she is currently attempting to get the Investigatory Powers Bill through parliament. The bill is an update to the UK’s surveillance laws and has been widely criticised for introducing new powers, such as retaining internet users’ 12-month browsing histories. The bill also appears to ask online service providers to reveal encrypted messages for which they do not have the key – a mathematical impossibility. With May as prime minister, it seems very likely the bill will pass unhindered.
The prime minister-in-waiting’s voting record reveals her likely stance on other important issues. May voted against plans to legalise assisted dying and against a ban on smoking in public places, which has been shown to improve public health.
May also has a negative approach to environmental issues. She has generally voted against measures to fight climate change and was in favour of the UK’s recent failed attempt to combat the spread of tuberculosis by culling badgers. She is also against environmental regulation for fracking in the UK.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/12 00:41:40
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
The fact that so many MPs are against Corbyn suggests not that they are mad Blairites wanting to make a secret conspiracy to get Blair or Brown back into power that will get them deselected. It suggests they have come to the conclusion that Corbyn is a terrible party leader and hasn't got a cat in hell's chance of boosting the party at the next general election.
They want to get Corbyn out now and have four years to establish his successor so the party can fight the next election with a decent chance of winning.
They don't want Blair nor Brown back, no one is quite that daft, but they do want a right wing Labour party despite the very strong possibility that it will be unelectable (well depending just how far right the Tories have swung of course). A right wing Labour party is not what the membership wants, as Corbyn's lanslide election showed.
I find the "£3 members" slurs disturbing to be honest; they are members of a political party and while some of them are there for gaks and giggles I am sure I would be very surprised if most of them aren't genuine members, at least as long as Labour looks like it will be on the left.
Of course they are real members in the sense of having paid a subscription and got a party card that admits them to the annual conference and so on. However, as recent joiners, clearly they aren't the long term hard core party activists, because they would already have been members.
The operation of the party works at several levels. Being a basic member only gives you a vote in a few circumstances. It isn't enough to select Corbyn as leader because he is left wing of the party, and think the job is done.
If the new £3 members want to transform the party away from its current centrist position they need to work from the grassroots. They may have to deselect MPs they dislike and find candidates who are more left-wing. To do this they need to start going to meetings, get voted onto the selection committee and so on.
This isn't impossible but it will require a level of commitment and organisation that isn't automatically provided by buying a £3 membership.
......Challenger rules
There is a dispute in the party about whether, as leader, Mr Corbyn would be automatically given a place on a new ballot, or whether he would need the backing of MPs and MEPs to do so.
Anyone wishing to challenge Mr Corbyn needs the backing of 20% of Labour MPs and MEPs - which currently means 51.
Some say Mr Corbyn would also need this backing to be able to stand, but his supporters say he has an automatic place as leader.
A long-standing member of the National Executive Committee, Christine Shawcroft, told the BBC the relevant section of the rulebook refers only to "potential challengers".
And Unite union leader Len McCluskey has said excluding Mr Corbyn would be "a declaration of civil war" and warned of "the mother of all splits" if he is kept off the ballot paper.
But Harriet Harman, former deputy Labour leader, insisted that Mr Corbyn would have to have the support of 20% of the party's MPs to get on a new ballot "because the leader needs to lead an alternative Labour government".
Mr Corbyn received the backing of only 40 MPs in a confidence vote in which 172 expressed opposition to his leadership of the party.
Analysis
By Ross Hawkins, BBC political correspondent
Jeremy Corbyn has suggested he may go to court if he's not automatically on the ballot paper in Labour's leadership election.
His rivals say he needs the support of a fifth of Labour MPs and MEPs to compete; he says he doesn't.
Two different and completely contradictory bits of legal advice have been obtained. Who's right? This is the key passage in the party rule book:
Labour rulesImage copyrightLABOUR
Do the words "in this case any nomination" apply only to challengers, or do they suggest the sitting leader needs the backing of MPs and MEPs too?
Mr Corbyn's opponents say there is a precedent. When Neil Kinnock - then leader - was challenged by Tony Benn in 1988 Lord Kinnock says he sought nominations.
One barrister active in Labour politics, and a fierce critic of Mr Corbyn, Jolyon Maugham QC, told the Today programme the rules had changed since then and the words above do not force the current leader to find Parliamentary friends.
Don't be fooled into thinking this is just a legal dispute though; the rulebook is another battleground for a bitter political scrap.
Labour's ruling committee, the NEC, will decide and their decision may then be challenged in court.
Whatever the result, the losing side in the dispute won't cheerfully accept it.
Those trying to replace Mr Corbyn argue any leader who can't get the support of 20% - just 51 - of his MPs is a pretty hopeless leader.
The other side say the argument shows the Labour leader's challengers are afraid of a fair fight.....
Surely Corbyn must have some idea of how much support he has? If he really cannot get such support, even though legally he may not need it, he would be more of a fool than I think he is now.
You need to understand corbyn.
He knows where his power base is, with the more extrme unions, fringe hard left MP's (an insufficient minority) and with a portion of the party membership on the £3 list, many of whom joined specifically to vote for him.
Corbyn doesnt need the Labour party, he nereds the Labour vote. When the parliamentary Labour party was considering a vote of no confidence in him rather than try to fend it off he ignored it and attended a rally of left wing activists. Corbyn showed he knows where his power lies, it is worriting because it means if Labour win under Corbyn we wont get the Labour we are used to but an extreme left variant not seen since the time of Michael Foot.
The other notable thing is that any other politician would have gone by now. Corbyn isnt any other politician, he doesnt care if he has no mainstream support so long as he wins and can unleash his leftist vision. The man screams out as extremely dangerous demogogue who should not be allowed anywhere near power.
Hopefully the public see this too, or at least see it over thier disdaijn for yet more Tories.
I tend to have a blind spot towards the more extreme leftists. Although I have seen Labour activists who would give even hardline south american marxists a run for their money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Of course they are real members in the sense of having paid a subscription and got a party card that admits them to the annual conference and so on. However, as recent joiners, clearly they aren't the long term hard core party activists, because they would already have been members.
The operation of the party works at several levels. Being a basic member only gives you a vote in a few circumstances. It isn't enough to select Corbyn as leader because he is left wing of the party, and think the job is done.
If the new £3 members want to transform the party away from its current centrist position they need to work from the grassroots. They may have to deselect MPs they dislike and find candidates who are more left-wing. To do this they need to start going to meetings, get voted onto the selection committee and so on.
This isn't impossible but it will require a level of commitment and organisation that isn't automatically provided by buying a £3 membership.
There is a trend of undermining rather than building anything sustainable that is creeping in as well.
Also the commitment to change would probably see apparently ardent supporters fall by the wayside, which always leaves those on the extremes to push on. To be fair though I know a lot of activists who genuinely want change for the better and are working towards that end.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/12 07:43:26
All political parties change over time in response to the changing social climate and according to the wishes of the members.
A string of Labour leaders over the 80s and 90s worked to fight off the Militant Tendency and make the party electable. Along the way, Clause 4 or whatever it was called got dropped. If the party members want to put it back in, they can do it.
Party membership doesn't confer power according to a simple 1 to 1 equation, though. A small number of highly committed and influential people can wield more power than large numbers of casual members who fill in a postal ballot once every few years.
My point is that not a very high percentage of the new £3 members are going to be these committed people. Some people may have thought they just need to cast a ballot and sit back to watch the magic happen. Things don't work like that IRL.
Sitting MPs are highly committed and influential. If they refuse to work with Corbyn, and he relies on the mass vote of the £3 members to keep him in power, it's difficult to see how the party can carry on,
JC may have the support of 300,000 party members, that still leaves nearly9 million Labour voters out there who haven't had their say. The only way to confirm what they thought would be to have a General Election and see how Labour do, but as somebody has mentioned, the Labour MP's probably have a good idea on the mood of the electorate. Which is why they want rid of him..
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
Well, with David Cameron on the verge of packing his bags, I suppose it's time to assess his 'legacy,' for want of a better word.
I'll declare from the start my loathing of all things related to the Conservative party, but by God, Cameron was as ineffective a PM that Britain has ever had.
A PR man masquerading as a Prime Minister, a leader of the Conservative Party who wasn't even a Conservative (he was New Labour through and through) and perhaps most damning of all, a PM who abandoned ship in the middle of the worst crisis in British history since WW2.
His vision of one nation conservatism failed, his big society policy was a shambles, he preceded over a shameless attack on the least well off sections of British society, and the rise of foodbanks and DWP sanctions on his watch will follow him to the grave.
He dodged bullets in his early days thanks to a willing stooge called Nick Clegg acting as a human shield for him, won elections on the basis that the alternative choice was the ghastly Gordon Brown or the tailor's dummy calling himself Ed Miliband, got lucky in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, shamefully rolled up the white flag to the EU went he tried to negotiate a better deal for the UK, and badly miscalculated about holding an EU referendum...
Incompetent, ineffective, and badly out of his depth, David Cameron MP, was one of the poorest Prime Ministers Britain has had in living memory, or even further back.
Final rating 3/10
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
History will not be kind when it comes to assessing the Cameron years.
I think we have a modern day Lord North...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, with David Cameron on the verge of packing his bags, I suppose it's time to assess his 'legacy,' for want of a better word.
I'll declare from the start my loathing of all things related to the Conservative party, but by God, Cameron was as ineffective a PM that Britain has ever had.
A PR man masquerading as a Prime Minister, a leader of the Conservative Party who wasn't even a Conservative (he was New Labour through and through) and perhaps most damning of all, a PM who abandoned ship in the middle of the worst crisis in British history since WW2.
His vision of one nation conservatism failed, his big society policy was a shambles, he preceded over a shameless attack on the least well off sections of British society, and the rise of foodbanks and DWP sanctions on his watch will follow him to the grave.
He dodged bullets in his early days thanks to a willing stooge called Nick Clegg acting as a human shield for him, won elections on the basis that the alternative choice was the ghastly Gordon Brown or the tailor's dummy calling himself Ed Miliband, got lucky in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, shamefully rolled up the white flag to the EU went he tried to negotiate a better deal for the UK, and badly miscalculated about holding an EU referendum...
Incompetent, ineffective, and badly out of his depth, David Cameron MP, was one of the poorest Prime Ministers Britain has had in living memory, or even further back.
Final rating 3/10
Cameron had to resign. In this he had a modicum of honour. He completely screwed the pooch over Brexit, he so mishandled the remain campaign so badly alongside Osbourne (the guy who did the real disappearing act), that he had no future.
Leave the EU and your shares will fall, leaverthe EU and house prices will fall, leave the EU and it will hurt our banking sector and international trade.
He forgot that the UK electorate is not made up entirely of stockbrokers, shareholders and banking industry workers. Most of his scares not only had no effect on the average working joe, but in many cases benefited them. "House prices might fall?" Good, rent is too high. "Stocks and shares plummet?" They never shared any the good times, why should we care if they lose out now, it doesnt effect everyone erlse and is a good shock to the entitled classes that change must come.
Cameron's stockbroker arguments to Remain were blue collar worker and the disenfranchised underclass reasons to Leave.
It showed how little thought he had placed not only in this huge gamble with the nations future, which he commited uis to solely to outmaneuver Farage and Eurosceptics in his own party; but how little he considered the welfare of any but a privileged few.
I agree with the rest of your assessment, 3/10 is about right fro Cameron.
Even allowing for how piss poor Cameron was, Gordon Brown was far worse. Cameron was shallow and unconcerned, but he did have balls, genuine leadership skills and got the UK to have some credibility after the pissweak Gordon Brown which everyone in foreign diplomatic circles exploited. Blood-in-the-water is a fair assessment of how world politcal and financial leaders saw the Brown government and the PM himself. Brown was spineless and incapable for standing up for the UK even on issues he was passionate about. Cameron inherited a culture of contempt and exploitation from the White House, Kremlin and Beijing which he quickly turned around by proving he had balls and could stand his ground in negotiations.
Blair was a war criminal and makes him far worse in my book. Blair was a genuinely clever man and a strongman, I respect him for that, because he managed to hoodwink the vast majority of the electorate with his 'New Labour', and most people still dont understand how the con trick he pulled two decades on works. He also did far more damage to the UK by his social disestablishmentarianism than any other Prime Minister in modern history. The damage others did was transientary, Blair's damage was irreperable as he disrupted the nations underlying culture in his self serving reforms. And as the Russians understood from their transition to the Soviet era cultural damage destabilised, divides and what is broken is often lost forever. Iraq finished him, but this was his principle crime.
Callaghan and Major were both decent and competent people surrounded by self serving incompetents and corrupt exploiters and paid the price. Maggie had enormous faults but even larger talents and shook up the nation and gave us a viable economy - for a price.
In my assessment we had decent Prime Ministers up until 1997, then crap from that moment onwards. As fro the parties behind them though, they have been rotten to the core since the late 60's.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/12 12:45:42
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Wolfstan wrote: JC may have the support of 300,000 party members, that still leaves nearly9 million Labour voters out there who haven't had their say. The only way to confirm what they thought would be to have a General Election and see how Labour do, but as somebody has mentioned, the Labour MP's probably have a good idea on the mood of the electorate. Which is why they want rid of him..
I think anyone putting faith in the predictive power of Labour party officials should have a think back to what happened in Scotland of late. Many in Labour are keen to write off their dismemberment north of the wall as some freakish one-time event driven by irrational nationalist sentiment and that we'll all come to our senses any day now and restore them to their rightful place(a sentiment especially common among the Labour MPs who got chucked out). They've been saying that since the 2015 UK election, and before then they said it after the 2011 Holyrood election, and again before that at the 2007 Holyrood election. The SNP, we have been endlessly told for over a decade, are a "busted flush", always moments away from final defeat and with it the triumphant return of Labour. It's a political Zeno's Paradox, with red Achilles never quite able to catch the yellow Tortoise as he boasts he will.
The Scottish Parliament will "kill nationalism stone-dead!", was the confident prediction of now-Lord George Robertson and his PLP pals in the late 90's.
"A freak occurrence, a protest vote, no more than that", came the cry from down south in 2007.
"Brown will put paid to these SNP usurpers! Afterall, all the Jockos need is to hear our pronouncements in the right accent." the PLP told us in 2009.
"Iain Gray, that's the man to see off these SNP jokers!" they declared in 2011, immediately prior to the SNP winning a majority, a deliberately nigh-impossible feat in the Labour-designed Holyrood electoral system.
"Hah, a referendum, what are they like, support for independence will never go north of 25%, you'll see" pronounced SLab bigwig Duncan Hothersall, with similar sentiments coming from McTernan and various PLP staffers, right before they turned a nearly 40 point lead into a narrow 10 point victory.
"Send Jim Murphy back up there, he'll show the SNP what's what, having him jog about in a Scotland footie top for the cameras and promise to bring back bevvy at matches, they'll be eating out of his hand!" the UK party insisted, immediately before being reduced to a single Scottish MP in a night of landslides so large they repeatedly broke the BBC's "swingometer" graphic.
"That Kezia Dugdale, she's a good one, made Jim a fine deputy, no doubt we'll be back on top with her at the helm!" was the sentiment of the Party in the days before the 2016 Holyrood elections in which Labour fell so far they actually became the third party behind the Tories, who more than half of Scotland still have a bone-deep and visceral hatred of.
Now all that is not meant to be crowing about the SNP's recent success, nor even is it particularly meant as a dig at Labour as a whole, but it's hardly the predictive record of Nostra-sodding-damus is it. I would strongly caution English supporters of Labour against putting any significant amount of stock in what MP's believe about their own electorate, because time & again they've been shown to be hopelessly out of touch and prone to wildly, desperately flailing around for any scrap of data they can twist into a justification for their existing belief that really everyone agrees with them, only sensible innit etc.
The membership evidently believe the party exists to represent their interests, and the PLP evidently believes the membership exists to support their bid for power and nothing more. I don't see how that dispute is resolvable - either Corbyn, as he is entitled to be according to party rules, is on the ballot and will in all probability handily defeat anyone stood against him, in which case the party's MP's will have to desert because they've made their position within a Corbyn-led party untenable with this very public farce of an attempted coup; or the PLP will find some underhanded way of keeping Corbyn off the ballot, in which case only two scenarios are really plausible: almost all of them will be deselected and they'll have won the battle to oust Corbyn but lost the war to keep Labour as a managerial centre-right party, or there will be a huge exodus of members and union disaffiliations leaving them in the same state as the Scottish branch of the party - devoid of money and activists and unable to campaign.
Indeed, even if you ignore their record on Scotland entirely, the fact these bumbling idiots couldn't foresee the potential outcomes of their own shambolic coup attempt is a pretty comprehensive condemnation of their ability to predict things - I wouldn't trust them to tell you for sure if the sun will rise tomorrow, nevermind the genuine mood of their electorate.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
