Lets be honest, they don't care if the membership shrinks to a new low as long as they get what they want.
Theyll be counting on those leaving still voting Labour to stop the Tories. Lets hope theyre not counting on the youth vote come the next GE.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Lets be honest, they don't care if the membership shrinks to a new low as long as they get what they want.
Theyll be counting on those leaving still voting Labour to stop the Tories. Lets hope theyre not counting on the youth vote come the next GE.
Any idea how competitive the race would be now?
Jesus christ, parties have the right to choose their electorate for leadership contests. Every other party has membership freezes. Selection of Labour PPCs uses membership freezes. It shouldn't be interfered with by courts.
If you're really desperate to be annoyed at someone, perhaps be annoyed at Corbyn for leaving the NEC meeting to go and celebrate to the media about being on the ballot, before the votes on the rules of the election. With his vote, they'd have passed a motion having the cutoff date far later.
He's still going to win easily anyway.
If you're really desperate to be annoyed at someone, perhaps be annoyed at Corbyn for leaving the NEC meeting to go and celebrate to the media about being on the ballot, before the votes on the rules of the election. With his vote, they'd have passed a motion having the cutoff date far later.
He's still going to win easily anyway.
To be fair, for Owen to go from Monday to Friday without changing his mind completely on an issue is pretty impressive.
I can see them still being a massive pain even if Corbyn wins.
From the Newstatemans -
Not that they care but it would be such a waste, if all this ''momentum'' is lost because of a couple MP's from the Right of the Party and well it has to be said lot of ''centre left'' MP's(I still trying to figure out what this centre left means)threw a hissy fit.
Personally I don't know why I'm a member, the only decent reasoning I can come up with is, voting for Corbyn in the leadership race. The raising of the membership fee and now this has pretty much show me a party I don't want anything to do with, let alone vote for.
I've seen Newstatesman jouro Stephen Bush say that there's was a chance the newer membership would be closer to Smith than Corbyn. Reasoning being they joined mainly because of the Eu referendum(Most parties got a boost in membership after the vote)
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...s-bad-grammar-and-problem-capitalist-tea-bags
They didn't do for the 2007, 2010 or 2015 elections(Also I think I'm right in saying that people who payed £25 to joined can still vote). Everyone knows their reasoning and it's disgusting.
As for how it effects Corbyn I couldn't really care, it's more about the deep rooted self entitled in the PLP and the lack of respect for their own members and in all honesty a lack of respect for people struggling in this country(The rise of the membership to £25 was clear sign). As @Smores has mentioned they will simply do anything it takes to get their way.
The left needs to learn this from the Tories and anti-Corbyn plotters in Labour.
Not true he had to leave as he was only allowed in to vote on the nomination ruling, after that he was expected to leave as a candidate in the race.
Also people are annoyed that they were given the impression that they could vote and any other organisation would not get away with doing that in my opinion.
Because they didn't choose to. They were entitled to. And they then struggled massively to vet the battalions of new members/supporters. And none of those elections were at all alike, 2007 only had one candidate with the nominations to stand, so there was no need for the NEC to ratify the schedule and rules, 2010 was under the old electoral college, and the NEC changed the rules to one member one vote in 2015. Because it's their choice to do so.
And the membership fee hasn't been raised, the registered supporter scheme fee has.
It's a bit ridiculous that a political party can be alright with excluding a significant portion of their membership (new or not) from voting in a leadership election. It shows nothing but downright contempt for their opinions.
The bigger problem than the exclusion itself, though, is the fact that it's only being done for one reason; the fact that the new members appear to be overwhelmingly in support of Corbyn himself. I don't think anyone can kid themselves by trying to argue that this would've been done if the new members had been split, or in favour of Smith. In fact, if I remember correctly some Labour MP's a while back were encouraging people to sign up in order to have more people against Corbyn. Now that hasn't worked out, they've decided to exclude them. Irrespective of your views on a party restricting a large band of members from voting, I struggle to see how you can excuse the blatant bias and disregard for opinions within the party.
The bigger problem than the exclusion itself, though, is the fact that it's only being done for one reason; the fact that the new members appear to be overwhelmingly in support of Corbyn himself. I don't think anyone can kid themselves by trying to argue that this would've been done if the new members had been split, or in favour of Smith. In fact, if I remember correctly some Labour MP's a while back were encouraging people to sign up in order to have more people against Corbyn. Now that hasn't worked out, they've decided to exclude them. Irrespective of your views on a party restricting a large band of members from voting, I struggle to see how you can excuse the blatant bias and disregard for opinions within the party.
True. After all, this is the man whose views on Brexit are to simultaneously respect the views of those who voted for it by admitting that there is a problem with immigration in some areas...whilst also openly admitting that he intends to reverse the decision when people feel it is right to do so...as if there's going to be a remote consensus on when that actually is. He's someone who simultaneously thinks the Barnett Formula is outdated for Scotland...yet also either voted against stronger fiscal measures for us, or didn't even bother to vote.
He's shite. I'd argue he's every bit as incompetent and incapable of leading a major party as Corbyn is...the difference being that his views are more on line with the rest of the MP's behind him. That's admittedly a positive, since it's good for a leader to have the backing of his MP's...but not when the party membership overwhelmingly doesn't want you as their leader.
But the only way to get a vote for upcoming leadership election was to be a registered supporter, it was jacked membership with the idea of pricing people out.
And as the case that the volume of new members would make it vetting difficult for Labour to deal with, so their had to be a cut off point. I would say it's a pretty weak case.
Nice to know a Smith administration would continue to ignore the voice of Scotland, and would continue to fail in learning any lessons from 2015 out of a vague pettiness, instead of recognising that the party aren't going to win back Scotland and that working alongside those who oppose the Tories is a sensible and logical approach.
It seems clear to me that Corbyn represents the socialists among Labour party supporters. What other kind does Labour purport to represent?
Some of the middle as wel. If Corbyn only represents the Socialists then he will remain unelectable, and will just be a protest party, risking more centre left party members spinning off.
This is exactly what gave rise to "New Labour" - the whole "sacrifice ideals in order to be electable" thing - and that's exactly why we lost the last two elections. We no longer offer an alternative choice. Why would people vote for "tory light"? It's what the LibDems were all about. I don't want revolution in the old socialist way... that's outmoded and dangerous. I simply believe, as Corbyn does, that there is an alternative to top heavy society. The rich (and mega-rich) are able to use Trust Funds and off-shore banking loans to circumvent policies designed to ensure fairness. It's disgusting in my view. OK. I am biased, having been illegally evicted and finding the ground beneath my feet was quicksand, as I am unable to get legal aid and have had all my worldly goods STOLEN, with the underfunded police saying it is a civil matter, most likely because of their already heavy workload and the fact that they are having to make cuts due to austerity which has turned out to be nothing but a political stunt - and I make no apologies for the pun. When I read that the Tories wanted to push a bill through to privatise the Land Registry - well, that really takes the biscuit. The Land Registry records who owns property in the UK. If you buy land you have to provide information about who is buying. If you're a British company there are more rigorous rules about the information you have to provide. If you're an offshore company there is much, much less rigour. A really good way to launder money - to hide ill-gotten gains - is to buy up expensive British property. The Tories wanted this Land Registry in private hands. What the actual feck is that about? It really, really sucks what the "right" in politics in this country get up to. One of the biggest landlords in the country just died and paid bugger all in inheritance tax, using Trust Fund law to avoid it. Can you or I do the same? If we could, would we really think it's right - when so many are sleeping rough, queueing for night shelters or risking eviction due to inability to pay ever higher rents while working on zero hours contracts? Sorry. Had to vent some.
@DenisIrwin I do think there has to be some willingness to compromise within Labour. Like it or not, the vast majority of the country do not identify as out and out socialists and any attempt to win government as a socialist party will be futile. It makes sense to try to appeal as a more moderate, centre-left party who are committed to social justice and trying to create equality, but still also appeal to the middle classes as well. The Labour of the 80s often tried to go for outright socialism and it didn't work.
Blair came in and he was fresh; new. He offered something different to a jaded, scandal-ridden Tory party. The problem is that he's tainted now and many of his own policies were quite questionable and a tad too right for Labour. They need to accept the success they had under him, but move past it and find a new vision.
The problem for Labour is that they have no idea whatsoever as to what their united message should be. They have no idea what their central policies should be. There's no sense of integrity or consistency to the party - in a moderate form they merely exist now because they're the only major opposition to the current government. There's got to be more consistency and strength within the party in opposing the Tories, yet that can't be the case when they have so often abstained. It feels like the parties policies alter and change constantly. No one knows what the moderate Labour message is supposed to be on certain issue. Smith's issues on Brexit are highly contradictory and confusing, for example.
Also, as a Scot, I want to see a Labour party that will stop condescending to us. Accept that the SNP currently have the overwhelming support up here, stop this "Vote SNP get Tory" shite which is emerging again and demonstrate a willingness to work with them on certain issues. Have central figures within the party who are either committed to out and out federalism, or who actually treat Scotland like a serious part of the UK, instead of an annoyance that needs to stop being awkward and vote Labour again. That, again, doesn't work when you've got a potential leader in Smith who's spent most of his time either voting against further devolution, or not bothering to vote on it at all.
Blair came in and he was fresh; new. He offered something different to a jaded, scandal-ridden Tory party. The problem is that he's tainted now and many of his own policies were quite questionable and a tad too right for Labour. They need to accept the success they had under him, but move past it and find a new vision.
The problem for Labour is that they have no idea whatsoever as to what their united message should be. They have no idea what their central policies should be. There's no sense of integrity or consistency to the party - in a moderate form they merely exist now because they're the only major opposition to the current government. There's got to be more consistency and strength within the party in opposing the Tories, yet that can't be the case when they have so often abstained. It feels like the parties policies alter and change constantly. No one knows what the moderate Labour message is supposed to be on certain issue. Smith's issues on Brexit are highly contradictory and confusing, for example.
Also, as a Scot, I want to see a Labour party that will stop condescending to us. Accept that the SNP currently have the overwhelming support up here, stop this "Vote SNP get Tory" shite which is emerging again and demonstrate a willingness to work with them on certain issues. Have central figures within the party who are either committed to out and out federalism, or who actually treat Scotland like a serious part of the UK, instead of an annoyance that needs to stop being awkward and vote Labour again. That, again, doesn't work when you've got a potential leader in Smith who's spent most of his time either voting against further devolution, or not bothering to vote on it at all.
No worries about the slab. The fact is that most voters are in 'the middle', Corbyn will never win a general election, so it comes down to the question what the party wants to do, be either unelectable, or moderate views and become electable.
Scotland has long been predominantly socialist. If there is another independance vote while the Tories are in I really fear we'll lose you. You'll go for unity with Europe rather than Tory England. There's much less likelihood of that if there's a socialist Labour government - in my opinion. I happen to believe that if Labour get back to what they're all about and stop mucking about with abstentions and pandering to tory values there can be a Labour victory in 2020. It's many, many weeks away - and even a week is a long time in politics, as they say.
We're not really, though. We're more left-leaning than England as a whole I'd say, and like socialist rhetoric a lot more than England do, but we primarily support the SNP who I'd describe as centre-left; they're something of New Labour but much more focused, united and arguably more honest without the taints of Iraq and other such issues. Of course different politicians and supporters within the SNP vary and there are plenty of socialist tendencies there, but as a whole they're not a socialist party. They, unlike Labour and Lib Dems, didn't want to increase taxes to presumably fund public spending in May, for example.
On Labour, while I think there's a potential to turn things around and gain more support with a stronger, united party, I don't think Britain would elect an outright socialist government. The centre-leaning voters who Labour has to appeal to aren't socialists. I'd say Labour need to lean more towards the middle, but with a sort of democratic socialist type message, not too dissimilar to the SNP actually. There's got to be a certain willingness to compromise - and if Corbyn isn't willing to do that he has no chance of government even with the backing of the party.
most voters want fairness.
Corbyn or anyone else who offers justice and of course explains how we can go about achieveing the goals, will win.
To look at polls and offer nothing is to end up with defeat.
that is a great analysis. Spot on.
I had to share...
Corbyn is unelectable, and that is because of his inability to unite his own party, and the broader electorate. I don't see that he represents fairness in most people's eyes. He won't win a general election.
Nonsense. He's just not a yes man. It's time for Labour to swing left again and he's the man to lead them. There's a bunch of centre right Blairites who want him gone, it's not about uniting them, it's about getting rid of them and leading a reformed Labour based on socialist principles.
Swing left does mean unelectable though.
The mistake most make is to try and fit themselves into Left, Center or Right labels. Most of us if we examine our own beliefs will find we have what others term left, right or center policies .
Over here I know many who though they are conservative will happily vote for Sanders but will not vote for either Hillary or Trump. Its simply about Integrity and decency.
People are tired of 'politicians'.
Over here I know many who though they are conservative will happily vote for Sanders but will not vote for either Hillary or Trump. Its simply about Integrity and decency.
People are tired of 'politicians'.
Honest question: Where did this "left" and "right" thing in politics spring from? You can't make love one-handed. Not really.
Its how members in the British parliment are seated.
Only because the media in the UK is owned by far right wing wankers who will do all they can to ridicule him.
Has acquired its current meaning mainly from the Frech Revolution. Liberals to the left, conservatives (royalists) to the right.
The media is owned by corporations. There is no left or right wing media.
It is in the interest of the media to not be factual but to keep voters distracted.
It is in the interest of the media to not be factual but to keep voters distracted.
so basically you're agreeing with my point then
Update on the social media v MSM thing... Crowdfunding has just now covered the legal costs of the 5 (including one aged under 18) who mounted the court case on behalf of new members - in just a few short hours.
Edit... this might go to appeal to the high court...
Edit... this might go to appeal to the high court...
Last edited:
Well yeah, kinda. I don't think it's impossible though. Social media is strong these days and I'm seeing a growing force of Corbyn followers. There's a hell of a lot of people who despise the growing right wing and see Corbyn as a beacon of hope.
You believe that? Murdoch, Desmond and Lebedev have no political persuasion and don't use their papers to push their political agenda?
what I meant to say is that the media is not interested in people knowing the facts. I should not use the word Truth, which is what I am fond of. Because the search for Truth leads into other areas than politics.
Of course these people you mention have an agenda and they push it where ever they can.
But you will see when you examine the media and what they put out, they are subtle. They tell half-truths..ahh that word again
and just plain lies.Mostly though they keep people distracted with sports and entertainment. gossip whatever stuff that does not involve critical thinking.
Most of the reasons are not sinister. They seek advertising money and boring facts do not sell. Sensational stuff does.
Sorry for posting something that's probably not particularly relevant to most but...
Just had an email saying my local (Bristol West) CLP has nominated Corbyn by 267-64 but, more interestingly, noted that this is now the 2nd largest Labour constituency in the country and that Labour is now the largest political party in Europe. Gives me hope, that does!
Edit: I'm not sure if it's still the case but in 2005 Bristol West was dubbed "Britain's brainiest" constituency by dint of it having more PhDs than any other. Sure seems that way atm.
Just had an email saying my local (Bristol West) CLP has nominated Corbyn by 267-64 but, more interestingly, noted that this is now the 2nd largest Labour constituency in the country and that Labour is now the largest political party in Europe. Gives me hope, that does!
Edit: I'm not sure if it's still the case but in 2005 Bristol West was dubbed "Britain's brainiest" constituency by dint of it having more PhDs than any other. Sure seems that way atm.
Last edited:
@DenisIrwin We live in hope
If we do not want to get into this trap of having to choose where you 'fit in', ask yourself what You need for yourself and what you expect the government should do for others. And see which party or leader ticks off most of that list.
After having done that, ask yourself if whoever you come closest to has been consistent or more importantly been truthful.
After having done that, ask yourself if whoever you come closest to has been consistent or more importantly been truthful.
My constituency voted Corbs as well - something like 200 v 100 for Smith. He's going to win this election at a canter.
I just hope he takes on board the (much deserved) criticisms from within the party. His leadership has been dreadful so far, at a very very minimum, he needs to change that, and hire a significantly more competent team around him to help build his message to the public. If he continues as he has so far we'll be wiped out in 2020, and UKIP are going to be cemented as an electoral force in Britain.