that would be a referendum. this is a party's stance, what i imagine would be the whip stance in parliament (with its strengths and limitations)
Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win
- Thread starter Kaos
- Start date
that would be a referendum. this is a party's stance, what i imagine would be the whip stance in parliament (with its strengths and limitations)
It's a vote killer for sure with the general public who think the labour membership is a bunch of Stalinists/Trotskyists(God the British media is stupid). But the idea itself isn't awful, there would have to be constraints, at least a 50% voting participation for example as, you wouldn't want 15% of labour members deciding such a important outcome But these sort of issues are natural when you're trying to democratise a political party.
Also I'm not sure how many times the UK needs to blow the shit out of poor brown countries(And thus in some cases turning them into slave states)for people to realise the current system is beyond shit. The idea the British state listens to experts is simply untrue, Theresa May husband who acted basically as a adviser to her benefited from the UK bombing Syria, Blair had no idea about the Iranian coup in 50's. I think people have vastly underestimated how fecking stupid politicians and the war on terror has been
Burton may give car crash tv interviews but he's correct on this point
Its helps if people read the article
Last edited:
Why does this contradict what I said?
What a state Labour are.
The vote wouldn't apply for national emergency, so ''if you need to take a vote the enemy has much longer to prepare.'' isn't a concern.
You can decide to take military action somewhere where it isn't a national emergency. Say this process takes two weeks, that is ample time to build defensive positions and move assets, which in turn would lead to much greater loss of British lives in order to achieve the same objective.
Stupid choice of words from her, but I’d say the important thing to draw from that article is her intervention in the man’s life as opposed to her mixing up vegetable and vegetative.
So you’re saying that because well informed experienced people can make bad decisions we should let badly informed inexperienced people make the decision instead?
i think the information level is one aspect of the decision, there are also others like ideology and distance from the consequences of such a decision.
Why not just generalize it and ask the membership for approval before making any decision in parliament?
MPs might not be expert but they are accountable to the rest of us, unlike the Labour Membership.
This is a terrible idea.
Strange guy:
“Burgon said it was the “worst day” of his five years in parliament when the House of Commons voted to support David Cameron’s request for British forces to join bombing raids in Syria.
In particular, he highlighted the fact that MPs clapped. “The whole nature of the applause was so degrading to our democracy, degrading to ourselves – and sick, in a way,” he said.”
Of all the examples he chooses to highlight, he picks the one which successfully helped prevent ISIS continuing their rampage of genocide and slavery across an already war-torn, destroyed region.
Since war is still a parliamentary perogative, it would be ultimately MPs voting for it, with the same level of accountabiity to the general public.
in general the party membership is supposed to set demands, i think it's roughly how the party changed it's brexit policy - the policy for 2nd ref was made by leadership after the members' resolution to back remain and free movement. @Sweet Square has a lot to say about the democracy (and lack of it) within the labour party.
about whether every parliamentary vote should go back to the party - i haven't thought about it, i would guess that the guideline from the pary conference might be enough for most issues (like, say, welfare spending).
if i had to put this differently, it would be that:
1. the membership passes resolutions the leadership must respond to. the party whip line on various issues is made to correspond roughly with the resolutions.
2. a war (of choice) is an extradordinary event where a general pre-existing resolution may not be enough.
but this is not a solid reason and i'm not wedded to any position really.
Corbyn’s a bit confused here. He’s either talking about the 2013 vote for action against Assad, which didn’t pass (in which case why use it as an example?), or else the 2015 vote for action against ISIS, which passed but had nothing to do with support for Jabhat al-Nusra and was authorized by the UN (so he should have supported it?)
I think Richard is a decent man. Leadership material? Probably not. He's too stubborn. But he means well. Labour need to be a big tent party again and he knows that. One of the challenges the party will have is to get united and for that his voice on the Corbyn wing will still be needed.
Let him be prescot 2... Though the only thing of note prescot did was punch somebody who threw an egg... I suspect burgon would flounce around and have a cry but do not let him have any position of real power because he is an idiot
Labour accuses Keir Starmer campaign team of data breach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51432440
And not the most convincing of excuses
That said is it much different to what Corbyn in a dress did who also had a pretty lame excuse
Still no new leader? And barely any chatter about it?
Who'd have guessed.
Who'd have guessed.
TBF I tend to go with wrong-Daily most of the time - or that incompetent feckwhit... though frankly anything is better than the cringe-worthy "our becky"
Are other people actually using this or did I just use it so many times I permanently scarred you all?
I’ve seen it used quite a lot on Twitter
Starmer is currently 1/8 and RLB 12/1 if anybody fancies a punt.
What appears to have happened (going from the briefing and counter briefing going on) is that an email was sent out by RLBs team that gave her supporters access to the Labour Party membership database. Kier Starmer's team have then tested these links to see what data it gives access to, only to then be accused by Head Office of a data breach for clicking on the links in question. The whole thing was then leaked to the press in a pretty clear factional attack. The fact that it was leaked in a weekend when Starmer wasn't around to comment because his mother in law just died is particularly grim.
Indeed. Kinder politics though.
Disqualify them both and when thornberry does not get enough CLP nominations they can declare nandy the winner and put an end to the whole process... Because it's really dragging on
I've never seen these fine people. I hope I do one day.
Thanks, just got on that, although Starmer definitely favourite seems overpriced. Might try and lay it off in a couple of weeks.
Interesting report by Lord Ashcroft.
Pretty much sums up Britain
Labour - Free broad band means cheaper prices for everyone, starting off in rural areas. It will also help small business and increase productivity in the British economy.
''Traditional'' Labour voters - You wot mate, that make us like Bongo Bongo Land.
Labour - Free broad band means cheaper prices for everyone, starting off in rural areas. It will also help small business and increase productivity in the British economy.
''Traditional'' Labour voters - You wot mate, that make us like Bongo Bongo Land.
I would have expected Labour to Lib reasons to have included 'I wanted to oppose Brexit' in some way, but apparently not. Presumably why their vote only increased a bit. Interesting as you say.
You missed the 'that money could be going to police or nurses' then? If you want to get those voters back you would be better listening to them instead of portraying them as stupid.
Labour commits to recruiting more frontline police officers than Tories
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/ne...g-more-frontline-police-officers-than-tories/
Labour promises to recruit 24,000 extra nurses and reinstate NHS student bursaries
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nurses-champion-jon-ashworth-pledges-20850732
Yes we know, I was pointing out that you deliberately misrepresented the guy whose quote you commented on and preferred to portray him as stupid instead. That's a widespread attitude in the far left and it won't win votes.
Yes I know calling someone stupid for saying something stupid is stopping ''the far left'' from getting power, etc etc London elite etc etc.
Why did you bother to quote me with this ? You're just wasting both of our time