Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Tubey]

1. From literally the first sentence of that article:



If you are going to continue this, please can you understand the difference between membership rules and leadership election rules. Miliband did not change the membership rules - in fact if you want to be pedantic he didn't change the leadership election rules either (the NEC did, though it was something he encouraged).

It should perhaps also be pointed out who actually came up with the idea of the registered member scheme (and changing the leadership election to one member one vote) - a little known hard left faction called "Progress" (it is in Steven Twigg's section of the 2011 "Purple Book"). The left opposed it.

2. The rule change did not allow "entryism". Almost anyone was free to join Labour (in the sense of the word of actually becoming a member) before 2015, including left wing people - that is how left wing people (like Corbyn) got in the party. It is why even in Blair's change to Clause IV started with "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party". This was a party after all that was set up by socialists, which brought about the one nearly socialist government this country has ever had.

3. If the centre-left and centre-right are so representative of this country, why did so many of their politicians go to the same universities, have the same sort of jobs, the same sort of pre-political careers, meet in the same social groups and believe in the same sort of things? Why did participation in politics generally, and membership in the two main parties specifically, go down when the centrists were in charge?

Or do people out there think "You know, I have been taking the piss here - I want to have a worse pension, for my kids to get into loads of debt going to university and then be unable to afford a house when they finish. I'd much prefer my taxes to go to pay off the local hospitals PFI debt to an offshore firm than for the A&E to get modern equipment or enough staff to treat me when I inevitably break down after my lifetime of hard work. I deserve it for not using effective tax planning methods".

You know quite well when I said "membership rules" I was specifically talking about how Milliband changed the rules to 'one member one vote', which allowed entryism for £3 a pop.

I'm not bothered about the political motivation for doing it - what I said was, quite simply, "Ed Milliband changed the membership rules and allowed mass infiltration by what is basically Militant MkII." That's an undeniable fact - due to the rule change, the hard left have dominated the leader voting system, meaning that no other type of candidate will ever lead the party again. Labour was destroyed from within due to Milliband changing the rules.

As for where politicians went to school and so on, how does that have a bearing on political viewpoints? It's like a weird reverse snobbery - you can't be centre-right or centre-left if you're poor, no? Newsflash like, but I was born and raised in Kirkby, and I'm centre-left. Does it work the other way? As in are you only allowed to support Corbyn if you got two Grade E's at A Level and then went backpacking in South America? It's absurd.

If you truly believe Corbyn's socialism is in line with what the majority of this country thinks and wants, you're entitled to believe it. I just don't think there's a scrap of evidence to back it up.

 

[tsubaki]

You know quite well when I said "membership rules" I was specifically talking about how Milliband changed the rules to 'one member one vote', which allowed entryism for £3 a pop.

I'm not bothered about the political motivation for doing it - what I said was, quite simply, "Ed Milliband changed the membership rules and allowed mass infiltration by what is basically Militant MkII." That's an undeniable fact - due to the rule change, the hard left have dominated the leader voting system, meaning that no other type of candidate will ever lead the party again. Labour was destroyed from within due to Milliband changing the rules.

As for where politicians went to school and so on, how does that have a bearing on political viewpoints? It's like a weird reverse snobbery - you can't be centre-right or centre-left if you're poor, no? Newsflash like, but I was born and raised in Kirkby, and I'm centre-left. Does it work the other way? As in are you only allowed to support Corbyn if you got two Grade E's at A Level and then went backpacking in South America? It's absurd.

If you truly believe Corbyn's socialism is in line with what the majority of this country thinks and wants, you're entitled to believe it. I just don't think there's a scrap of evidence to back it up.

Well no - you said "membership rules" so you could argue that Miliband had allowed entryism - otherwise, how does changing the leadership rules (to OMOV) do that?

The political motivation for the changes is important because currently (as we have seen here) the whole debate over the changes brought in by the Collins Review has been edited down to "Miliband was to blame", which is a considerable distortion of the facts. The people who proposed and forced that through thought they'd benefit from it because they would be able to get their own support in, which would counteract the union vote when it came to leadership elections and prevent what happened in 2010 happening again. The first time it was actually tried, they found out they actually didn't have any support and got smashed.

Finally well done on picking an argument out that I hadn't made. The point was not where politicians come from - hence why I didn't make that point - it was the process of how they get there, why so many of them do the same degrees, move in the same circles, meet the right people and sign up to the same set of rules and beliefs that they advertise as normal (with all other beliefs being therefore abnormal, extremist and so on).

edit: oh, and yes I think Corbyn is rather more in line with what the majority of this country thinks and wants than the politicians who claim they are the centre are

 

[dwightschrute]

You know quite well when I said "membership rules" I was specifically talking about how Milliband changed the rules to 'one member one vote', which allowed entryism for £3 a pop.

I'm not bothered about the political motivation for doing it - what I said was, quite simply, "Ed Milliband changed the membership rules and allowed mass infiltration by what is basically Militant MkII." That's an undeniable fact - due to the rule change, the hard left have dominated the leader voting system, meaning that no other type of candidate will ever lead the party again. Labour was destroyed from within due to Milliband changing the rules.

Nope, the leader only has a bit part in changing Labour rules they are massively bureaucratic and decided by the NEC, union reps, CLP's and parties within the party like YL, LS, CLPD, plus the NEC was pretty centre during Millibands time its only at this years elections its swayed more left.

And any MP can still go up for the leadership with 10% backing from MP's they just, you know, have to be good and have decent policies ideas and not be Owen Smith. I'm sure if someone who was centre left or had 'fully' left wing views and policies that the membership agreed with they would beat Corbyn.

 

[davek]

You know quite well when I said "membership rules" I was specifically talking about how Milliband changed the rules to 'one member one vote', which allowed entryism for £3 a pop.

I'm not bothered about the political motivation for doing it - what I said was, quite simply, "Ed Milliband changed the membership rules and allowed mass infiltration by what is basically Militant MkII." That's an undeniable fact - due to the rule change, the hard left have dominated the leader voting system, meaning that no other type of candidate will ever lead the party again. Labour was destroyed from within due to Milliband changing the rules.

As for where politicians went to school and so on, how does that have a bearing on political viewpoints? It's like a weird reverse snobbery - you can't be centre-right or centre-left if you're poor, no? Newsflash like, but I was born and raised in Kirkby, and I'm centre-left. Does it work the other way? As in are you only allowed to support Corbyn if you got two Grade E's at A Level and then went backpacking in South America? It's absurd.

If you truly believe Corbyn's socialism is in line with what the majority of this country thinks and wants, you're entitled to believe it. I just don't think there's a scrap of evidence to back it up.

"Hard left".

Nationalisation
Welfareism
Driving the market from the NHS
Internationalism
Environmentalism

Sorry, what do you have in mind when you say 'hard left? I wish the LP were hard left, btw.

 

[peteblue]

I've criticised the LDs several times this week, but you get the sense that Corbyn could fart and some on here would regale it as the best symphony since Mozart. Not all old blokes with beards are Jesus you know.

But all Jesuses are old blokes.......isn’t that how it goes......

 

[Tubey]

Nope, the leader only has a bit part in changing Labour rules they are massively bureaucratic and decided by the NEC, union reps, CLP's and parties within the party like YL, LS, CLPD, plus the NEC was pretty centre during Millibands time its only at this years elections its swayed more left.

And any MP can still go up for the leadership with 10% backing from MP's they just, you know, have to be good and have decent policies ideas and not be Owen Smith. I'm sure if someone who was centre left or had 'fully' left wing views and policies that the membership agreed with they would beat Corbyn.

Milliband drafted the new leadership rules - the rest of the Labour system implemented it under his say so. It is pedantic in the extreme to argue that Milliband didn't change the leadership rules; he blatantly did.

And yeah, any MP can challenge Corbyn just like any American over the age of 35 can run for President technically, doesn't mean diddly squat in practice though. If Corbyn went, any replacement would need to be a carbon copy, because the membership eligible to vote are dominated by the hard left. It has nothing to do with candidate competency.

 

[Milkman]

Hard Left

 

[dwightschrute]

Milliband drafted the new leadership rules - the rest of the Labour system implemented it under his say so. It is pedantic in the extreme to argue that Milliband didn't change the leadership rules; he blatantly did.

And yeah, any MP can challenge Corbyn just like any American over the age of 35 can run for President technically, doesn't mean diddly squat in practice though. If Corbyn went, any replacement would need to be a carbon copy, because the membership eligible to vote are dominated by the hard left. It has nothing to do with candidate competency.

The rule came about because of supposed ballot rigging in Falkirk from the unions, and because they had far too much power as did MPs when members had barely any. Better to have a bottom up democracy than top down with unions holding 1/3 of the vote and a select few holding the power? And like I say the NEC at the time was a broad church and could've easily voted it down or amended it, it wasnt some left wing coup.

So is the problem Corbyn or the policies? Looking at posts you seem to think Corbyn is the problem as he's unelectable and has baggage so what would be the problem with a carbon copy on policies running for leader but with less baggage and more leadership skills? The yougov polls show Labour's main policies on renationalisation and redistribution of wealth, upping corporation tax etc are all popular with votes and it's Corbyn thats unpopular with the electorate. So I believe if anyone who had the same policy ideas and record of Corbyn without the 'baggage' on the left would win in a leadership election and I'd happily support (I'd also like this scenario as it would put to bed this ridiculous notion of a cult and we're all obsessed with Corbyn). Until then I'm fully on board with Corbyn and believe he is urgently needed as the tories have laid waste to this country with toxic policies for the past 9 years

 

[Tubey]

The rule came about because of supposed ballot rigging in Falkirk from the unions, and because they had far too much power as did MPs when members had barely any. Better to have a bottom up democracy than top down with unions holding 1/3 of the vote and a select few holding the power? And like I say the NEC at the time was a broad church and could've easily voted it down or amended it, it wasnt some left wing coup.

So is the problem Corbyn or the policies? Looking at posts you seem to think Corbyn is the problem as he's unelectable and has baggage so what would be the problem with a carbon copy on policies running for leader but with less baggage and more leadership skills? The yougov polls show Labour's main policies on renationalisation and redistribution of wealth, upping corporation tax are all popular and Corbyn is unpopular with the electorate. So I believe if anyone who had the same policy ideas and record of Corbyn without the 'baggage' on the left would win in a leadership election and I'd happily support. Until then I'm fully on board with Corbyn and believe he is urgently needed as the tories have laid waste to this country with toxic policies for the past 9 years

I didn't say it was a 'left wing coup' - I said Milliband changed the rules. That's all I said. The politics don't matter; it was simply a ridiculous decision from Milliband.

The hard left simply took advantage of it. A 'broad church' became a hard left playground overnight.

The problem is Corbyn AND his policies - as I said earlier, they are unmoderated. The policies are popular with the electorate in theory, but the electorate likes to see a realistic plan to implement them. Again, if you asked the electorate "should everyone have £15,000 more a year in their pocket?", that would be a very popular policy too - but if you just run that policy into an election 'as is' then you'll be rightly laughed at.

As an aside to davek and Milkman, Corbyn is absolutely hard left. He might not be as left as those from the 70s, but in modern context he is definitively hard left. Society has moved more to the right and more to the middle class in the past thirty years - as such, 'hard left' is an 'easier' goal to reach politically.

 

[edge]

"Hard left".

Nationalisation
Welfareism
Driving the market from the NHS
Internationalism
Environmentalism

Sorry, what do you have in mind when you say 'hard left? I wish the LP were hard left, btw.

I will have a bit of that, count me in one vote

 

[neil999]

I didn't say it was a 'left wing coup' - I said Milliband changed the rules. That's all I said. The politics don't matter; it was simply a ridiculous decision from Milliband.

The hard left simply took advantage of it. A 'broad church' became a hard left playground overnight.

The problem is Corbyn AND his policies - as I said earlier, they are unmoderated. The policies are popular with the electorate in theory, but the electorate likes to see a realistic plan to implement them. Again, if you asked the electorate "should everyone have £15,000 more a year in their pocket?", that would be a very popular policy too - but if you just run that policy into an election 'as is' then you'll be rightly laughed at.

As an aside to davek and Milkman, Corbyn is absolutely hard left. He might not be as left as those from the 70s, but in modern context he is definitively hard left. Society has moved more to the right and more to the middle class in the past thirty years - as such, 'hard left' is an 'easier' goal to reach politically.

mate it wasnt even milibands fault...mp's got corbyn on the fault to broaden the debate, he wouldnt have got the nominees without them

 

[dwightschrute]

I didn't say it was a 'left wing coup' - I said Milliband changed the rules. That's all I said. The politics don't matter; it was simply a ridiculous decision from Milliband.

The hard left simply took advantage of it. A 'broad church' became a hard left playground overnight.

The problem is Corbyn AND his policies - as I said earlier, they are unmoderated. The policies are popular with the electorate in theory, but the electorate likes to see a realistic plan to implement them. Again, if you asked the electorate "should everyone have £15,000 more a year in their pocket?", that would be a very popular policy too - but if you just run that policy into an election 'as is' then you'll be rightly laughed at.

As an aside to davek and Milkman, Corbyn is absolutely hard left. He might not be as left as those from the 70s, but in modern context he is definitively hard left. Society has moved more to the right and more to the middle class in the past thirty years - as such, 'hard left' is an 'easier' goal to reach politically.

Well I guess thats your opinion but I've read many reports related to the policies, econ books, and documents such as the alternate modes of ownership and the land for the many etc and they are perfectly feasible with extensive research from professionals in the field so to compare them to £15k free a year or some tory attack line like magic money tree is silly

 

[Tubey]

Well I guess thats your opinion but I've read many reports related to the policies, econ books, and documents such as the alternate modes of ownership and the land for the many etc and they are perfectly feasible with extensive research from professionals in the field so to compare them to £15k free a year or some tory attack line like magic money tree is silly

He promised £500bn of extra spending - when asked how he'd budget that, he said it wouldn't create a deficit because the economy boost would cover it and he'd stop tax avoidance.

That's fantasy politics. It's what turns people off from him. It's promising the world with no substance to back it up.

In short, it's the exact fear that people have with socialism - that it's pure ideology over pragmatism. There has to be moderation - a feasible plan.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Hard Left

What would you define as hard left?

 

[orchard]

What would you define as hard left?

Obviously not distributing milk in skools like @Tubey