|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
Fangz posted:Is that so? Because it seems like people don't imagine anything outside of the lovely current situation and the only pressure is on the dumb 5% thing. If you want to argue maybe you should pick someone and determine what their position is, rather than telling a group of people what they think. The 5% rule change is one step of several to ensuring the Labour party represents socialist policies. Removing certain members of the PLP and replacing them with better ones is also a good thing that should happen, but you have to take steps along the way to ensure the left can get back into power if Corbyn is somehow removed.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Dabir posted:Pretty sure there it's, I was told so. By whom? That doesn't make any sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You statements on 'why should you trust a politician' means they can *never* be trusted. They can't, but you can predict them. Trust is for situations where, in the absence of information, one defaults to being charitable, this is fine for situations where there is no power differential or where there the power differential is in the favour of the person extending trust. It is definitely not fine for situations where you're placing trust in people who have power over you, you should never do that. Especially when those people have no accountability. I propose instead, that the labour party should be predictable and accountable. That it should work to minimise the power MPs hold over members (which means making the leadership contest far more democratic) and it means that the culture of the labour party must enforce predictable policies that benefit society. It must be as difficult as possible for MPs to deviate from good, left policies and when they do, they must be forced back into line, or forced out. Which means that they must be up for deselection at their CLP's discretion, the party policy must be democratically decided, and the party leadership selection must be directly up to the membership in some form. The party officials should not be able to insulate the leadership and candidacy from the membership. Trust is a poor substitute for knowledge. You can't run a government on trust.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They can't, but you can predict them. So your new position is that you will tell the ordinary voter to vote for a Labour MP you don't trust, because the local party that they aren't a member of can remove them at any arbitrary time. This will create predictability and accountability for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:By whom? That doesn't make any sense. Why does it not make any sense?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:So your new position is that you will tell the ordinary voter to vote for a Labour MP you don't trust, because the local party that they aren't a member of can remove them at any arbitrary time. This will create predictability and accountability for them. My position is that Labour must have a consistent, unified position, and must not have MPs poo poo talking the party and the leadership and the membership when they don't like them. Labour must be unified, and I think that the membership, the democratic basis for the party, are the only acceptable source for what it should stand for. Everything else must fall in line with that. MPs are welcome to either fall in line or leave, but this is the only acceptable position to me, and crushing that disunity is critical to presenting Labour as a credible party. I am fascinated to hear your alternative proposal for creating a united labour.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Why does it not make any sense? Until very recently, UK elections don't take place at fixed times. OwlFancier posted:My position is that Labour must have a consistent, unified position, and must not have MPs poo poo talking the party and the leadership and the membership when they don't like them. Labour must be unified, and I think that the membership, the democratic basis for the party, are the only acceptable source for what it should stand for. Everything else must fall in line with that. Then how is that consistent with a 5% limit on nominations?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Pretty sure there is, I was told so. I think you're getting confused by the timing of the mandatory reselection that will happen after the 2018 boundary redrawing, and Labour's statement that the process will take around 18 months. Electoral law is entirely silent on when selection can take place, the candidate or their agent simply fills out the form when the election is announced (there's a proper technical term for this which is completely eluding me at the moment), which is about six weeks before the poll itself takes place. For party candidates, obviously, this will be the candidate the party has chosen through whatever means they have. Snap elections have taken place after mass defections or withdrawals of the whip, and happened all the time in the days when constituency parties were wholly responsible for candidate selection in both Labour and the Tories. Labour rules allow selection for the next election to take place at any time but Labour being Labour it's a horribly long-drawn-out process if there's not an incumbent MP, and the point of the boundary review is that there will be *no* incumbent MPs and the NEC will find it impossible to use the powers they have to force selection to keep all the PLP superstars in safe seats. I've said it before and I'll say it again it's that boundary review that is the real reason for the current tumult in the PLP, most of the heavyweights are loving despised by their CLPs and are terrified of losing their safe seats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Then how is that consistent with a 5% limit on nominations? Because that represents a substantial decrease in the number of nominations needed, meaning that, currently, a small faction of left MPs could put someone into the leadership election with the correct political stance, and they would stand a chance of winning it. Personally I would prefer direct nomination of candidates by the membership and removing the electoral college entirely but a reduction is still an improvement, and would probably even be fine, practically, in a proper left-leaning labour party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:the point of the boundary review is that there will be *no* incumbent MPs and the NEC will find it impossible to use the powers they have to force selection to keep all the PLP superstars in safe seats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am fascinated to hear your alternative proposal for creating a united labour. A moderate level of party disunity should be tolerated. Whether it's the right of the party conniving against the left, or the left of the party conniving against the right, this is essential parts of an internal conversation that needs to persist. Labour should defend to the media the right of parts of itself to rebel, as long as their rebellion is at least publically still consistent with left wing values - e.g. freedom and equality. Sometimes the left of the party will be in the ascendent, sometimes the right will be, and this will shake out in the particular candidates that are available for vote. If Labour cannot deliver any viable leftwing candidate, they should just lose elections until either the PLP sees sense, or the membership abandon them. The democracy element comes in whether Labour can win elections or not. The members can just vote with their wallet. OwlFancier posted:Because that represents a substantial decrease in the number of nominations needed, meaning that, currently, a small faction of left MPs could put someone into the leadership election with the correct political stance, and they would stand a chance of winning it. This would not make the party unified, this would bake in antagonism between the PLP and the membership. I also disagree that the membership can be relied on to consistently deliver decent (or even leftwing) leaders, and not well, Boaty McBoatface. There's no ideological test on being a member of the labour party, after all. If you ask the entire electorate to choose between Corbyn and Blair, they'd choose Blair. Fangz fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:My position is that Labour must have a consistent, unified position, and must not have MPs poo poo talking the party and the leadership and the membership when they don't like them. Labour must be unified, and I think that the membership, the democratic basis for the party, are the only acceptable source for what it should stand for. Everything else must fall in line with that. Corbyn himself barely has a consistent unified position so I doubt he can inspire or demand his MPs follow his
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Fangz posted:If you ask the entire electorate to choose between Corbyn and Blair, they'd choose Blair. I doubt it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Fangz posted:A moderate level of party disunity should be tolerated. Whether it's the right of the party conniving against the left, or the left of the party conniving against the right, this is essential parts of an internal conversation that needs to persist. Labour should defend to the media the right of parts of itself to rebel, as long as their rebellion is at least publically still consistent with left wing values - e.g. freedom and equality. Disunity is fine. Actively trying to damage the party in order to oust a democratically elected leader rather than support them isn't fine. In fact there's a pretty huge difference. Fangz posted:I also disagree that the membership can be relied on to consistently deliver decent (or even leftwing) leaders, and not well, Boaty McBoatface. There's no ideological test on being a member of the labour party, after all. If you ask the entire electorate to choose between Corbyn and Blair, they'd choose Blair. The membership has no obligation to deliver leaders that live up to any particular standard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
I like Tim Who's tactic for securing favorability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
dispatch_async posted:I doubt it. Give Blair another 18 months as labour leader and see how it looks then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:This is completely incorrect - the party has pretty clear rules on how MPs are allocated seats following a boundary review. Broadly speaking, as long as there is a new constituency that contains at least 40% of the wards from the MP's old constituency, they can automatically become the candidate for that new constituency. Conflicts arise when a seat is essentially abolished with its constituent wards being evenly distributed across multiple new constituencies, or when there are multiple MPs who could claim the candidacy for a new seat based on the 40% threshold. However, most current Labour MPs will not have to go through reselection on the basis of the boundary review. That's completely contrary to what Labour themselves were saying last year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
So about those reselections... https://twitter.com/momentum_watch/status/843904061342715905
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
dispatch_async posted:I doubt it. I was thinking of http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-tony-blair-labour-leadership-win-general-election-comres-poll-a7363306.html and http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/voters-want-next-labour-leader-to-be-like-tony-blair-poll-shows-10328384.html And of course Corbyn has dropped in popularity since then because of the whole whipping thing. I think obviously this has varied from time to time. But this is rather avoiding my point which is that I don't buy the 'democratic selection of the labour leader' argument. I picked Blair to make an extreme point. I would have been on safer ground if I just said Ed Balls. Fangz fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:That's completely contrary to what Labour themselves were saying last year. quote:Labour does have a organisational response to Boundary Reviews and one which currently aims to ensure as many existing MPs as possible have the opportunity to contest seats at the next election (although who knows how a new NEC may interpret this responsibility in the new kinder politics). Essentially where a new Constituency contains more than 40% of their existing constituency the MP is deemed to be the candidate for the new constituency. Even in this organised world problems do emerge when a MP’s existing constituency is scattered across several proposed constituencies or more than one Labour MP can make a claim on a new constituency – almost certain in heartland areas such as Inner London and Greater Manchester. Where there is a contest the choice has generally being restricted to existing MPs. And here's the Mirror's writeup with a clarification from Labour HQ: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-mps-lose-seats-boundary-8825100 quote:When more than 40% of people in an MP's constituents transfer to a new seat, that MP gets reselected automatically in a trigger ballot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/843915301712531457
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:So about those reselections...
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They can't, but you can predict them. Also I'll point out the other problem with this system, which is that it really falls apart if the local CLP is at odds with the party leadership. Which will happen, because the leadership ballot is a vote from the entire membership, and some constituencies have a lot more members than others. Left wing strongholds with large memberships will elect left wing leaders while smaller CLPs in the large numbers of more marginal constituencies will *force* their MPs to oppose the leadership from the right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Well, I've no idea what you were hearing last year, but what I said is correct. Here's the same thing written by someone who worked for Labour on the last boundary review: http://labourlist.org/2016/01/a-beginners-guide-to-the-boundary-review/ Right, I understand both of those, but the point Labour were making pretty loudly after the first consultation document came out is that the Commission seem hell-bent on drawing the boundaries to, wherever possible, stop that automatic transfer happening. For example West Bromwich East, whose parachuted-in MP has been in the news a bit today. Tom Watson's constituency is being moved around enough that it's extremely unlikely that he'll get automatically re-selected, and he's not exactly popular with his CLP. In fact almost all of Labour's safest 20 or so seats are disappearing this way, often in pretty bizarre ways. Another example, West Ham - Labour's 15th-safest seat and a constituency that's stayed pretty static since Kier Hardie was MP there, save for a bit of toing and froing over Canning Town since the war - is unaccountably losing a big chunk to East Ham and gaining a huge chunk of Bromley-by-Bow and Bow (which are in a completely different borough, something that will make the MP's job much harder). East Ham is losing chunks to a new seat carved out of Barking, and neither will meet the 40% requirement. They could have avoided all of this by just adding a few wards from north of the A12 to East Ham and West Ham, especially as the massive increase of population in those wards since the Olympics would have easily met the new, larger constituency requirements, and it's really hard not to see some malice in the arrangements. goddamnedtwisto fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Also I'll point out the other problem with this system, which is that it really falls apart if the local CLP is at odds with the party leadership. Which will happen, because the leadership ballot is a vote from the entire membership, and some constituencies have a lot more members than others. Left wing strongholds with large memberships will elect left wing leaders while smaller CLPs in the large numbers of more marginal constituencies will *force* their MPs to oppose the leadership from the right. There's nothing wrong with differences of opinion. The main issue people take with the PLP is their use of the media and underhanded tactics to try and get rid of Corbyn because they were desperate to avoid a democratic election they knew they'd lose. And their failure to even stop those tactics after they did lose a second election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Digging into the ICM tables, some tit bits just looking at the weighted Lab-Con margin: A few pages back, but this is a great post, thanks. Always interesting when someone digs below the headline numbers
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Growing up in Tony Blair's Britain really destroyed them. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Digging into the ICM tables, some tit bits just looking at the weighted Lab-Con margin: our friends in the north are revolting. this would never have happened under big Andy burnham
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
One of the roles of the party leader is to lead the PLP and they have to do this successfully in order to achieve the Labour Party's goals, such as providing an effective opposition, convincing the public they would make a good government (which means convincing people to elect Labour MPs) and providing an effective government. So it's true that you need a leaderr and PLP who can work together, but electing a leader who can't work with his MPs and then idly theorycrafting about replacing the PLP seems like an odd way of going about it. Howver, replacing existing MPs with Corbynite candidates is clearly one answer, though it would cause total chaos in the short term as local MPs tend to be de facto leaders of their local parties (with exceptions - sometimes the relationship has broken down).
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
I would suggest that giving power to CLPs to control their MPs would go a long way to ensuring that only the most troublesome MPs are deselected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Corbyn and team criticised for briefing against Watson over Momentum row
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
If the membership had voted for Liz Kendell back in 2015, Labour would be storming towards victory right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Sometimes, spirits in the Labour Party can run high https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/843947779957248000
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
I thought seumas milne had gone in januray but he's still running jeremys comms and Lord watts called him a disgrace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Sometimes, spirits in the Labour Party can run high A rallying cry for the ages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:My position is that Labour must have a consistent, unified position, and must not have MPs poo poo talking the party and the leadership and the membership when they don't like them. Labour must be unified, and I think that the membership, the democratic basis for the party, are the only acceptable source for what it should stand for. Everything else must fall in line with that. have you just described the SWP's famous "democratic centralism"? no thank you
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And of course there's a reason, you get paid for it. You're in a party which, until Corbyn, spent most of the previous two decades parachuting people into seats as long as they follow the blairite leadership. we're only 3 months short of it being a full decade since the Blairite leadership left the building.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Edit: Never mind
Surprise Giraffe fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Sometimes, spirits in the Labour Party can run high Look, I think the guy is a decent enough politician, but he's boring as all gently caress. Unfortunately, today's politics is pretty much celebrity roulette, you can't afford to be boring. I wish it wasn't the case, but it is and it sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
He sounds to me like a Play School presenter explaining that Big Ted *chortle* can sometimes be a bit naughty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:49
|
|