|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I don't like agreeing with David Cameron, but
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
For heaven’s sake Corbyn, go.
I campaigned for Corbyn last year, and I’m gutted that his leadership hasn’t succeeded, but it hasn’t.
The longer he stays, the more stupid he makes himself and the Labour Party look. If this idiocy stops now, then Corbyn & Momentum can still have a role in shaping future Labour policy, providing necessary balance to the right wing of the party.
If Corbyn carries on, it’s looking more and more likely that there won’t be a Labour Party.
Go now, whilst you still have a shred of a legacy.
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
And yet he has a good deal of support in industrial areas. But the Labour Party is in disarray, so -
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Corbyn still seems to have the support of the majority of the party membership. The problems with the party (in particular the very poor showing at the council elections earlier this year) are largely due to the infighting within the party. Which can't be laid at Corbyn's feet since he tried to keep the party together, appointing MPs from all parts of the party into his shadow cabinet. A good argument can be made for the problem being the back-stabbing MPs who haven't stopped ripping into him. When Corbyn wins another large majority from the membership there's going to be a lot of current MPs deselected by their local parties in the run-up to the next general election.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
But the sine qua non for any Leader of the Opposition, at least if seen as a PM in waiting, is to be able to command the support of his or her MPs.
I'm coming to think that it's a great mistake to extend elections for Westminster party leadership to the mass membership. I think the Liberals started it, and you can see how it fits their political philosophy, but it's also one of those indulgences that you can afford if you're content not to be a serious party of government (the aberration of 2010 notwithstanding). In fact, I wonder whether in a devolved the UK the idea of a national party leader- as opposed to leaders at Westminster/ Holyrood/Cardiff Bay/Stormont/ & maybe in future some City Hall(s), is really valid or useful any more anyway.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But the sine qua non for any Leader of the Opposition, at least if seen as a PM in waiting, is to be able to command the support of his or her MPs.
And, the MPs need to be able to command the support of their local party members. What happens when the local party members support Corbyn, but the MP doesn't? Who would be the person who should be stepping down?
Of course, the current situation is complicated by the MPs being selected and elected under a different leadership, and under a smaller membership. They had the support of their local party two years ago, but would they still be selected today?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I'm coming to think that it's a great mistake to extend elections for Westminster party leadership to the mass membership.
A slightly different point, but the membership get the final vote, they don't have the only vote. For both Conservative and Labour, elected members still have a massive say in the leader, though both parties go about it different ways. The Conservatives hold elections within the elected members to put two candidates to the mass membership. The Labour Party require at least 50 MPs and MEPs to support any candidate. If Corbyn can't get support from at least 50 members of parliament then his name isn't on the ballot for the mass membership.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The simple fact is that MPs who refuse to take the Labour whip cannot be said to have Corbyn as leader. If they quit the parliamentary party on mass, there is nothing much left for him to lead.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But the sine qua non for any Leader of the Opposition, at least if seen as a PM in waiting, is to be able to command the support of his or her MPs.
I'm coming to think that it's a great mistake to extend elections for Westminster party leadership to the mass membership. I think the Liberals started it, and you can see how it fits their political philosophy, but it's also one of those indulgences that you can afford if you're content not to be a serious party of government (the aberration of 2010 notwithstanding). In fact, I wonder whether in a devolved the UK the idea of a national party leader- as opposed to leaders at Westminster/ Holyrood/Cardiff Bay/Stormont/ & maybe in future some City Hall(s), is really valid or useful any more anyway.
The Lib Dems have a smaller and more ideologically homogenous party, as well. Nick Clegg and Simon Hughes could serve on the same front bench, despite their differences. Clarke and co. refused to serve under IDS and the differences between Corbyn and Pretty Much Everyone Else in the PLP are well documented.
People (inc. myself) were critical of the somewhat Byzantine methods used to elect a Labour leader but a college system with ordinary members, MPs and other interested stakeholders is a useful balance between democracy and letting the grown ups be in charge.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But the sine qua non for any Leader of the Opposition, at least if seen as a PM in waiting, is to be able to command the support of his or her MPs.
And, the MPs need to be able to command the support of their local party members. What happens when the local party members support Corbyn, but the MP doesn't? Who would be the person who should be stepping down?
Of course, the current situation is complicated by the MPs being selected and elected under a different leadership, and under a smaller membership. They had the support of their local party two years ago, but would they still be selected today?
There has to be a balance between the PLP, the party in the country and, I'd say, the unions. ISTM that that balance has been upset and whoever you think started that process, Corbyn appealing to the party in the country as an ally against the PLP has exacerbated it (and BTW there were a fair few SWP placards at that big Parliament Square demo, weren't there? We might question whether all those at that demo were all actually committed Labour supporters or had the best interests of the Labour Party at heart).
I'd also say that I'm not convinced that Corbyn's support among party members in the country, as a whole, is as uniform as his supporters claim, or as it was none months ago. When he was stood for the leadership a lot of middle aged to elderly people sang the Nunc Dimittis and a lot of excitable young people with social media accounts and £3 in their pockets decided that this, rather than the Greens or the TUSC or whoever, was the way forward. But now? I don't know whether he's supported by a majority, or merely by a large and vocal minority.
[ 30. June 2016, 13:12: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I don't agree with Cameron, because he is seeking to divert attention from the problems in his own party. He doesn't care who is leader of the opposition, as long as the media are focussing on them.
I think Corbyn should take on the leadership challenge. I think that might mean he tenders his resignation but stands again. And whoever wins, they should decide where the party is politically and stamp a mark there. Which means not including radical dissenters in the leadership - whichever side that is.
We are in a shifting political climate. Trying to encompass the whole range is impossible. Standing firmly in one place is the only way to rally people to your side.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think it's about control. If the Blairites depose Corbyn, the members will exist to deliver leaflets and vote for a parachuted candidate. It will be top-down politics.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think Corbyn should take on the leadership challenge. I think that might mean he tenders his resignation but stands again.
If he does that, he'd have to get the 50 nominations from MPs. Not a chance.
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
50 out of 249 (well, probably 248 if he can't nominate himself). The news keeps talking about him losing support of 80% of the PLP ... he needs 20% of them to support him, he may scrape through.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
What is the difference between someone who asserts that the dire economic warnings in the event of Brexit, declared by numerous economists, the Chancellor, the IMF, the OECD, etc are all a Eurocratic scaremongering conspiracy of the élites ...
... and someone who believes that the warnings of Mr Corbyn's incompetence, given by MPs, MSPs, MEPs, several former Prime Ministers, and the entire press, are all a right-wing conspiracy by disaffected Blairites?
This feels like the point in the film where the kind, reasonable, gentle neighbour reveals that he too has been bitten, and is even now a slavering fact-eating zombie. Although what he needs with brains I have no idea.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What is the difference between someone who asserts that the dire economic warnings in the event of Brexit, [..] and someone who believes that the warnings of Mr Corbyn's incompetence
I suppose the difference is that the economic consequences of Brexit were a prediction about the future, whereas the competence of Mr. Corbyn is a judgement of the present and the past.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What is the difference between someone who asserts that the dire economic warnings in the event of Brexit, declared by numerous economists, the Chancellor, the IMF, the OECD, etc are all a Eurocratic scaremongering conspiracy of the élites ...
... and someone who believes that the warnings of Mr Corbyn's incompetence, given by MPs, MSPs, MEPs, several former Prime Ministers, and the entire press, are all a right-wing conspiracy by disaffected Blairites?
This feels like the point in the film where the kind, reasonable, gentle neighbour reveals that he too has been bitten, and is even now a slavering fact-eating zombie. Although what he needs with brains I have no idea.
Don't both represent the will to power? Hermeneutics is dragged by its heels behind Caesar's chariot, who after all, wrote the history of it.
Or, in the vernacular, you take sides.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
If the PLP want rid of him and think they have the support of the members to do so, all they have to do is put up a candidate. But they haven't so far, because they're a bunch of treacherous cowards. They need to either make a leadership challenge and let the chips fall where they may or resign their seats and fight again as either independents or SDP MKII: This time we're even dumber. We'll see how many get returned without a red rosette pinned to them. Good riddance, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's about control. If the Blairites depose Corbyn, the members will exist to deliver leaflets and vote for a parachuted candidate. It will be top-down politics.
I think the PLP are so busy trying to get rid of Corbyn, (who they hate but members like better)that they are imploding.
In their haste and to grab their chance that they can't see the wood for the trees
THey can't see that the ordinary member fed up with teh tory look alike party, wanted them to move further left
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I found this in The Times so not original but ...
You heard they locked Jeremy Corbyn in a library with a decanter of scotch and a loaded revolver?
Well, he drank the scotch and then shot The Labour Party.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
If a company had an employee that refused to accept dismissal they'd hardly be likely to let him/her just carry on working there, especially when most of their colleagues had walked out in protest at having to work with the person. It's likely that the person's security pass would be cancelled, and they'd be politely but firmly escorted from the building or refused entry.
And yet there's no sign of Corbyn becoming Corbout.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
If a company had an employee that refused to accept dismissal they'd hardly be likely to let him/her just carry on working there, especially when most of their colleagues had walked out in protest at having to work with the person.
But that's the point. Who is Mr. Corbyn's "employer"? If we believe the evidence of the selection process, then it's the Labour party and its affiliates, not the PLP, and the evidence suggests that the wider party is still very much in the Corbyn camp.
So right now, he's not the employee who has been dismissed but unaccountably keeps coming to work: he's Jeremy from accounts who the rest of the employees try to avoid.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If we believe the evidence of the selection process, then it's the Labour party and its affiliates, not the PLP, and the evidence suggests that the wider party is still very much in the Corbyn camp.
From what I've heard, it seems the hard left, particularly Momentum, are on a recruitment drive to get people to sign up and keep Corbyn in place. I wouldn't have thought that was representative of the wider party as a whole.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Does a Party exist outwith its membership?
What we seem to have - on both Left and Right - is populist groundswells disconnected from their titular leadership. Bit like the clergy believing one thing and the laity another: who then is the church?
There are a fair few rough beasts slouching towards Bethlehem.
[ 03. July 2016, 07:39: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Does a Party exist outwith its membership?
What we seem to have - on both Left and Right - is populist groundswells disconnected from their titular leadership. Bit like the clergy believing one thing and the laity another: who then is the church?
There are a fair few rough beasts slouching towards Bethlehem.
That is when people leave and make new churches. So we may end up with True Labour, New Labour, Real Labour, LibDemLab, LibDemCon, Conservative, Very Conservative, Farragist parties all contesting. Their differences will be minor, but it will not necessarily make for a happy political environment - candidates with the same primary beliefs fighting each other.
And everyone loses any faith in the political process.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
*Looks sideways at the Judean People's Front*
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It's already happening - Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition is putting candidates up for election.
According to the ever-reliable Wikipedia, the list of left and far-left parties is extensive:
Minor UK left/far-left parties
Socialist Party of Great Britain (1904–present)
Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (1968–present)
Workers' Revolutionary Party (1973–present)
Revolutionary Communist Group (1974–present)
New Communist Party (1977–present)
Socialist Workers Party (part of TUSC) (1977–present)
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (1979–present)
Socialist Equality Party (1986–present)
International Socialist League (1987–present)
Communist League (1988–present)
Communist Party of Britain (1988–present)
Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) (1991–present)
Alliance for Workers' Liberty (part of Left Unity) (1992–present)
Independent Working Class Association (1995–present)
Socialist Labour Party (1996–present)
Socialist Party (England and Wales) (part of TUSC; previously stood as "Socialist Alternative") (1997–present)
Socialist Resistance (part of Left Unity) (2002–present)
Alliance for Green Socialism (2003–present)
Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (2004–present)
Respect Party (2004-present)
No2EU (2009–present), a European Parliament electoral alliance / registered party, formed by the Socialist Party, Communist Party and RMT union.
Left Unity (2013–present)
Class War (2014–present)
Reality Party (2014–present)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
On a positive note, it means they are not - as alleged - the forces that make up momentum.
(Tangent, good to see Len McClusky name checking Portland Communications on the Marr show.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Judean People's Front
Potential liberators committing collective (political, rather than actual) suicide? Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.
Which side are you (nods to Billy Bragg)? The right side or the winning side? Ah, that is the question.
[ 03. July 2016, 08:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The unions are offering to mediate, doubt its its going to fly though.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Does a Party exist outwith its membership?
What we seem to have - on both Left and Right - is populist groundswells disconnected from their titular leadership. Bit like the clergy believing one thing and the laity another: who then is the church?
There are a fair few rough beasts slouching towards Bethlehem.
That is when people leave and make new churches. So we may end up with True Labour, New Labour, Real Labour, LibDemLab, LibDemCon, Conservative, Very Conservative, Farragist parties all contesting. Their differences will be minor, but it will not necessarily make for a happy political environment - candidates with the same primary beliefs fighting each other.
And everyone loses any faith in the political process.
But isn't the presence of lots of different parties the norm in several European countries? Do the inhabitants there have less faith in the political process than British people do? Maybe a change in this respect is just what British people need.
As for churches, I can't think of anything worse than all Christians having to pledge their loyalty to one of only two institutions.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
On a positive note, it means they are not - as alleged - the forces that make up momentum.
Is membership mutually exclusive?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But isn't the presence of lots of different parties the norm in several European countries? Do the inhabitants there have less faith in the political process than British people do? Maybe a change in this respect is just what British people need.
Yes, multiple parties are the norm in most of the world (not just Europe). And, coupled with sensible voting systems which produce a more proportional level of representation, this means it's unusual for a single party to hold an absolute majority. Which leads to a requirement for consensus politics, rather than the UK confrontational approach. It results, IMO, in a more stable approach to politics where a stupid idea (like, say, a pointless referendum) doesn't get through the process of forming a consensus between parties to establish a government.
Whether or not people have more faith in politics under such systems, I've no idea. But, I think it's something we in the UK need to learn. If the stupidity of the last few weeks has taught us anything, it's that a government formed by a single party with an absolute majority of MPs isn't magically stable. An effective two party system produces majority governments more often than not, but it's a recipe for disaster when one (or both) party is dominated by the lunatics and/or disintegrates through a civil war within the party.
I would add that the Republican candidate process over the last few months is showing a similar dysfunctional effect of a two-party system.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
On a positive note, it means they are not - as alleged - the forces that make up momentum.
Is membership mutually exclusive?
Usually, yes. For example, you can't be a member of the Labour Party and any other political party at the same time. I would think that is true of most political parties.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
There's nothing to stop people signing up to Labour with a £3 membership for the sole purpose of voting for Corbyn to remain, then dropping out again and reverting to whatever party they previously belonged to. The £3 membership just makes a farce of it.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
There's nothing to stop people signing up to Labour with a £3 membership for the sole purpose of voting for Corbyn to remain, then dropping out again and reverting to whatever party they previously belonged to. The £3 membership just makes a farce of it.
There was some degree of winnowing out the tares from the wheat, when it was obvious that there were some people who were not entirely on the level. Tim Loughton, Conservative MP for Adur and Worthing, was the most high profile "supporter" to be denied a vote in the election. But a political party doesn't have the resources to individually check whether or not a £3 supporter is also a member of the SWP. It's not as if the far left have all voluntarily surrendered their membership lists to Labour HQ, is it?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
There's nothing to stop people signing up to Labour with a £3 membership for the sole purpose of voting for Corbyn to remain, then dropping out again and reverting to whatever party they previously belonged to. The £3 membership just makes a farce of it.
Well, apart from the fact it is fraud. That and the fact they check a proportion of all applicants.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
There's nothing to stop people signing up to Labour with a £3 membership for the sole purpose of voting for Corbyn to remain, then dropping out again and reverting to whatever party they previously belonged to. The £3 membership just makes a farce of it.
There's nothing to stop anyone signing up for a full membership with payment by direct debit and then resigning after a leadership election either. The need for checks on dual membership would be the same. At the same time, how do you draw a distinction between infiltrators and converts? I left the Green Party to join Labour and support Corbyn, having swithered on the fringes of both for over a decade. Am I an infiltrator? Are the FBU infiltrators because they reaffiliated to Labour in support of Corbyn?
In any case, the Labour party membership has grown by hundreds of thousands due to Corbyn. Even if every SWP member joined up they wouldn't make up 10% of the membership. If every member of every far left party joined up they might scrape 10%. Corbyn's popularity in the party has nothing to do with the SWP.
[ 03. July 2016, 15:38: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
