Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Vintage Paw]

So those members who weren't stopped from voting because of the cut off date - why were they stopped from voting? They weren't purged, and they weren't caught up in the 'admin error', so why were they not able to vote?

What I'm most interested to see is how many full members became registered supporters. Until we know that number, we can't say with confidence how many full members truly ended up without a vote. A good portion of those who didn't meet the cut off ended up paying their extra £25.

 

[Wilf]

Some fairly credible, final 'purge' numbers here:-
The numbers Labour did NOT want you to see on TV this morning – and why

​

There's a real disjuncture between the numbers of members without a vote in that piece and the 3000 'purged' mentioned earlier (even if the 3000 was as of a couple of weeks ago). I wonder if the issue is the term 'members without a vote'? That would include those not up to date with their subs and maybe other categories refused a vote for reasons other than a purge e.g. failure to update contact details. Still, that wouldn't explain the massive gap between the 2 quoted figures. I'm

 

[Cid]

So those members who weren't stopped from voting because of the cut off date - why were they stopped from voting? They weren't purged, and they weren't caught up in the 'admin error', so why were they not able to vote?

What I'm most interested to see is how many full members became registered supporters. Until we know that number, we can't say with confidence how many full members truly ended up without a vote. A good portion of those who didn't meet the cut off ended up paying their extra £25.

It also makes the assumption that £25ers would all vote and that turnout among members with a vote should be 'very high'. And he doesn't say where he's getting his figures from (for total reg/members).

Granted 2/3rds of £25ers would be an absurdly low turnout. But figures, where from?

 

[andysays]

There's a real disjuncture between the numbers of members without a vote in that piece and the 3000 'purged' mentioned earlier (even if the 3000 was as of a couple of weeks ago). I wonder if the issue is the term 'members without a vote'? That would include those not up to date with their subs and maybe other categories refused a vote for reasons other than a purge e.g. failure to update contact details. Still, that wouldn't explain the massive gap between the 2 quoted figures. I'm

As far as I can see, the author of that article has taken the number of members who didn't vote and assumed, with no evidence whatever, that 80% of them were "denied a vote".

Not absolutely every member would necessarily have voted if they could, but in such a contentious contest, the percentage would have been very high. But let’s be cautious and say only 80% would have and couldn’t, because of suspensions or because they simply didn’t receive their ballot (a situation we already knew was high). That means over 172,000 would-be voters were unable to participate in the election.

It's nonsense, frankly

 

[Pickman's model]

It's nonsense, frankly

welcome to the internet

 

[Bernie Gunther]

What numbers do we have that are credibly sourced?

 

[Pickman's model]

What numbers do we have that are credibly sourced?

61.8%

not sure any other numbers have that much bearing on this figure.

 

[Wilf]

As far as I can see, the author of that article has taken the number of members who didn't vote and assumed, with no evidence whatever, that 80% of them were "denied a vote".


It's nonsense, frankly

yep, though I'm still slightly unsure as to what the figures represent. The column heading is 'members without a vote', which is presumably the term the party itself is using. I'd guess it is' not paid up to date', 'not on the register',' no working text/phone details' - and a much smaller number of 'actively refused a vote' (the 3,000+ already mentioned. It's an odd phrase, 'members without a vote', but it must also include those who had a vote but just didn't use it (because the other column is 'members voting'?
Here are the (presumably) comparable figures from last time (from wiki):
"The number of those rejected would eventually reach 56,000,[85] around 9.1% of the 610,753 considered eligible to vote at the start of the contest.[86] According to the party, 45,000 of those were rejected for not being on the electoral register.[87]"

 

[two sheds]

According to the party, 45,000 of those were rejected for not being on the electoral register.[87]"

And they lied, at least one of those was

 

[DotCommunist]

I like to think owen smith is consoling himself by having a newly discovered treat, the latte and then a big wank, for which he must use two hands obvs

but seriously, is it really likely they'd rip the party up in twain by standing another more credible challenger. I thought that would be the case but now I am not so sure. Have to see how things unfold I suppose but yer boys n gyals got spanked thrice, surely it must be sinking in

 

[Wilf]

but seriously, is it really likely they'd rip the party up in twain by standing another more credible challenger. I thought that would be the case but now I am not so sure. Have to see how things unfold I suppose but yer boys n gyals got spanked thrice, surely it must be sinking in

It's like some shit horror film where the hero has to fight 7 increasingly nasty and powerful monsters. Andy Burnham had aggressive eyebrows, but no other powers to speak of. Liz Kendal could give you a Chinese burn with the power of her nothingness, but it's going to be a while before Blair leaps back into the ring hurling thunderbolts of money at our man.

 

[DotCommunist]

Burnhams been on the unity chat tbf, which suprised me. Its possible that there may be a lot of 'face front and wait for the time' going on but even so, a lot of them don't display the strategic nous for that either.

 

[Vintage Paw]

In terms of numbers, Christine Shawcroft of the NEC determined there were 3000 purged and 5000 who didn't receive their ballot. I can't for the life of me find a link for it but him indoors told me that's who looked into it and that's what she found.

I don't know whether that's from across all sections of the selectorate or just within registered supporters.

 

[Cid]

It's like some shit horror film where the hero has to fight 7 increasingly nasty and powerful monsters. Andy Burnham had aggressive eyebrows, but no other powers to speak of. Liz Kendal could give you a Chinese burn with the power of her nothingness, but it's going to be a while before Blair leaps back into the ring hurling thunderbolts of money at our man.

Martials arts tower film... though I don't think the PLP has anyone up to the standards of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

 

[tangerinedream]

If only Owen had got his usual mug....

 

[mauvais]

Burnhams been on the unity chat tbf, which suprised me. Its possible that there may be a lot of 'face front and wait for the time' going on but even so, a lot of them don't display the strategic nous for that either.

Burnham's been passive throughout. He's in a unique position, effectively Mayor of Gtr Manchester already and has nothing to gain (or to a lesser extent lose) by taking sides in this. If anything the unity position suits him best.

 

[inva]

The next few months should be interesting.

Remember, the resigners and plotters and generally disaffected amongst the PLP are not a cohesive group. They never were. Corbyn's supporters, Momentum, whoever else, needs now to try and understand the different motivations they all have. I'm sure Corbyn and his team are well aware already.

The PLP will use different strategies, and I expect that while Watson might try to get them all in line to be cohesive it's not going to work - at least not behind the scenes - and they'll be undermining each other. That's why the coup ultimately failed (well, rather that's why it was a shambles) - because it's not a united front against him. If they had any nous they'd group together and put aside differences to be able to work strategically against him in the long term but there are too many interests at play for that to happen. It depends whether any particular grouping can gain enough power and influence that the presence of the others is no longer an issue. Doubtful.

The most important thing now is to get rid of McNicol. That has to be Corbyn's primary task. And it has to be done very carefully. It can't be done at the same time as getting rid of the rest of the apparatus, because there have already been rumblings of strike action and that would be very bad. God. Sounds like I'm a strike busting Tory cunt lol.

strike busting is a grand old Labour tradition so you're alright there

 

[Shirl]

I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.

No, yer wrong there mate

 

[mauvais]

No, yer wrong there mate

One of the more productive opening gambits tbf.

 

[JimW]

Alas, (Owens) Smith and Jones.

 

[DotCommunist]

lets all just contemplate how blair feels right now. Sure, he'll be miserable in luxury but I bet he's got a right sour face on tonight. He'll never and never did want for anything but this will give him piles. Or at least a good month of agonising. All that is solid melts onto blair

 

[Raheem]

Burnhams been on the unity chat tbf, which suprised me. Its possible that there may be a lot of 'face front and wait for the time' going on but even so, a lot of them don't display the strategic nous for that either.

I had a pretty low opinion of Burnham previously, but he was clear at the time of the coup - not necessarily hyper-vocal, but clear - that he wanted no part of it and that it was disrespectful to the members. That might be characterised as cynical dry powder-keeping, but even if that's true, he still distinguished himself by having the nous to realise that what was going on was stupid and it was not in his interests to join in.

 

[two sheds]

Will be interesting to see what the NEC passes before the changes. The idea of getting everyone to promise to stop swearing on the internet is just insane. But of course will be a great way of expelling people pro Corbyn - get people to wind them up and just ban em.

 

[inva]

I’m posting this from the conference hall floor where there’s almost a visible generational change: people in suits from the Blairite era alongside people with wild coloured hair and nose rings definitely not from the Blairite era.

link

what a nob Mason is.
I knew he'd get the word 'youth' in that article somewhere too.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Burnham's been passive throughout. He's in a unique position, effectively Mayor of Gtr Manchester already and has nothing to gain (or to a lesser extent lose) by taking sides in this. If anything the unity position suits him best.

Burnham may actually believe what he's saying.

just throwing that out there. It happens, and he's been consistent in this since way before the mayor thing.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Yoot

 

[tendril]

I heard 3000 purged and an additional 5000 didn't receive their ballot because of that 'admin error' shenanigan. I believe it was one of the left slate NEC who looked into it and came up with those numbers. (Haven't read that article, it probably says the same in there. If so, apols.)

I had to phone 4 times to get my ballot. It finally arrived Thursday evening. And I've been a member from before the cut off date. It was a fucking shambles tbh.

Still, did eventually get to vote and got the result I wanted.

 

[smokedout]

Some fairly credible, final 'purge' numbers here:-
The numbers Labour did NOT want you to see on TV this morning – and why

​

Credible as in made up. Apologies for quoting myself, replace the DWP/benefits system for Corbyn.

There are several perhaps coincidentally pro-Labour blogs and websites who have continually misrepresented or misunderstood the various activities of the DWP and published wildly speculative stories that often turn out to be untrue. When this has been shown to them they have refused to back down, or publish corrections, instead entrenching their positions and insisting what they say is true in spite of over-whelming evidence. Because these sites present themselves as authorititive, or more often a new fearless form of journalism telling the stories the mainstream media don't, they are trusted by some people as such misinformation becomes widely distrubuted.

Whilst I don't doubt they are well meaning, the motivation that underlies this seems to be generating web traffic. Sensationalist stories about the benefits system often go viral. In the case of The Canary that is being done to earn money. For the others I get it, getting loads of hits is addictive, there's pressure to pump out new stuff all the time, and many temptations to cut corners or make more of something than it really is. But it's not helpful, and it's not good journalism.

 

[smokedout]

link

what a nob Mason is.
I knew he'd get the word 'youth' in that article somewhere too.

I am trying to produce a social movement “toolkit” focused for Labour activists. I’ve been questioning activists and I’ll release the questionnaire later if you want to help. Watch this space. But the main principles are:

• Resist in a way that forces those in power into a “decision dilemma”
• Think of every action in three parts: prepare, act, reflect
• Design actions either to communicate or to achieve concrete goals
• Act in a way that reframes the story; re-set the narrative — on poverty, inequality, war, grammar schools and privatisation
• Be peaceful, funny and human

At the 2005 G8 protests Mason was outside, posting police press releases and sun headlines as facts like the crap that stakes were being sharpened to be used against the old bill. That's probably the nearest he's ever got to an activist based social movement. I was pretty ambivalent towards him before reading that, bit of a tit with a good heart who occassionally says something slightly interesting compared to his peers. But what an arrogant fucking cock.

 

[Orangesanlemons]

I had to phone 4 times to get my ballot. It finally arrived Thursday evening. And I've been a member from before the cut off date. It was a fucking shambles tbh.

Still, did eventually get to vote and got the result I wanted.

Yep, utter shambles, either by accident or design.

Registered supporter here & despite multiple communications didn't manage to prod them into sending me my actual ballot, although given the result I fail to see what the end design of all that ineptitude was.

Be interesting to see a reliable breakdown of eligible/actual votes amongst the £25ers, given the relative unlikeliness of being committed enough to pay a fair wedge to vote & subsequently thinking 'nah, can't be bothered after all'...