Labour leadership

[killer b]

Assuming they've saved it. If they've checked names against an external database - signatories to other parties nominees for example which is presumably on some publicly available database somewhere - they might not have.

that would mean a single person making the decision for each applicant, with no way of checking whether it's the correct decision - can't see it tbh.

 

[two sheds]

that would mean a single person making the decision for each applicant, with no way of checking whether it's the correct decision - can't see it tbh.

I dunno, we are talking about the Labour Party here.

I just hope that when Corbyn gets elected and becomes Prime Minister he brings in a workers' cooperative state and nationalizes all the major landowners and confiscates to the state any assets above £100,000. Any tories who've voted for him now will feel sick

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Be fair, move it to Birmingham...

We don't want it!

 

[Wilf]

Assuming they've saved it. If they've checked names against an external database - signatories to other parties nominees for example which is presumably on some publicly available database somewhere - they might not have.

Some of this will be fairly straightforward. Someone applies > they first check if they are on the electoral register (and presumably reject if they aren't). They would then put the name/address into relevant databases to pick up whether they have stood or nominated candidates for other parties. The more interesting bit is the role of role of local Constituency Party officials/MPs and the like in 'denouncing' applicants. Apart from local knowledge, picking up Tories or others who clearly want to fuck up the process, it becomes pretty subjective. How many letters to the paper or tweets or involvement in the STWC adds up to being against values of the party? I agree there will probably be no effective legal challenge afterwards, but the party has provided the proverbial lawyer's field day if anyone did want to go down that route. Harman's statement quoted earlier is also a hostage to fortune even if, to use the word of the moment, her pedantic defence could be that she only meant bring voters of other parties to the hustings (not give them an automatic vote).

By the way, do we know if Labour have entered into a dialogue with anyone, got any info on the apparent grounds for rejection?

 

[two sheds]

We don't want it!

I bet there'd be a good spinoff business signing in for the Lords so they could claim their daily £300.

 

[Wilf]

Incidentally, Lab saying over 60k excluded so far - though the vast majority are for the mundane reasons of not paying their subs, being called I. P. Freely etc:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...te-cooper-liz-kendall-want-extra-voter-checks

 

[frogwoman]

Incidentally, Lab saying over 60k excluded so far - though the vast majority are for the mundane reasons of not paying their subs, being called I. P. Freely etc:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...te-cooper-liz-kendall-want-extra-voter-checks

60k? Are you sure?

 

[Wilf]

60k? Are you sure?

Yep, unless it's a grauniad misprint:
"After a meeting of the candidates on Tuesday, it emerged Labour has weeded out almost 60,000 people for being duplicates, not on the electoral roll, or in arrears with their membership. Just over 3,000 have been excluded for being supporters of other parties, including 1,900 Greens and 400 Tories. This takes the total electorate in the leadership contest down to 554,000."
The implication is that many in their stated full membersip figure are always in arrears and failed to pay up by the cut off date?

 

[Dogsauce]

They're including 'natural churn' to try and play up the numbers excluded and make it look like a credible successful vetting operation. This way the public is supposed to think they're a competent organisation, and that the result isn't dodgy. Clueless fucks.

 

[Wilf]

They're including 'natural churn' to try and play up the numbers excluded and make it look like a credible successful vetting operation. This way the public is supposed to think they're a competent organisation, and that the result isn't dodgy. Clueless fucks.

It is pretty astonishing really. It's akin to deciding who should be on the electoral register at 2.00 in the afternoon on polling day - and admitting you might hoy a few more out at the count.

 

[two sheds]

They should just have had the qualifying question "Do you intend to vote for Jeremy Corbyn?", would have been much simpler and more effective.

 

[andysays]

60k? Are you sure?

That's the same number cited by someone above as mentioned in a Scotland on Sunday article.

Only 3000 reckoned to be supporters of other parties, and if you take out 1,900 Greens and 400 Tories, that only leaves a maximum of 700 possible Trot entryists, which will include those who aren't genuine entryists but merely got labelled as such because they signed someone's nomination papers or whatever.

 

[NoXion]

Whoops

 

[andysays]

Whoops

Do you want to have another go?

 

[NoXion]

Do you want to have another go?

At what?

 

[andysays]

At what?

At that post (I read what you originally wrote before you edited it)

For the sake of clarity, my point about "if you remove the Greens and Tories" was that although there has been a big fuss about possible Trot infiltration, the LP's own figures now suggest that they've eliminated a maximum of 700 people who they suspect of being that, and about 60,000 for administrative reasons (being duplicates, not on the electoral roll, or in arrears with their membership), so it's hardly the major issue it was held up as.

 

[NoXion]

At that post (I read what you originally wrote before you edited it)

For the sake of clarity, my point about "if you remove the Greens and Tories" was that although there has been a big fuss about possible Trot infiltration, the LP's own figures now suggest that they've eliminated a maximum of 700 people who they suspect of being that, and about 60,000 for administrative reasons (being duplicates, not on the electoral roll, or in arrears with their membership), so it's hardly the major issue it was held up as.

Sorry, I was replying to a different post a few pages back; didn't realise.

 

[andysays]

Sorry, I was replying to a different post a few pages back; didn't realise.

Apology accepted, and I'm sorry if my post read like I was seeking confrontation That wasn't my intention, but re-reading I can see it might have come out that way.

 

[Wilf]

That's the same number cited by someone above as mentioned in a Scotland on Sunday article.

Only 3000 reckoned to be supporters of other parties, and if you take out 1,900 Greens and 400 Tories, that only leaves a maximum of 700 possible Trot entryists, which will include those who aren't genuine entryists but merely got labelled as such because they signed someone's nomination papers or whatever.

There's certainly a disparity in the way that the Labour right are spinning this to the press - 'thousands of wild eyed trot entyists' - and the reality you mention. They are in practice trying to twist the fact that tens of thousands of full members can't be arsed to pay their full subs into a story of Liz Kendal being kept from power only by massed ranks of well drilled trots.

 

[killer b]

I think it's worth recognising the difficult position Labour are in: when they brought in these new rules, the likelyhood of someone like Corbyn getting on the ballot - let alone becoming the runaway frontrunner - was preposterous. Had he not done, there would be no issues with these few hundred thousand extra voters as they just wouldn't be joining up.

As it is, they do have a duty to check each applicant, not least because there's been a visible campaign from a number of non-labour organisations to join and affect the vote - and as everyone is joining to vote Corbyn, then it stands to reason that most of the people being refused are people who were going to vote Corbyn.

They need to have - and be seen to have - a rigorous screening process, and have a very small amount of time to do the screening: I suspect once the dust has settled most of the people booted will be those with a provable connection to another party, rather than them just refusing anyone who looks a bit lefty.

 

[belboid]

I think it's worth recognising the difficult position Labour are in: when they brought in these new rules, the likelyhood of someone like Corbyn getting on the ballot - let alone becoming the runaway frontrunner - was preposterous. Had he not done, there would be no issues with these few hundred thousand extra voters as they just wouldn't be joining up.

As it is, they do have a duty to check each applicant, not least because there's been a visible campaign from a number of non-labour organisations to join and affect the vote - and as everyone is joining to vote Corbyn, then it stands to reason that most of the people being refused are people who were going to vote Corbyn.

They need to have - and be seen to have - a rigorous screening process, and have a very small amount of time to do the screening: I suspect once the dust has settled most of the people booted will be those with a provable connection to another party, rather than them just refusing anyone who looks a bit lefty.

Absolutely, if they made no such efforts it would be absurd. Some have compared the people being debarred to those Tories who crossed the floor to become Labour MP's. But that doesn't really fit because labour had a chance to actually discuss politics with those people, and ascertain whether they did really believe in 'Labour values' - they simply dont have a chance to do that with this timescale.

Also, if they have (as appears to be the case) debarred people because they aren't up to date with their subs, then the majority of those would be pre-existing Labour members, and less likely to vote for Corbyn.

 

[agricola]

I think it's worth recognising the difficult position Labour are in: when they brought in these new rules, the likelyhood of someone like Corbyn getting on the ballot - let alone becoming the runaway frontrunner - was preposterous. Had he not done, there would be no issues with these few hundred thousand extra voters as they just wouldn't be joining up.

As it is, they do have a duty to check each applicant, not least because there's been a visible campaign from a number of non-labour organisations to join and affect the vote - and as everyone is joining to vote Corbyn, then it stands to reason that most of the people being refused are people who were going to vote Corbyn.

They need to have - and be seen to have - a rigorous screening process, and have a very small amount of time to do the screening: I suspect once the dust has settled most of the people booted will be those with a provable connection to another party, rather than them just refusing anyone who looks a bit lefty.

Not if there are 60,000 of them, and beyond people who stood for elected office (and the odd loon boasting about it on the internet) it one would imagine it will be very difficult to prove one way or another whether an excluded person was connected to another party or that they didn't share "Labour aims and values"; indeed you can argue that in many cases (the Greens or the TUSC, for instance) it should not even matter whether or not they were members of those parties. How are they going to defend a legal challenge by people who have had their £3 taken away and not given a vote? With canvass returns, reports from informants and trawls of social media?

 

[killer b]

Most of those 60,000 are people who've let their membership lapse, false names or duplicates. Only 3000 trots, tories & greens, which sounds like a reasonable number to me.

 

[Belushi]

Only 3000 trots, tories & greens, which sounds like a reasonable number to me.

I heard something on the radio earlier that 1900 of the 3000 are Greens

 

[killer b]

yes.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Not sure if we've had this yet. Caroline Lucas has penned an open letter to Corbyn (Facebook link) proposing an alliance against the Tories:

Dear Jeremy,

These are exciting times for progressive politics. In the space of just a few weeks you’ve brought something into your party that’s been missing for far too long: hope. I’ve never felt so optimistic about a potential leader of the Labour Party. For the first time in my memory, the party of Keir Hardie and Clement Attlee looks likely to be led again by someone who dares to stand up for the radical changes demanded by the challenges we face.

I’ve shared many platforms with you, from opposing Britain’s disastrous and bloody war in Iraq to supporting investment in the economy in place of relentless and cruel austerity. Your inspiring campaign has put so many of our shared values into the centre of the debate in British politics.

The beauty of this moment, and what scares the political establishment most, is that the power of your campaign is coming from thousands of grassroots voices – not a diktat from above. It hardly seems a coincidence that the first truly democratic leadership election in your party’s recent history is producing such a powerful resurgence in optimism. People do indeed vote differently when they know their vote counts.

And it has been particularly exciting to see so many of the policies that have long been championed by the Greens resonating with such a substantial portion of the electorate. Like the Green surge of earlier this year, and like many of the social movements and new progressive parties that have sprung up across the world, an anti-establishment mood is manifesting itself into a real political force.

However, to fully embrace this moment – and if Labour is to truly become part of a movement rather than remain just a machine – it’s crucial to recognise the multi-party nature of modern British politics. No one party has a monopoly on wisdom, or is capable of making the transformation alone: a diversity of progressive voices is essential for our democracy.

Greens, for example, bring vital and distinctive issues to the table – most crucially, and at the heart of our politics, is the fundamental belief that a new social contract will only ever be possible if it’s built upon the foundations of “one planet living”. Without a safe climate at the heart of our policymaking, progressive politics won’t ever take root. Indeed, there is no better argument for abandoning tribalism than the looming climate crisis we face. If we’re going to stabilise our environment and build a secure economy that serves our children and Grandchildren.

For that reason, one of my few disappointments about your campaign is that it hasn’t focused more on reforming our ailing democracy. A truly progressive politics fit for the 21st century requires a voting system which trusts people to cast a ballot for the party they believe in. If you do win this contest I believe you should take this opportunity – and the huge amount of momentum behind you – to call a constitutional convention to allow people across the country to have a say in remodelling Britain for the future. A convention has the potential to energise even more people than your leadership campaign, or the Green surge, and to inspire the kind of feeling across the UK that swept Scotland in 2014.

In the short term, for the next general election – which will still be contested under First Past the Post – my personal view is that there is potential in considering local grassroots electoral pacts where progressive candidates are standing, so as to give us the best chance of beating the Tories in 2020. It’s only by winning that we have the chance to implement positive change.

By working together in the coming weeks and months we can continue to build upon the movement you’ve played such a huge role in creating. Not only can we provide real economic alternatives to austerity, defend the trade unions and make the argument for urgent climate action, but we can also start to imagine an entirely different future – of a new social settlement, an economy that provides decent pay and allows people to flourish outside of work too. Crucially, a new politics will provide a constitutional framework which hands power from Westminster back into the hands of voters.

The old politics is crumbling, not just in Britain but across our continent. We now have the chance to embrace a movement based not on greed or fear, but on resilient local communities, people working together and a stable economy that works for generations to come. I truly hope you win the contest on 12 September – and I look forward to continuing to work with you to bring about the progressive politics that has inspired us both for so many years.

In solidarity,

Caroline Lucas
Green MP for Brighton Pavilion

 

[treelover]

Caroline would be an asset to any party, if they can have Tories crossing the floor, then they can have an alliance with the Greens.

 

[andysays]

I think it's worth recognising the difficult position Labour are in: when they brought in these new rules, the likelyhood of someone like Corbyn getting on the ballot - let alone becoming the runaway frontrunner - was preposterous. Had he not done, there would be no issues with these few hundred thousand extra voters as they just wouldn't be joining up.

As it is, they do have a duty to check each applicant, not least because there's been a visible campaign from a number of non-labour organisations to join and affect the vote - and as everyone is joining to vote Corbyn, then it stands to reason that most of the people being refused are people who were going to vote Corbyn.

I agree that they're in a difficult position having to administer the thing fairly quickly, but it's also worth pointing out that this was to some extent predicible as anyone who wants a vote either as a TU member or a £3 sign up has to register specifically to vote in this election. I'm not sure if existing members have to apply or if they're checked out and included automatically - maybe somew one who isa member can clarify, if such a person exists here.

So it's an over-simplification to suggest that everyone who's joining will be intending to vote for Corbyn, though presumably many of them will, and wouldn't be joining at all were he not standing.

Finally, I really don't see how you can square this claim

They need to have - and be seen to have - a rigorous screening process, and have a very small amount of time to do the screening: I suspect once the dust has settled most of the people booted will be those with a provable connection to another party, rather than them just refusing anyone who looks a bit lefty.

with the numbers already published and discussed above.

 

[DotCommunist]

a cynic might say she's atemting to stop a heamorrhage of members in the event of a corbyn win

 

[killer b]

Finally, I really don't see how you can square this claim

They need to have - and be seen to have - a rigorous screening process, and have a very small amount of time to do the screening: I suspect once the dust has settled most of the people booted will be those with a provable connection to another party, rather than them just refusing anyone who looks a bit lefty.

with the numbers already published and discussed above.

here, I done that already.

Most of those 60,000 are people who've let their membership lapse, false names or duplicates. Only 3000 trots, tories & greens, which sounds like a reasonable number to me.