Labour leadership

[andysays]

Must be costing a fortune that

Hence my reference to the Blue Monday sleeve

 

[Wilf]

Again, far be it for me to defend the LP, but they will be checking people as they attempt to register, not once they have actually voted (of course, they may calculate that the majority of those attempting to sign up who are disqualified through being members of rival parties will be Corbyn supporters, but that's something else)

Yes, I know, just my attempt at a feeble jest on how crude this whole thing is. It's been amusing watching the campaign against corbyn starting to roll in the last week or so. All the press stories about hamas, the opinion pieces on being out of power for a lifetime, john mann's selling his child protection rep for crude inner party advantage, the infiltration stories, all the 'we didn't really want you to vote for the candidate we allowed you to'. There are headless chickens everywhere shaking their, err, heads in despair.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Hard right Blairites, they seem to be getting more coverage than the thirty failed candidates who came out for J/C last week, surprise.

But they're 'devastatingly frank' and 'not from one wing of the party.'


Honest.

 

[treelover]

I'd like to believe that if there was a concerted campaign to recruit new members to vote for Liz Kendall that this would be monitored in the same way.

I've been involved in (non-political) elections at work and I'd want to know what was happening if the electorate suddenly leapt beyond double figures.

What is Progress, if not an independently funded(Lord Sainsbury, etc) entryist organisation, they never investigate them.

Corbyn will.

 

[two sheds]

you can't join two parties that are going to be competing with each other at elections ffs. it's not right imo. how can you be in a party and then say do canvassing for the NHA knocking on peoples doors saying why other parties inc Labour don't care as much about health as you do etc and then go canvassing for Labour?

I'd hope that they'd form some form of coalition during government. Yes I wouldn't leaflet for NHA again if I felt Labour would get in and reverse privatization (I wouldn't campaign for Labour either though). Although I really do like the NHA aims, if it was a question of joining/voting for them which lets the tories in and labour which gets the tories out, then sorry no contest.

Perhaps people should unjoin the one party before joining the other. Again, I'd see that as down to them - if the aims are overlapping, then I don't see a problem with it. Fine to disagree with people doing it, but I don't see it as being hypocritical as some are saying.

Could call people who aren't voting for *any* political party hypocritical for demanding that other people choose a single party to join. I don't think it helps to use those words - setting left against left which will just let the right run riot as they have done.

 

[treelover]

I don't think there'd be much need would there? Where would they come from?

I'd suggest pointing and laughing would be the appropriate response there.

Twenty years ago, you could have said the same about the 'project' and the proto blairites.

 

[treelover]

It would be interesting to get a breakdown of people who've signed up. My guess is that most of them are returners or people who've not been members of any party before?

a large % are young people under 30, some who haven't even voted before.

 

[frogwoman]

Joining (as opposed to voting) and becoming actively involved in a political party is a serious commitment, and people should be serious about it, it shouldnt be taken lightly. it wouldn't be fair on your comrades who are serious about the party's aims if you joined two parties and then went to campaign for both of them say during an election if you were trying to get two competing candidates elected in the same seat.

 

[butchersapron]

Why can't all the parties and politicians all get together and agree on the way forward?

Basic principle is that only those subject to the outcome of an election/other similar process get to vote/speak etc. That's utterly central and is, in fact, one of the core arguments for how/why to democratise society, esp regarding economic democracy. Bit daft to chuck that overboard for a bit of post-modern political consumerism - ooh i want one of them, and them and two of them.

 

[Libertad]

There's a lot of liberal hand-wringing in this thread. Is there a case to be made for furthering the struggle through the "By any means necessary" route?

(This is a rhetorical question and I haven't taken up Labour's kind offer of supporter status btw.)

 

[butchersapron]

a large % are young people under 30, some who haven't even voted before.

What %? How do you know this?

 

[butchersapron]

There's a lot of liberal hand-wringing in this thread. Is there a case to be made for furthering the struggle through the "By any means necessary" route?

(This is a rhetorical question and I haven't taken up Labour's kind offer of supporter status btw.)

What struggle here though? And against who and for who and with who?

 

[belboid]

I find it hard to give a fuck about people dicking about with Labour. Dishonest turds vs dishonest turds.

On a side note. How about non-Labour voters? I've only voted Labour once in my life, in a Mayoral election. Wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire tbh. But in theory they should be 'my' party. Certainly always been the family party. So am I hypocritical for signing up as a supporter only as long as the guy I back wins? How about if I'd joined TUSC rather than just donating? Would I be a hypocritical turd for wanting to reclaim a say in the LP? Assuming that I might follow that up with the right result?

well, you couldn't join TUSC, as they are an even less democratic organisation than Labour.

Voters can, of course, do what they like. They haven't been a member of a rival political party. I do think you should only sign up if you actually intend to support the party, but it isn't against the rules to just sign up and vote, so that's okay.

 

[YouSir]

What struggle here though? And against who and for who and with who?

Me, against all of you. Come get some, I'll have you all.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

There's a lot of liberal hand-wringing in this thread. Is there a case to be made for furthering the struggle through the "By any means necessary" route?

I think escalating it to armed struggle is probably not appropriate at this point.

 

[Kaka Tim]

But they're 'devastatingly frank' and 'not from one wing of the party.'


Honest.

I notice that article talks about how "on the the doorstep" there was concern that labour were "demonising the private sector" . Where were these doorsteps? Non-dom row in mayfair?

 

[Dogsauce]

But they're 'devastatingly frank' and 'not from one wing of the party.'


Honest.

"Polly", "Will", "Rowena", all good solid everyday working class monikers there.

 

[butchersapron]

Green party constitutionally don't allow members of other parties to join btw. I wonder why. Labour too.

 

[butchersapron]

"Polly", "Will", "Rowena", all good solid everyday working class monikers there.

4 of the 7 are oxbridge. They're all bubble people - just the right-wing side of it. BBC, guardian, interns etc

 

[killer b]

For my part it isn't liberal handwringing so much as surprise that anyone would expect anything else to happen - it's totally standard to boot out members of rival parties as and when they're discovered. How could it work any other way?

Checks were always going to happen, they're just being highlighted now to steady the troops (and presumably scare rival party members off from bothering - I'd be surprised if they're in as much detail as she suggests).

 

[leyton96]

well, you couldn't join TUSC, as they are an even less democratic organisation than Labour.

Don't be daft. TUSC is a coalition. I'd say the internal democracy of the groups involved like the SP and the RMT is far more democratic than the LP. Hell the SWP is probably more democratic in some ways. Anyone, whether a group or an individual standing for, TUSC can put out what ever they like in their public material so long as it doesn't conflict with the very basic minimum anti-cuts, anti-racist program of TUSC. You can't do that in the Labour Party. The only power the TUSC Steering Committee has is the power to approve candidates standing under it's name and to put out public statements in the name of TUSC as a whole. That's a far cry from the LP.
TUSC is 100 times more democratic than the Labour Party.

 

[frogwoman]

Don't be daft. TUSC is a coalition. I'd say the internal democracy of the groups involved like the SP and the RMT is far more democratic than the LP. Hell the SWP is probably more democratic in some ways. Anyone, whether a group or an individual standing for, TUSC can put out what ever they like in their public material so long as it doesn't conflict with the very basic minimum anti-cuts, anti-racist program of TUSC. You can't do that in the Labour Party. The only power the TUSC Steering Committee has is the power to approve candidates standing under it's name and to put out public statements in the name of TUSC as a whole. That's a far cry from the LP.
TUSC is 100 times more democratic than the Labour Party.

Have the sp still got the slate system?

 

[belboid]

Don't be daft. TUSC is a coalition. I'd say the internal democracy of the groups involved like the SP and the RMT is far more democratic than the LP. Hell the SWP is probably more democratic in some ways. Anyone, whether a group or an individual standing for, TUSC can put out what ever they like in their public material so long as it doesn't conflict with the very basic minimum anti-cuts, anti-racist program of TUSC. You can't do that in the Labour Party. The only power the TUSC Steering Committee has is the power to approve candidates standing under it's name and to put out public statements in the name of TUSC as a whole. That's a far cry from the LP.
TUSC is 100 times more democratic than the Labour Party.

lol. A distraction, but.....

Individuals have zero say in TUSC, it is a miserably failed lash up, each of whom can block anything being agreed as policy. There are no candidate selections, just the sects imposing their choices. If you think that is 'democratic' then you dont understand the word.

 

[treelover]

What %? How do you know this?

Its been mentioned on JC Twitter and Kat Fletcher who is JC's volunteer teams manager.

 

[treelover]

just to repeat and clarify, when twenty seven Labour candidates wrote a letter supporting Corbyn they were described by the Guardian as 'disappointed Labour candidates'. But the seven right wing/blairites post a critique of Ed' leadership and they suddenly become "well regarded".

these included Will Straw, Guardian change the record.

 

[Libertad]

I think escalating it to armed struggle is probably not appropriate at this point.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

there are a few SP members (not the leaders afaic) ive seen saying they're going to try to join the LP and vote for corbyn while still remaining members of the SP!! It's quite ridiculous, it shows that they don't really believe it's ideas, the whole spiel when Taffe and Co left in the 80s was that Labour had become a totally bourgeois party rather than a bourgeois workers' party as their previous analysis, I remember all the discussions on this when I was a member. Thats why TUSC and the "campaign for a new workers' party" was launched

The thing with the Militant (and the SWP for that matter) is that despite the strategy and rhetoric they can't quite break with Labourism and still see it as the party 'of the class' to varying degrees at different moments.

It says something that months after the election that some in the SP would rather throw their lot in with a social democrat like Corbyn than try to develop a pro working class voice in the communities that they stood for election in.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Individuals have zero say in TUSC, it is a miserably failed lash up, each of whom can block anything being agreed as policy. There are no candidate selections, just the sects imposing their choices. If you think that is 'democratic' then you dont understand the word.

I'll take your word for it.

A more important point (and one which is actually linked to the thread) is the extent to which SP members and others have abandoned or are considering junking the 'fight for a new workers party' in favour of helping Corbyn win the leadership of a non workers party?

 

[Pickman's model]

What %? How do you know this?

it's a treelover fact

 

[Libertad]

What struggle here though? And against who and for who and with who?

I've just written a long rambling post in an attempt to clarify what it was that I was referring to but it was shit so I'll summarise it like this:

There is an argument supporting entryism that goes vote Corbyn and he takes Labour to the left and small gains may be achieved for the working class either through electoral victory or at least in blocking the worst excesses of vermin legislation. OR vote Corbyn and the Labour party's right wing split off in a huff SDP style and what's left is then shown to be an inadequate force unable to achieve the change that's necessary. Both of the above presupposing a Corbyn victory which atm is not certain.

Neither outcome is really going to further the way towards a socialist society at a speed that many would wish but in themselves both have their merits. Both would serve to show that the Labour party is not the machine capable of bringing about the fundamental societal changes that are needed.

In short, vote Corbyn to fuck the Labour party and speed up the incremental process that will lead to a socialist society.