The UK political parties - what's going on?? thread.

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy
Every election loss is always complicated.
I meant changes to leadership election rules. They were pretty much as before other than introducing a very sensible period before a new party member could vote.
The rules changes last year gave the NEC more veto power over constituency party decisions. This, I believe, was so that motions in support of Corbyn or in solidarity with expelled members, or even the sharing of information like letters of resignation could be suppressed.

They also upped the number of local votes needed to recall an elected MP or councillor, part of the hardly used but important means to hold them accountable to their electors.

There is quite a lot to indicate the right wing of the party actively undermined the second general election for Labour, diverting funds to safe seats, and spreading false accusations of anti-semitism.

The political situation in the middle east is not as comfortable as here. Can we let that pass in order to appease stealth fascism in our back yard? Hell!
 

theclaud

Active Member
The Party is the same party, with the same rules, as when Corbyn was leader
Starmer and Evans have been furiously trying to rewrite the rules, and attempted to abolish one-member-one-vote. They didn't get away with that, but they did succeed in transferring more power to MPs by moving the leadership nomination bar. These people are terrified of democracy. Instead of handwringing over what you dismiss as infighting or bickering without bothering about the detail of who is doing what to whom, why not try directing your irritation at the leadership when it is waging war on its own members?
 
Last edited:

FishFright

Active Member
Starmer and Evans have been furiously trying to rewrite the rules, and attempted to abolish one-member-one-vote. They didn't get away with that, but they did succeed in transferring more power to MPs by moving the leadership nomination bar. These people are terrified of democracy. Instead of handwringing over what you dismiss as infighting or bickering without bothering about the detail of who is doing what to whom, why not try directing your irritation at the leadership when it is waging war on its own members?

The amount of damage this is doing to grass root support is not to be underestimated.
Friends of mine have been expelled from the party and they were in no way hard leftists but were highly critical of Starmer's style of un-opposition in the local and regional debates.
 

Rusty Nails

Oh yes he is!
The rules changes last year gave the NEC more veto power over constituency party decisions. This, I believe, was so that motions in support of Corbyn or in solidarity with expelled members, or even the sharing of information like letters of resignation could be suppressed.
You may be right, or not, with the reasoning behind these rule changes. When you say "I believe" is this because you have seen evidence it is true or because of what you believe the reasoning to be. I do not necessarily see it as unfair in general that a large organisation would want to ensure consistency of approach across its constituent parts.
They also upped the number of local votes needed to recall an elected MP or councillor, part of the hardly used but important means to hold them accountable to their electors.
I also believe that there is a debate to be had about the number of local votes needed for a recall to ensure the system cannot be abused or swayed by a small number. I do not know what the optimum number should be.
There is quite a lot to indicate the right wing of the party actively undermined the second general election for Labour, diverting funds to safe seats, and spreading false accusations of anti-semitism.

The political situation in the middle east is not as comfortable as here. Can we let that pass in order to appease stealth fascism in our back yard? Hell!
From what I read in the highly partisan Novara about communications between party officers it shows shameful attitudes in a dysfunctional party, which has been going on for years, but not an active undermining of the party's election chances. I have no doubt that similar communications would take place in reverse within the party about a Starmer led election.
The anti-semitism debate has certainly been overblown, especiall wrt Corbyn, but I didn't realise all the allegations about anti-semitism within the party were false.
Stealth fascism here or in the Middle East?
Starmer and Evans have been furiously trying to rewrite the rules, and attempted to abolish one-member-one-vote. They didn't get away with that, but they did succeed in transferring more power to MPs by moving the leadership nomination bar. These people are terrified of democracy. Instead of handwringing over what you dismiss as infighting or bickering without bothering about the detail of who is doing what to whom, why not try directing your irritation at the leadership when it is waging war on its own members?
I do not see the rule changes as "waging war on its own members", but more a reasonable system to install checks and balances between members, constituencies, affiliates and elected MPs, especially not giving registered members a vote in the election. At the vote stage the members still have the final say.

There is no one single form of democracy for a country and certainly not for an organisation where self-selecting people pay a fee to join and vote to influence issues.
 

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy
Stealth fascism here or in the Middle East?
A clip from Adam and swansonj on the Brexit thread that led to this one is what suggested stealth fascism.

"....Is it really good enough to 'just not be the Tories' ?..."
"Just at the moment, my answer is, yes it is. Our country hangs on a perilously thin thread between abandoning democracy for a version of fascism."

I don't usually hope for much from the Labour party, but voting for it now would be particularly defeatist. It's used the most disgraceful tactics for 'electability'. Such tactics should be beyond countenance.

Devious media populism in opposition paves the way for fascism as much as devious right wing think tanks.
 
Last edited:

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy

Adam4868

Senior Member
A clip from Adam and swansonj on the Brexit thread that led to this one is what suggested stealth fascism.

"....Is it really good enough to 'just not be the Tories' ?..."
"Just at the moment, my answer is, yes it is. Our country hangs on a perilously thin thread between abandoning democracy for a version of fascism."

I don't usually hope for much from the Labour party, but voting for it now would be particularly defeatist. It's used the most disgraceful tactics for 'electability'. Such tactics should be beyond countenance.

Devious media populism in opposition paves the way for fascism as much as devious right wing think tanks.
I left Labour because of Blair...and was suprised as many were when Corbyn got the gig.But he brought me back ! Bit of hope so to speak !
I remember Mcdonnell saying something along the lines of "the closer we get to power the worse it will get" now I sort of expected the media lies and smears but from his own MPs within the party ffs...
So it's not that I've left Labour more that they've left me.Starmer himself knows this and chooses to play along against Corbyn,a man who stood with him as a friend !
Shame on him and all the decent Labour left leaning supporters that he's lost.Obviously had wealthier donors elsewhere....now I wonder who :rolleyes:
 

Rusty Nails

Oh yes he is!
Devious media populism in opposition paves the way for fascism as much as devious right wing think tanks.
Here is one definition of fascism:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

There are others. What is the definition of fascism that you think the Labour Party are leading us to? I know political terms are usually subjective but I really believe we are nowhere near fascism and that its use here trivialises the term.

There is a difference between fascism and the sorts of devious political and structural manoeuvring that go on in all types of organisations to maintain control.
 

slowmotion

Member
Here is one definition of fascism:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

There are others. What is the definition of fascism that you think the Labour Party are leading us to? I know political terms are usually subjective but I really believe we are nowhere near fascism and that its use here trivialises the term.

There is a difference between fascism and the sorts of devious political and structural manoeuvring that go on in all types of organisations to maintain control.
Accusations of fascism are chucked around like confetti in some quarters. It's become an almost meaningless insult.
 

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy
Here is one definition of fascism:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

There are others. What is the definition of fascism that you think the Labour Party are leading us to? I know political terms are usually subjective but I really believe we are nowhere near fascism and that its use here trivialises the term.

There is a difference between fascism and the sorts of devious political and structural manoeuvring that go on in all types of organisations to maintain control.
In a rough sketch I could describe fascism as authoritarian rule by the stick rather than the carrot, but it's the carrot that gets a population to a state where that becomes acceptable.

I think Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World both amounted to fictional fascisms. I don't think nationalism per se is necessary for a modern version of fascism, as Neoliberalism is a global phenomenon.

I don't say Labour is leading us to fascism, I say rather that we can't 'tolerate this' - populism without principle - because that will be fertile ground for fascism, of some strain. Disabled people have already died after flawed work capability assessments and benefit cuts.

I think media hegemony and censorship are aspects of a fascistic world. A two party state where both parties are essentially the same is too - opposition is effectively gone. I see no fundamental reason why something amounting to fascism cannot be administrated by a committee rather than a dictator either. Free speech has been throttled on major internet platforms and a lot of people seem to think this is a good idea, because they disagree with the suppressed ideas. I think no idea is dangerous if it is given intelligent scrutiny. I'm with Voltaire on that.

As for severe economic and social regimentation, well the mutual societies are almost all transformed to banks and most of us owe them, sometimes for our very homes. We have widespread precarious employment where conditions are akin to economic bondage - people can't go sick without arranging their own cover or paying fines. People have being tricked into buying flats they can't sell, under shared ownership - more debt bondage. Subjects like Art and Engineering in Universities now carry compulsory business modules. The National Curriculum is a prescription for limitation. I'd say we're about half way there.

I'd also say we need to wake up to genuine community green energy control because the Neo-liberal 'green' world model could otherwise frame the excuse for the other half.
 

Rusty Nails

Oh yes he is!
In a rough sketch I could describe fascism as authoritarian rule by the stick rather than the carrot, but it's the carrot that gets a population to a state where that becomes acceptable.

I think Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World both amounted to fictional fascisms. I don't think nationalism per se is necessary for a modern version of fascism, as Neoliberalism is a global phenomenon.

I don't say Labour is leading us to fascism, I say rather that we can't 'tolerate this' - populism without principle - because that will be fertile ground for fascism, of some strain. Disabled people have already died after flawed work capability assessments and benefit cuts.

I think media hegemony and censorship are aspects of a fascistic world. A two party state where both parties are essentially the same is too - opposition is effectively gone. I see no fundamental reason why something amounting to fascism cannot be administrated by a committee rather than a dictator either. Free speech has been throttled on major internet platforms and a lot of people seem to think this is a good idea, because they disagree with the suppressed ideas. I think no idea is dangerous if it is given intelligent scrutiny. I'm with Voltaire on that.

As for severe economic and social regimentation, well the mutual societies are almost all transformed to banks and most of us owe them, sometimes for our very homes. We have widespread precarious employment where conditions are akin to economic bondage - people can't go sick without arranging their own cover or paying fines. People have being tricked into buying flats they can't sell, under shared ownership - more debt bondage. Subjects like Art and Engineering in Universities now carry compulsory business modules. The National Curriculum is a prescription for limitation. I'd say we're about half way there.

I'd also say we need to wake up to genuine community green energy control because the Neo-liberal 'green' world model could otherwise frame the excuse for the other half.
Most of the problems you write about have been around in some form to greater or lesser degree for the whole of my adult life, and if you try hard enough you can theoretically link almost any particular unpleasant or pre/restrictive aspect of political/economic life to an aspect of fascism, but taken as a whole they come nowhere near fascism, unless the modern version of fascism is an extremely anaemic version of the old.

I do agree that most of the issues you mention are very unpleasant, and probably avoidable, aspects of life today, and can agree fully with your views on freedom of speech, even, or especially, when that speech is offensive to some, but do not share your view that this is part of drifting into fascism
 
Top Bottom