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

theclaud

Senior Member
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.

LOL there may be ' no single form or democracy' but it's an odd response to pointing out things that are unambiguously undemocratic. By 'waging war' I was referring to the purges in addition to the internal gerrymandering. Even post-Blair, the party's constitution describes it explicitly as a democratic socialist party. Starmer's instincts and behaviour are profoundly undemocratic - that's one thing if he were in charge of a corporate brand, but it's a disastrous failing in the leader of the largest political party in Europe, which explicitly exists to represent the interests of the many, not the few.

I sense you have a bee in your bonnet about the registered supporters' scheme, so perhaps I should remind you (again) that it was a Blairite initiative, and a miscalculation of proportions so epic as to be genuinely delusional. The irony remains delicious, even after everything that has happened since. Obviously Starmer is smart enough to have learned that extending the party franchise outwards takes the party leftwards - his counter-move was to try and restore the electoral college, which enabled a handful of MPs to veto what members want. Only in Newspeak can this count as any 'form of democracy'.
 

slowmotion

Regular
I joined the Labour Party in January 2020 with the sole purpose of voting in the leadership election. I think my three month minimum membership cost about £10.29. I voted for Starmer because I thought he was the only candidate who could possibly get elected sometime in the future unlike the others. Having a credible opposition in a parliamentary democracy mattered to me. Being principled doesn't matter a stuff if you can't get in the seat.
 

theclaud

Senior Member
I joined the Labour Party in January 2020 with the sole purpose of voting in the leadership election. I think my three month minimum membership cost about £10.29. I voted for Starmer because I thought he was the only candidate who could possibly get elected sometime in the future unlike the others. Having a credible opposition in a parliamentary democracy mattered to me. Being principled doesn't matter a stuff if you can't get in the seat.
Let us know how it goes on the doorstep. :okay:
 

Fab Foodie

Veteran
Let us know how it goes on the doorstep. :okay:
IIRC, Corbyn didn't go down well on the doorstep at the last election.

And there's the dilemma, finding somebody who is both a true socialist and electable with enough of a majority to be effective. Sadly I don't see it happening in the UK any time soon.
If there was a change in the electoral system to PR, then there's a far greater opportunity for a more socialist leaning government.
 

Adam4868

Guru
IIRC, Corbyn didn't go down well on the doorstep at the last election.

And there's the dilemma, finding somebody who is both a true socialist and electable with enough of a majority to be effective. Sadly I don't see it happening in the UK any time soon.
If there was a change in the electoral system to PR, then there's a far greater opportunity for a more socialist leaning government.
Jeremy Corbyn won 40% of the vote in 2017 because he offered popular policies and hope.
Keir Starmer won't win 40% of the vote because he doesn't.
That's under much easier conditions aswell...wait till election time and the media decide who they want !
 

Fab Foodie

Veteran
Jeremy Corbyn won 40% of the vote in 2017 because he offered popular policies and hope.
Keir Starmer won't win 40% of the vote because he doesn't.
That's under much easier conditions aswell...wait till election time and the media decide who they want !
As you well know, vote share means Farkall under FPTP elections! (I think Corbyn got lucky in 2017).
Come 2019 Johnson got a landslide, that's all that matters....offering popular policies and hope....
I agree that the media has a huuge roll to play and again, Corbyn (sadly) fared poorly in this respect.

Sadly, having the right policies doth not a government make. It's a bit more complicated than that. The Tories know this and work the system to their advantage.
 
Last edited:

Adam4868

Guru
I wish....
Well, even you can't deny 'Get Brexit Done' and all his other 'lies' didn't have an impact!
Totally agree....but that was there only policy !
Whatever way you paint it...the last election was all about Brexit.
 

theclaud

Senior Member
Yep, and Labour didn't manage to convince....
Starmer was the architect of Labour's electorally disastrous second referendum policy at the 2019 election.You don't need to be a forensic four-dimensional chess master to figure out that it was going to piss people off big-time. What do you suppose he's got up his sleeve next?
 

Adam4868

Guru
2019... Labour can only win the general election if it supports a second referendum.
2021....Labour centrists don't mention that Keir Starmer tried to stop Brexit,the plan is keep quite its electorally toxic ^_^
 

theclaud

Senior Member
IIRC, Corbyn didn't go down well on the doorstep at the last election.

And there's the dilemma, finding somebody who is both a true socialist and electable with enough of a majority to be effective. Sadly I don't see it happening in the UK any time soon.
If there was a change in the electoral system to PR, then there's a far greater opportunity for a more socialist leaning government.
I was just amusing myself at Slowmo's expense. The anyone-but-Corbyn brigade aren't so great when it comes to owning the political situation they've created.
 

FishFright

Well-Known Member
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.

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.

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?

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.

But do you see the large number of expulsions of members that joined during Corbyn's leadership as reasonable too ?
 

Rusty Nails

Upright Member
I sense you have a bee in your bonnet about the registered supporters' scheme, so perhaps I should remind you (again) that it was a Blairite initiative, and a miscalculation of proportions so epic as to be genuinely delusional. The irony remains delicious, even after everything that has happened since. Obviously Starmer is smart enough to have learned that extending the party franchise outwards takes the party leftwards - his counter-move was to try and restore the electoral college, which enabled a handful of MPs to veto what members want. Only in Newspeak can this count as any 'form of democracy'.
Whoever decided it, it was a bad idea imo, in the same way as the union block vote was a bad idea. To be allowed a say in the running of a political party should require some demonstration of commitment e.g. minimum period of fee-paying membership. The internet and social media makes it much easier for concerted campaigns (even malevolent ones) to have a large impact.
Jeremy Corbyn won 40% of the vote in 2017 because he offered popular policies and hope.
And he was up against Theresa May, who even the Tories got rid of.
Starmer was the architect of Labour's electorally disastrous second referendum policy at the 2019 election.
What happened to executive responsibility. I thought Corbyn was in charge of policy as Leader of the party. Yes, it was bad advice and PR for Starmer to support a second referendum, but by doing that wasn't he sticking to his principles, which many say he has not done?
The anyone-but-Corbyn brigade aren't so great when it comes to owning the political situation they've created
You are right. As one who was not Corbyn's greatest fan it should have been 'almost anyone but Corbyn'. In hindsight Burnham would have been a much better choice in 2015 but the Corbyn bandwagon was too strong at that stage, before people realised he didn't have the ability to steer it. I accept my part in believing that Starmer was a better leader, and would have voted for him if I were still a party member. He has been very disappointing. It must be remembered that Corbyn was not kicked out but made a principled resignation because of the many electoral losses under his tenure. What else could he have done?
It should also be noted that Starmer is slowly getting more support in public polls, although that must be taken in the context of the disaster that is Johnson.
But do you see the large number of expulsions of members that joined during Corbyn's leadership as reasonable too ?
If you are talking about members of the groups proscribed by the NEC being expelled then I have no problem with that. Were those members who joined during Corbyn's leadership Labour supporters or people who may have seen the opportunity to move the party further to the left under the cult of "Oh Jeremy Corbyn"? AIUI many have left anyway since his defeat and the harsh reality of grown-up politics hitting, which is no great demonstration of their commitment.
I would not comment on individual cases without knowing the details.
 
Top Bottom