If the Labour Party didn't exist, would anyone today invent it?

kinger101

Conrad wrote: »

Compensation fought long and hard for by left wing ooman rights lawyers, some of whom become Labour MP's and big wigs such as Chakrabarty.


People are dismayed by these greedy seekers of compassion status, that amass power and wealth by choosing to throw their energies and passions behind those most of us would deport in a seconds notice, or chasing down soldiers for profit.


The public view the left and all these defenders of charlatans and spongers as one and the same, that's the point

Chakrabarti has never been an MP. She is a member of the House of Lords. The case wasn't heard in court. It was settled out of court to prevent information on how our security services operate being revealed in court. There is no certainty that the terrorist was entitled to compensation.

Your simply listing things you don't like and them blaming the "left" for them. Given the "left" can't even agree with itself out the moment, I don't see how your portrayal of them is accurate. I've never regarded the Labour Party as being a defender of my human rights. I specifically didn't vote for Brown as the identity card was a red line for me.

You're more tiresome even than Corbyn's followers in their portrayal of the right. There's a whole wealth of ground in the middle, as every party who's won an election in recent times is all too aware. I bet Cameron was jumping for joy in 2010 when he got to work with the liberals rather than the more rightwing elements within his own pary.

antrobus

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

I do like how you select your arguments with blinkers on. What proportion of the Conservative membership is over 65? Does this mean that the party only represents pensioners and only pensioners vote for it? ...

You miss the point. The Labour Party membership/supporter base has twice now voted pretty clearly for that nice Mr Corbyn. Therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that they support his policies. If you are of the opinion, and many are, that Corbyn's policies are a hotch-potch of the usual pseudo-Marxist nonsense, that the electorate will never fall for, no matter how drunk they get, then this could well be a problem if you want the Labour Party to have some kind of future.

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

..Just remind us how many party members voted for May to be leader? At least Labour held a democratice leadership contest that went to the membership....

They didn't have to. May was the only candidate left standing after the MPs had voted. She ended up being the first choice of 60% of the Parliamentary Conservative Party.

The Labour Party, on the other hand, has a different mechanism, and the Parliamentary Labour Party does not get to whittle down to the candidate list. But we do know that some 80% of the PLP have expressed no confidence in that nice Mr Corbyn, so we can have a guess at what the result would have been.

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

....I am a swing voter, for choice I wouldn't have voted at all since 1997 as I wasn't happy with my local candidates or the wider political parties. I live in one of those towns where you could pin a rosette on a donkey and it would win so the opposition candidates are fodder. However until the government makes voting compulsory and adds the "none of the above" box I shall contine to vote for the least offensive option at each election....

What's wrong with simply not voting? Millions do it. Even in those countries with so-called 'compulsory voting'.:)

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

....None of the major political parties are fit for purpose, the electoral system is archaic, the vast majority of politicians don't represent the masses and the quality of some of the people attracted to politics is abysmal, hence the endless scandals and snouts in troughs. Until something is done to radically overhaul British politics it will continue ad infinitum.

What kind of radical overhaul would you like to see?

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

Yep, the £3 votes and the "diversity of candidates" nonsense started the mess. The token lefty thing effectively removed the only check the PLP had on candidate selection. Somehow they need to change to nomination process to get a two-candidate list for party members to vote on. No party should have a leader in which it's own MPs have no confidence....

Well, that's how the Conservatives do it.

kinger101 wrote: »

...I think it's going to be difficult but not impossible to claw back control of the party, but it will have to be done for the party to field a leader whom is electable.

I suspect that 80% of the PLP are hoping that the defeat in 2020 won't be that bad, and they will be able to get rid of him and get somebody like Starmer. I suspect that 20% of the PLP are hoping that 2020 won't be that bad at all, and they will be able to get rid of all those neo-Blairite quislings, and get somebody like, I don't know, Clive Lewis?

MyOnlyPost

antrobus wrote: »

You miss the point. The Labour Party membership/supporter base has twice now voted pretty clearly for that nice Mr Corbyn. Therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that they support his policies. If you are of the opinion, and many are, that Corbyn's policies are a hotch-potch of the usual pseudo-Marxist nonsense, that the electorate will never fall for, no matter how drunk they get, then this could well be a problem if you want the Labour Party to have some kind of future.

I am rebutting the notion that Labour only represents it's membership. Unfortunately it is always going to be those that are politically motivated that are members and activists but it doesn't necessarily follow that all Labour supporters have the same opinions

antrobus wrote: »

They didn't have to. May was the only candidate left standing after the MPs had voted. She ended up being the first choice of 60% of the Parliamentary Conservative Party.

The Labour Party, on the other hand, has a different mechanism, and the Parliamentary Labour Party does not get to whittle down to the candidate list. But we do know that some 80% of the PLP have expressed no confidence in that nice Mr Corbyn, so we can have a guess at what the result would have been.

I am perfectly aware of the electoral mechanism for the leader of both major parties. The Op is sounding off about the election of one party leader and I am simply reminding him that whether he, me or anyone likes the result at least the membership got a say, which didn't happen in the Conservative party. Is it better that a party leader is elected by thousands of activists or a few hundered loyalists?

antrobus wrote: »

What's wrong with simply not voting? Millions do it. Even in those countries with so-called 'compulsory voting'.:)

There's nothing wrong with it, but morally I feel obliged to vote. Too many people have made too many sacrifices in years gone by to ensure voting rights and in my opinion not to exercise that right is a slap in the afce to that history (I did study PPE mind )

antrobus wrote: »

YWhat kind of radical overhaul would you like to see?

Now that is a Big question:


An end to First Past The Post where 42% of the popular vote can lead to huge majorities and 12% gets you one MP

Abolition of the House of Lords in favour of a democratically elected 2nd chamber using a PR voting system and having far fewer numbers. A proper wage and no expenses

An end to career MP's who should have at least 10 years real world experience before being allowed to sit and maybe even maximum terms

MP's who's only job is to be a representative of the people, no directorships or other side jobs

Abolition of local councils in favour of regional assemblies which would achieve lower overall costs through economies of scale. Decentralisation of some powers to the assemblies and fewer MP's

An end to the disghusting abuse of expenses. When you are paid more than double the national average salary maybe you should be dipping into your own pocket a bit more. Lots of people have costs associated with work, we don't all get someone else to pay them.

Hotel or rental home allowance should only be available for MP's who's constituencies are outside commuting range.

An end to the archaic language and day to day chaos of the House of Commons in favour of proper respectful debate

An end to the culture where people are hounded out of posts for reasons not relevant to the job.

There's probably loads more but I'm too tired to think right now

kinger101

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

I am perfectly aware of the electoral mechanism for the leader of both major parties. The Op is sounding off about the election of one party leader and I am simply reminding him that whether he, me or anyone likes the result at least the membership got a say, which didn't happen in the Conservative party. Is it better that a party leader is elected by thousands of activists or a few hundered loyalists?

I'm not fully aware of the mechanisms of either party, but it sounds from what antrobus is saying that the Conservatives present it's membership with a shortlist of two candidates. Rather than a long list like Labour do. And Labour MP (e.g. Sadiq Khan) decided to invalidate their own internal checks by nominating a candidate whom they saw unfit for the role.

You've hit the nail on the head about activists, but any system than presents any more than two candidates to it's members, whom have the approval of the parliamentary party (or some other body representing the parties broader leadership), have opened themselves up to a coup. Even presenting 3 candidates is a bad idea. If you have two centre candidates and one extreme, the candidates closest to the consensus are likely to split votes and lose.

MyOnlyPost

kinger101 wrote: »

I'm not fully aware of the mechanisms of either party, but it sounds from what antrobus is saying that the Conservatives present it's membership with a shortlist of two candidates. Rather than a long list like Labour do. And Labour MP (e.g. Sadiq Khan) decided to invalidate their own internal checks by nominating a candidate whom they saw unfit for the role.

You've hit the nail on the head about activists, but any system than presents any more than two candidates to it's members, whom have the approval of the parliamentary party (or some other body representing the parties broader leadership), have opened themselves up to a coup. Even presenting 3 candidates is a bad idea. If you have two centre candidates and one extreme, the candidates closest to the consensus are likely to split votes and lose.

You are correct about the end result of the two main parties nomination processes. Conservative MP's vote for a leader and in each round the contender with the lowest votes is discarded and a new vote takes place with the remaining candidates. This is repeated until only two candidates are left.

The labour process is that candidates have to be nominated by an MP and then receive enough "seconders" to get on the ballot. In recent years a left winger has been nominated by a centrist MP (David Miliband nominated Diane Abbot in 2010) in order for their to be a balanced debate within the party, which is democracy in action if you think about it, giving someone a platform even though you don't agree with their views. The candidates are then put before the membership using the alternative vote system where voters rank in order their preference. Only one round of voting takes place and after the count the candidate with the lowest vote is discarded and their votes redistributed according to second preference. This continues until there is a clear majority.

antrobus wrote: »

They didn't have to. May was the only candidate left standing after the MPs had voted. She ended up being the first choice of 60% of the Parliamentary Conservative Party

I don't have a preference for one system over the other but May wasn't the last contender standing after the MP's voted in the last Conservative leadership race. The parliamentary party whittled it down to two nominations but these were never put to the wider membership as Andrea Leadsom then withdrew (after making a stupid comment about her opponenet, not for the good of the party) leaving Theresa May as the only candidate. The election system doesn't allow for a new contender so therefore Mrs May effectively ran unopposed. Also when whittling a list down to two candidates clearly one will always have a majority of votes so the 60% support is irrelevant. May could have won with a 90/10 split and Leadsom would have still had the right to got to the membership and seek election and just as Corbyn, could have won the popular vote so going against MP's wishes

So as I said we have one leader who was elected by a few hundred loyalists (MP's) and one leader who was elected by thousands of activists (lef wing party members). I think therefore it is wrong to disparage just one of the parties for their election process as neither is particularly good but you could certainly argue that Mr Corbyn's leadership has more legitimacy. I think the OP's argument is based on the fact he dislikes the man rather than the election process that got him to where he is.

antrobus

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

..I don't have a preference for one system over the other but May wasn't the last contender standing after the MP's voted in the last Conservative leadership race. The parliamentary party whittled it down to two nominations but these were never put to the wider membership as Andrea Leadsom then withdrew (after making a stupid comment about her opponenet, not for the good of the party) leaving Theresa May as the only candidate. ...

So "May wasn't the last contender standing after the MP's voted" but she was the "only candidate" left apparently.

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

.... I think therefore it is wrong to disparage just one of the parties for their election process...

Good to hear it. But does that mean to say that we can disparage all of the parties, as long as we are equal-ooportunity disparagers?:)

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

... I think the OP's argument is based on the fact he dislikes the man rather than the election process that got him to where he is.

No, the OP's argument is based on the fact that they 'dislike' the Labour Party. The leadership did not come into it. The first poster to mention the Labour leadership on this thread was some individual by the name of MyOnlyPost, who believed that with the current leadership it "won't get elected".

That is the kind of thing that worries Labour supporters. I'm not sure it worries westernpromise.:)

Conrad

03/03/2017
Labour have lost Kersal in Salford to the Tories. It was a Labour seat for decades and has gone blue despite Rebecca Long-Bailey’s best efforts to get out the vote yesterday. Results via Britain Elects:
CON: 42.0%
LAB: 27.3%
IND: 17.5%
UKIP: 9.0%
GRN: 2.4%
LDEM: 1.9%

westernpromise

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

I am rebutting the notion that Labour only represents it's membership. Unfortunately it is always going to be those that are politically motivated that are members and activists but it doesn't necessarily follow that all Labour supporters have the same opinions

Nobody's saying that. The contention is that if Khorbiyn can get 60% of the vote twice running he probably does speak for 60% of the party and therefore if he supports terrorists probably so do they. I don't think you can really cop out of this on Labour's behalf and claim that the leader doesn't reflect the party. If he doesn't why is he leader?

The Conservative system is designed to ensure that it has a leader the parliamentary party wants. This is why they get to vote. They removed Duncan Smith because they'd no confidence in him even though the grassroots thought he was great. Labour is unable to do this because the grassroots control who gets to be an MP and then they control who wins the leadership. They have thus stitched the PLP up with a wholly useless leader.

The fact of Labour's increasing membership is indirect proof of how loony they now are. Nobody is a vehement centrist foam-flecked with a desire for pragmatically non-extreme positions. Centrists hold mild views and don't bother to join parties. Loonies, whether of the hard right or hard left, certainly do and as a result any party with high membership probably represents extreme views.

MyOnlyPost

westernpromise wrote: »

Nobody's saying that. The contention is that if Khorbiyn can get 60% of the vote twice running he probably does speak for 60% of the party and therefore if he supports terrorists probably so do they. I don't think you can really cop out of this on Labour's behalf and claim that the leader doesn't reflect the party. If he doesn't why is he leader?

Yes the majority of the party supports Corbyn clearly but that is not the same as saying the majority of Labour supporters as most supporters will not be members, and this is the distinction I am making

westernpromise wrote: »

The fact of Labour's increasing membership is indirect proof of how loony they now are. Nobody is a vehement centrist foam-flecked with a desire for pragmatically non-extreme positions. Centrists hold mild views and don't bother to join parties. Loonies, whether of the hard right or hard left, certainly do and as a result any party with high membership probably represents extreme views.

This is the kind of balanced post I have been arguing for. Instead of lamenting one party accept that both major parties members are by enlarge extremists and neither party is really fit for purpose (governing the masses). Our pure political system is one of the best in the world (but could be improved), but is spoiled by political parties and power hungry individuals.