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

kinger101

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

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.

It's a perversion of democracy. If enough MPs believed in their views, they wouldn't need the nomination or votes of those that don't.

MyOnlyPost

kinger101 wrote: »

It's a perversion of democracy. If enough MPs believed in their views, they wouldn't need the nomination or votes of those that don't.

So free speech is only for those who have enough support to warrant it? Free speech should be the ultimate measure of a democracy and free speech without a platform to speak on is worthless.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall

westernpromise

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

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



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.

Except that the two parties with a large membership in the UK are Labour and UKIP. This is proof positive that Labour are now extremist loonies.

This article is timely
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/labours-membership-drop-great-news-party/

and makes the same point.

The centrist party nobody bothers to join that is already doing what most people want is the Conservative Party.

westernpromise

kinger101 wrote: »

It's a perversion of democracy. If enough MPs believed in their views, they wouldn't need the nomination or votes of those that don't.

It's also a patronising bit of window dressing whereby MPs nominate a nutter who can then lose. Everyone then gets to feel good about themselves.

The wheels fell off this in 2015 when, thanks to Miliband's voting rules, the nutter won.

westernpromise

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

So free speech is only for those who have enough support to warrant it? Free speech should be the ultimate measure of a democracy and free speech without a platform to speak on is worthless.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall

It's nothing to do with free speech FGS. Nobody is saying Corbyn can't speak. "No-platforming" is a leftist thing. What people are saying is that Corbyn is a stupid nutter and his party not worth voting for because it stands for nothing that is not shameful and disgraceful. This is evident in polls on whether he is any good and in actual elections.

So we have the Tories on the centre ground, the Lib-Dems centre left and right out off the reservation we have UKIP and Labour. Where is the vacuum into which Labour now fits? What message does Labour have for voters in Tory marginals 50 to 60 (places like Staffordshire West, Worcester South, Crewe and Nantwich) that's a/ going to win them over from Tory to Labour and b/ not coming from the LibDems?

zagubov

Maybe there's no need for a party to the left of the Tories.

Perhaps the Tories will be able to deliver what society needs:
Good care facilities for the vulnerable; - basically us when we're getting on in years.
Good secure schools with a staff to pupil ratio that will meet students needs.
Leisure facilities where people can pass time. Doesn't have to be sports.
Transport efficient enough so you don't feel you need to use the car.
Good and varied affordable food and drink
Speedy efficient medical care.
A society policed well enough so we can be secure and safe.
Higher education that's flexible, affordable and available at a distance.
Good social housing we can afford and a strong rental sector to compete with the owner-occupier sector.

The fancy trainers, pricey phone packages, byzantine financial products,chelsea tractors and updated gaming machines we seem to be pouring our efforts into are pretty much a distraction. They should be a minor part of the economy we can indulge in when we've sorted the important stuff.

Or we could pretend that these fashionable fripperies are what we really need, and we should just grin and shut up about the other stuff we really need.

antrobus

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

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...

But registered supporters and affiliated supporters were even more in favour of Corbyn back in July than party members.

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

..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.

So what then, do you suggest should be done?

antrobus

Anyone interested in what is going inside Labour should read this;

The battle for Labour's future: A tale of two coups
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39113671

As previously explained;

Mr Corbyn only succeeded in getting on to the ballot in 2015 because some of those to his right "lent" support to "broaden the debate" following the party's unexpectedly bad election result. That simply wouldn't happen again.

And therefore;

at this year's annual party conference in September it is almost certain delegates will be given the option to reduce that threshold from 15% to just 5% - a much smaller hurdle for a left-wing candidate to overcome. That would mean a leadership candidate would need the backing of just 13 elected politicians instead of 37 before being able to put themselves forward to the wider membership. This has been dubbed the "McDonnell amendment" by Mr Corbyn's critics....But internal groups such as Labour First and Progress - put over-simply, Brownites and Blairites - are working closely together to try to prevent any of the above from succeeding.

The outcome of this internal squabble may well determine whether or not Labour becomes either (a) a centre-left or, (b) a left party.

And if you want to know what they are fighting over. This explains it;

The levels of support for Labour and a splinter party seem to be roughly the same regardless of which side of the party leaves. In both cases we would see around 20% of the vote going to Labour, about 13-14% going to the splinter group.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/who-gets-keep-voters/

Although, one could argue that 33%-34% was a bit of an overestimate of overall Labour voting intentions these days, and that perhaps 26%-27% would be more accurate.:)

MyOnlyPost

antrobus wrote: »

So what then, do you suggest should be done?

I don't suggest anything should be done. I am in no way defending Corbyn, I won't be voting for him.

The only reason I even started to post in this thread was the OP was highlighting negative aspects of the Labour Party whilst completely ignoring the negative aspects of the Conservatives.

To imply Blair is a war Criminal whilst forgetting Thatchers actions in the Falklands war
To accuse Labour of harbouring !!!!!philes whilst Heath is currently being investigated
To say labour has a history of corrupt immoral politicians whilst ignoring Archer, Hamilton etc. etc.

All I have ever said is throw the mud at both sides and not pick just one party to highlight their faults.

Zxcv_Bnm

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

I don't suggest anything should be done. I am in no way defending Corbyn, I won't be voting for him.

The only reason I even started to post in this thread was the OP was highlighting negative aspects of the Labour Party whilst completely ignoring the negative aspects of the Conservatives.

To imply Blair is a war Criminal whilst forgetting Thatchers actions in the Falklands war
To accuse Labour of harbouring !!!!!philes whilst Heath is currently being investigated
To say labour has a history of corrupt immoral politicians whilst ignoring Archer, Hamilton etc. etc.

All I have ever said is throw the mud at both sides and not pick just one party to highlight their faults.

The problem with that is that it's Labour who are at 24% in the polls and intent on polling worse. Tories are at 44%ish and doing fine. Seems plenty of people get what they're for.

Its not about who did or didn't do what 35 years ago, its about what is Labour for NOW?

Cant see anything myself.