Scot Dutchy wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Maybe you should read what Corbyn has said about his leadership - no whipping, policy decided by the membership (which includes MPs as well as other members), so the whole party getting a say, and an essentially collaborative approach, rather than the top-down version where the leader doesn't so much lead as dictate the terms. It's about disseminating power in a democratic manner. He's said he'll appoint a broad-based cabinet, reflecting the range of opinion across the party (so not just yes-men & women & his political friends), with backbenchers joining committees to feed into each department. It's a different way of doing politics, this socialism thing.

Strange socialism to me but there you go. I think it is a recipe for a hen coup when not a single egg is produced.

Yeah, but what you think & facts on the ground, are two different things. And frankly, I don't think you'd recognise socialism if it bit you on the arse.

chairman bill wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Maybe you should read what Corbyn has said about his leadership - no whipping, policy decided by the membership (which includes MPs as well as other members), so the whole party getting a say, and an essentially collaborative approach, rather than the top-down version where the leader doesn't so much lead as dictate the terms. It's about disseminating power in a democratic manner. He's said he'll appoint a broad-based cabinet, reflecting the range of opinion across the party (so not just yes-men & women & his political friends), with backbenchers joining committees to feed into each department. It's a different way of doing politics, this socialism thing.

Strange socialism to me but there you go. I think it is a recipe for a hen coup when not a single egg is produced.

Yeah, but what you think & facts on the ground, are two different things. And frankly, I don't think you'd recognise socialism if it bit you on the arse.

A talking shop has nothing to do with socialism. Dont judge everyone by your level of knowledge. Dont mix up Marxism with modern day Social Democracy which has Corbyn has nothing in common with.

chairman bill wrote:

Emmeline wrote:How is he going to deliver on his manifesto then?

What manifesto? He's put forward policy ideas - things he'd be in favour of discussing & maybe taking forward as Labour Party policy. In terms of power & democracy, he's been quite clear - empowerment of the membership, a move towards collective decison making, and so on. If the party makes its own choices about policy, the manifesto for the next general election will be determined by the Party, not a select group chosen by one person.

His manifesto is his collected policies on various topics, which he's published. Presumably he'll want to appoint people into his shadow cabinet who'll support those policies so he can deliver on them for all the people who will have voted for him to be leader on the basis of his policies.

Are you saying he'll just drop those policies if he can't get enough support for them across the PLP & wider party?

What do you make of Diane Abbot's statement that "some of those MPs criticising Corbyn would have to be loyal to the new leader - or face being deselected by their local parties."

Emmeline wrote:His manifesto is his collected policies on various topics, which he's published. Presumably he'll want to appoint people into his shadow cabinet who'll support those policies so he can deliver on them for all the people who will have voted for him to be leader on the basis of his policies.

Are you saying he'll just drop those policies if he can't get enough support for them across the PLP & wider party?

It would appear that way, from what he's saying - either drop them or modify them enough to get them through after further debate.

I must admit I'm failing to see why this is even an issue. It wouldn't occur to me for one moment that the policies ANY of the leadership candidates are espousing are just going to instantly become Labour policy as soon as they are elected. They're statements of intent and direction - the Labour party isn't run entirely by one person.

What do you make of Diane Abbot's statement that "some of those MPs criticising Corbyn would have to be loyal to the new leader - or face being deselected by their local parties."

Not sure, but it's worth noting that Dianne Abbot doesn't have any authority on the matter.

Beatsong wrote:the Labour party isn't run entirely by one person.

Some supporters of Corbyn seem to have a problem with this concept.

Beatsong wrote:

Emmeline wrote:His manifesto is his collected policies on various topics, which he's published. Presumably he'll want to appoint people into his shadow cabinet who'll support those policies so he can deliver on them for all the people who will have voted for him to be leader on the basis of his policies.

Are you saying he'll just drop those policies if he can't get enough support for them across the PLP & wider party?

It would appear that way, from what he's saying - either drop them or modify them enough to get them through after further debate.

I must admit I'm failing to see why this is even an issue. It wouldn't occur to me for one moment that the policies ANY of the leadership candidates are espousing are just going to instantly become Labour policy as soon as they are elected. They're statements of intent and direction - the Labour party isn't run entirely by one person.

No of course not but if a potential leader runs on a platform of policies, I'd expect them (if elected) to prioritise getting those policies accepted as party policies. If they don't do that, what's the point of a leadership candidate having any policies?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Beatsong wrote:the Labour party isn't run entirely by one person.

Some supporters of Corbyn seem to have a problem with this concept.

See when you post things like that you just demonstrate your absolute ignorance of the situation. You should try at least getting a little bit informed before just posting nonsense.

One of the most striking points Corbyn has made throughout the leadership contest is that he would make the Labour party LESS centralised, and open decision making up to MORE input from a LARGER number of people. So the idea that people are supporting him out of a desire for centrally-focused hero worship is counter-factual and ridiculous.

Personally I'm only voting for him because I hate beards.

Emmeline wrote:

I must admit I'm failing to see why this is even an issue. It wouldn't occur to me for one moment that the policies ANY of the leadership candidates are espousing are just going to instantly become Labour policy as soon as they are elected. They're statements of intent and direction - the Labour party isn't run entirely by one person.

No of course not but if a potential leader runs on a platform of policies, I'd expect them (if elected) to prioritise getting those policies accepted as party policies. If they don't do that, what's the point of a leadership candidate having any policies?

Of course. But there's no contradiction between prioritising getting a policy accepted as party policy, and accepting when one fails to do so due to too much opposition.

Scot Dutchy wrote:A talking shop has nothing to do with socialism. Dont judge everyone by your level of knowledge. Dont mix up Marxism with modern day Social Democracy which has Corbyn has nothing in common with.

FFS. Socialism is to do with equality & fairness, and government by the people, because an exclusive 'elite' isn't equality. This is why democracy is an integral part of socialism. What Corbyn is proposing, in devolving power & involving the many, is socialist.

As for your evidence-free assertion about Corbyn's proposals having nothing to do with social democracy, speaks to your ignorance of Corbyn's proposals, and/or social democracy.

Emmeline wrote:His manifesto is his collected policies on various topics, which he's published. Presumably he'll want to appoint people into his shadow cabinet who'll support those policies so he can deliver on them for all the people who will have voted for him to be leader on the basis of his policies.

He's said that he will appoint a range of people, to be representative of the views across the party. He's said that the party as a whole should determine policy, not just the leader, not just the (shadow) cabinet, and not just the PLP.

Are you saying he'll just drop those policies if he can't get enough support for them across the PLP & wider party?

That's pretty much what Corbyn has said

What do you make of Diane Abbot's statement that "some of those MPs criticising Corbyn would have to be loyal to the new leader - or face being deselected by their local parties."

It's a simple statement of fact. One of the changes Corbyn wants to see is the constituency parties deciding on their candidates for Parliament, rather than a group of apparatchiks in Labour HQ parachuting their preferred candidates into safe seats. That's part of that devolving power thing. If the constituency parties determine the candidates for the seat, those CLPs who voted for Corbyn might not be too enamoured with a Labour MP who is always trying to undermine him. That's the thing with democracy - those elected aren't guaranteed to always be in the positions they were once elected to.

chairman bill wrote:

Emmeline wrote:His manifesto is his collected policies on various topics, which he's published. Presumably he'll want to appoint people into his shadow cabinet who'll support those policies so he can deliver on them for all the people who will have voted for him to be leader on the basis of his policies.

He's said that he will appoint a range of people, to be representative of the views across the party. He's said that the party as a whole should determine policy, not just the leader, not just the (shadow) cabinet, and not just the PLP.

Are you saying he'll just drop those policies if he can't get enough support for them across the PLP & wider party?

That's pretty much what Corbyn has said

What do you make of Diane Abbot's statement that "some of those MPs criticising Corbyn would have to be loyal to the new leader - or face being deselected by their local parties."

It's a simple statement of fact. One of the changes Corbyn wants to see is the constituency parties deciding on their candidates for Parliament, rather than a group of apparatchiks in Labour HQ parachuting their preferred candidates into safe seats. That's part of that devolving power thing. If the constituency parties determine the candidates for the seat, those CLPs who voted for Corbyn might not be too enamoured with a Labour MP who is always trying to undermine him. That's the thing with democracy - those elected aren't guaranteed to always be in the positions they were once elected to.

This is a bit confusing isn't it? On the one hand it's all democracy & diversity of views across the party and on the other, it's threats of deselection for being 'disloyal'. Corbyn can't have it both ways can he.

Bourgeois counter-revolutionaries who try to undermine the great leader will naturally be deselected by their local parties.
But there will be NO pressure of any sort.

All members are equal and have an EQUAL say in policy making but of course some options will be more equal than others.

(EDIT)
It is not enough to obey the Labour party you must LOVE the party.

You see we are building a socialist paradise here and we will not tolerate thought crimes.

Soon we will be holding 'Hate week' on this site - where loyal party members can protest how they feel about our traditional enemies the liberal democrats.

It's not threats, and it's not about disloyalty per se. What it is is a simple statement of the facts, that when power of selecting MPs is properly devolved, MPs who are antagonistic towards the leader their constituency elected, are walking on dodgy ground.

Beatsong wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Beatsong wrote:the Labour party isn't run entirely by one person.

Some supporters of Corbyn seem to have a problem with this concept.

See when you post things like that you just demonstrate your absolute ignorance of the situation. You should try at least getting a little bit informed before just posting nonsense.

One of the most striking points Corbyn has made throughout the leadership contest is that he would make the Labour party LESS centralised, and open decision making up to MORE input from a LARGER number of people. So the idea that people are supporting him out of a desire for centrally-focused hero worship is counter-factual and ridiculous.

Personally I'm only voting for him because I hate beards.

Look I know exactly how a political party is run and I know it is not run by a single person.
I am saying certain Corbyn supporters dont seem to understand that.

More input from more people makes a talking shop which were well known under old fashioned socialist parties and trade unions. It gets you nowhere and modern social democracy has realised that. There has to be action. You must get a fixed agenda and stick to it. Corbyn is willing to change if not enough people agree with the proposal. Nothing will ever be agreed upon especially if they call each other "brother" and proposals need a 100% agreement.
It will be like the comedy film of the '50's "I'm Alright Jack". When meeting after meeting was called to discuss the amendment to the amendment to the amendment to the proposal.

Nothing will happen. Maybe that is what he wants?

chairman bill wrote:It's not threats, and it's not about disloyalty per se. What it is is a simple statement of the facts, that when power of selecting MPs is properly devolved, MPs who are antagonistic towards the leader their constituency elected, are walking on dodgy ground.

So that would only apply to the 152 CLPs who have backed Corbyn. That would leave about 500 CLPs who didn't back Corbyn wouldn't it?

Do we know how many MPs (and who) have CLPs that endorsed Corbyn? I googled and couldn't find anything.

Beatsong wrote:One of the most striking points Corbyn has made throughout the leadership contest is that he would make the Labour party LESS centralised, and open decision making up to MORE input from a LARGER number of people.

Isn't that how the Soviet Union was supposed to work too? And Cuba. And <insert any country that has tried state socialism here>.

CarlPierce wrote:Soon we will be holding 'Hate week' on this site - where loyal party members can protest how they feel about our traditional enemies the liberal democrats.

Labour has always been at war with Eastasia the Liberal Democrats

Strontium Dog wrote:

Beatsong wrote:One of the most striking points Corbyn has made throughout the leadership contest is that he would make the Labour party LESS centralised, and open decision making up to MORE input from a LARGER number of people.

Isn't that how the Soviet Union was supposed to work too? And Cuba. And <insert any country that has tried state socialism here>.

More of your fuckwittery. Explain how the USSR was socialist, and 'it had socilaist in the name, therefore it was socialist' isn't an explanation, it's just even more fuckwittery.

Emmeline wrote:

chairman bill wrote:It's not threats, and it's not about disloyalty per se. What it is is a simple statement of the facts, that when power of selecting MPs is properly devolved, MPs who are antagonistic towards the leader their constituency elected, are walking on dodgy ground.

So that would only apply to the 152 CLPs who have backed Corbyn. That would leave about 500 CLPs who didn't back Corbyn wouldn't it?

Possibly. There might well be other CLPs who are unhappy with the sitting MP that was foisted upon them at some time.

Do we know how many MPs (and who) have CLPs that endorsed Corbyn? I googled and couldn't find anything.

I've no idea

Strontium Dog wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:Soon we will be holding 'Hate week' on this site - where loyal party members can protest how they feel about our traditional enemies the liberal democrats.

Labour has always been at war with Eastasia the Liberal Democrats

Yet it was able to work with the Liberals in the 'LibLab Pact'. But otherwise, as competing political parties, yes of course there will be competition. It's also worth noting that the LibDems are equally antagonistic towards Labour.