Emmeline wrote:

chairman bill wrote: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.

CarlPierce wrote: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.

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.

Beatsong wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

chairman bill wrote: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.

Once more it doesn't need to be confusing, as there's no contradiction.

Once the party is opened up to democracy and greater power on the part of local CLPs, one of the things that MIGHT emerge from that is dissatisfaction on the part of those CLPs with the MPs that have been appointed to "represent" them.

chairman bill wrote:

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.

Corbyn and his supporters have attempted to defend his actions in a number of ways. One is to scream “smear” a lot. A second is to claim no anti-semitism or extremism was expounded by these men in his presence. And I suppose it is conceivable he may have been duped by the odd Holocaust denier or Blood Libeler. But it is odd he has only become aware of their duplicity just at the point when he is running for the Labour leadership.

Their third justification is that Mr Corbyn feels it necessary to sit with people with a range of views (some of them unsettling), in his search for a solution to the decades-long Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Fine. Let us set aside the salient point that the events in question were not debates or seminars, but campaign rallies and steering meetings. And ignore the fact that no one from the pro-Israeli side of the argument appears to have been invited along to assist Mr Corbyn in his tireless quest for peace.

And instead let’s consider this. Imagine if an MP attempting to understand growing public sensitivities around immigration invited Nick Griffin to the House of Commons, along with a member of the fascist-terror group Combat 18. Imagine if he greeted these guests as friends while admitting that even though he didn’t agree with everything they said, he wanted to keep a dialogue open on this vital issue. What would the reaction be? What would Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters do?

The Labour party used to be clear on this stuff. Zero-tolerance of racism. Zero-tolerance of apologists for racism. No platform for racism.

And now that’s gone. It’s all gone. Holocaust deniers. Blood Libelers. Anti-semitic conspiracy theorists. Terrorist sympathisers. Terrorists. We are Labour. How wide and how high would you like your platform to be?

Strontium Dog wrote:The Labour Party's Dan Hodges ...

Nietzschean wrote:
I will be following this thread to get some unique perspectives on the UK

There is much in this report that will make for uncomfortable reading for the Labour Party. That comes with the territory of losing a General Election. We have lost our connection with millions of people. The onus is now on us to show that we are listening, learning the lessons of defeat and that we are willing to act on them if we are to win back their confidence.

It is clear that UKIP played a significant role in Labour’s defeat on May 7th. They may only have retained a single seat, but UKIP cost Labour many constituencies that we needed to win and contributed to our defeat in several communities we never expected to lose. It proved once and for all that any idea that UKIP posed no threat to Labour, or that they were a greater problem for the Conservatives, was complacent and misguided. Nigel Farage has not only made good on his promise to park UKIP’s tanks on Labour’s lawn – he has driven them through the front door and crashed them into our living room.

There are three broad trends in how UKIP damaged Labour’s prospects across England and Wales:
1. Labour was challenged in our Traditional Heartlands: UKIP achieved dramatic swings in seats like Heywood & Middleton, Dagenham & Rainham and Hartlepool. 63 of the 100 seats where UKIP made their greatest inroads were Labour constituencies, helping them achieve 44 second places in communities that elected Labour MPs.

2. Our path to victory was blocked in many Marginal Battlegrounds: There was a UKIP swing of 10% or greater in more than a third of the 106 key marginals Labour was targeting in order to form a government. This contributed to defeats all over the country, including Morley & Outwood and both Plymouth seats. Even smaller UKIP gains were enough to make the difference in crucial contests like Croydon Central.

3. Labour is at risk of Southern Retreat: UKIP also helped entrench Labour’s southern discomfort, eroding our foothold in seats we used to hold and would need to regain to win a majority. UKIP even succeeded in pushing us into third place in constituencies that had Labour MPs as recently as 2010. In places like Basildon and Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Labour is in danger of becoming irrelevant.

There is also a distinct challenge in Coastal Communities. These often provide a cocktail of the key factors fuelling support for UKIP, including significant numbers of older voters and blue collar workers left behind by cultural and economic change.

UKIP is effectively serving as a barometer for Labour’s shortcomings. Too many no longer trust us and do not think we are on their side – particularly on issues such as welfare and immigration. Many voters were pushed into the arms of the Conservatives for similar reasons. Labour must address these issues if we want to rebuild trust with these communities and govern Britain again.

There are no quick fixes or silver bullet solutions. This report suggests several potential building blocks for a Labour plan to reconnect with the people we have lost:

* Defining what we stand for – the ‘story’ we want to tell as a party
Labour is seen less and less as the party of working people. Too often voters did not know what we stood for. The fault for this must lie with us rather than the public. Labour needs to develop a positive narrative about who we are as a party, what we are about, and the kind of country we aspire to build.

* Policies - how we express our values
This report outlines several areas that should form part of any policy response to the concerns that have given rise to UKIP. This includes reassurance on issues like work and immigration, an economic plan to extend opportunity to communities that feel forgotten, a distinct message for older people and reclaiming our mantle as a patriotic party.

* How we do our politics
Different communities face different challenges in reconnecting with the public. We need to ensure local Labour campaigners are given the capacity, confidence and flexibility to effectively respond to the issues on their doorsteps and rebuild trust at a local level. This report suggests exploring ways we can revitalise constituency parties, encouraging effective community campaigning and recruiting candidates from more representative backgrounds.

Overall, it is clear that UKIP and the reasons behind the explosion in its support are not going away. With a European Referendum approaching, Labour must take them head on. If we cannot offer a more appealing and credible vision for Britain’s future than UKIP, then we have no realistic hope of defeating the Tories.


Strontium Dog wrote:The Labour Party's Dan Hodges tears Corbyn to pieces:

Significantly large numbers of people are drawn to UKIP due to anxieties about immigration. The overwhelming majority of UKIP voters on May 7th ranked ‘controlling immigration’ as one of the most important issue facing the country (87%) and their own family (68%).

There is also overlap with concerns about the welfare system and benefit dependency. These have been consistently ranked amongst the biggest concerns of voters drawn to UKIP.

(...)the fear a Labour government would be ‘bossed around by Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish nationalists’ was the third biggest doubt UKIP voters had about voting Labour.

smudge wrote:Prominent 'man of faith' who went galavanting off to war in search of imaginary 'weapons of mass destruction' (with intellectual heavyweight George Bush) accuses Jeremy Corbyn of 'Alice in Wonderland' politics.

Do you think he is taking the piss?
From the Guardian.
Thanks for boosting Jeremy's vote tally a little more Tony.

Yvette Cooper to raise prospect of legal challenge to trade union bill
Yvette Cooper will raise the prospect this week of a legal challenge to the trade union bill, which threatens Labour’s funding and limits the right to strike.

The Labour leadership candidate will say she has received legal advice suggesting the legislation would undermine freedom of association as set out in article 11 of the European convention on human rights. That should prevent the business secretary from certifying the bill and lays the foundation for a legal challenge if it passes in to law, she will say.

The legislation will require all 4.5 million union members to sign a form at least every five years opting into paying the political levy to Labour. Unions funds are Labour’s chief source of donations, and some union leaders have warned the planned reform will bankrupt the party.

Cooper will argue that it is unprecedented for a government to abuse its small majority in the Commons to try to cripple an opposition party through partisan measures to cut its funding, while doing nothing to provide transparency over corporate donations to the Tories.

She will say: “I am not going to stand back whilst this government takes aim at hard-fought workers’ rights, abuses their small majority to try to destroy the Labour party while it is in opposition. This bill is an ideological attempt to restrict the trade union and Labour movement’s ability to advance or defend the interests of ordinary people and their families.

“I will do everything I can to oppose this anti-democratic bill in parliament, but if the Tories force it through we need to be ready to take the unusual move of challenging them in the courts too. We cannot let the Tories get away with this malicious political attack on democracy, the Labour party and people’s right to associate and organise through trades unions.”

Emmeline wrote:Dan Jarvis has just published his report on the General Election outcome, focusing on UKIP v Labour. I haven't had time to read it all yet but would be interested in discussing it if anyone else reads it.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/a ... 1440871372

Here's the Executive Summary...

smudge wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:The Labour Party's Dan Hodges tears Corbyn to pieces:

Dan Hodges couldn't tear his way out of a paper bag. I know you are 'never wrong' SD, but frankly, I couldn't care less what Dan Hodges thinks about anything. The fact you are a 'fan' I find unsurprising.

I wonder if Dan Hodges was allowed a vote in the Labour leadership contest? He is not a 'supporter' in any sense of the word that I recognise.

Emmeline wrote:

* Defining what we stand for – the ‘story’ we want to tell as a party
Labour is seen less and less as the party of working people. Too often voters did not know what we stood for. The fault for this must lie with us rather than the public. Labour needs to develop a positive narrative about who we are as a party, what we are about, and the kind of country we aspire to build.