Ideally they’d scrap it as it’s pointless. From the candidates I’d go Raynor.I'm sure you do. Who do you fancy for deputy?
I'm going with Butler and her gay giraffes, obviously.
Ideally they’d scrap it as it’s pointless. From the candidates I’d go Raynor.I'm sure you do. Who do you fancy for deputy?
I'm going with Butler and her gay giraffes, obviously.
Agree on both there.Ideally they’d scrap it as it’s pointless. From the candidates I’d go Raynor.
RLB has been terrible since the election defeat. From giving Corbyn 10/10, to blaming the media for Corbyn’s defeat, to referring to Miliband as ‘Tory-lite’. The fact she is Corbyns and Momrntums choice for the leadership should set alarm bells ringing. I can only hope enough people have signed up and are going to vote any of the other candidates in because RLB would be the worst choice by far.
Sadly I don’t think they have and I think she’ll win. RLB and Burgon If I don’t laugh I’ll cry.
One of the most awkward gigs of my life was being at Download watching Maiden and our man pausing to give a speech demanding we all cheered for the British armed forces.I must admit its tempting to vote for him just for a laugh
A lot of those are long term conservatives (emphasis on the small 'c') over the retirement age who previously voted Labour out of a sense of loyalty. I don't think we get those back. I think they've broken the habit now. I think it's foolish to try.It depends on whether Labour is interested in appealing to those millions of predominantly Northern, mainly Leave (I Voted Tory once only) former supporters
The public will have this association with Starmer(Or anyone from the labour party) if the press bang on about it enough. Starmer has already called Corbyn his friend and being part of his shadow cabinet.The public don't think of the Labour Party as a political party made up of different fractions, so Starmer being from a different wing will be lost on them and people will just see him as a continuation of the Corbyn project. Christ, there are people in Britain who think Corbyn and Blair as completely the same politically.I don't think it can. RLB was propelled to the spotlight only because she was one of the few PLP members who continued to back Corbyn after it was evidenced he was a lame duck and she will really struggle to break that association in people's minds.
Me - We need to democratic labour party, in order to democratise the British economy and state.I got like 10 emails about it and I didn't vote.
It felt a weird thing to ask us to vote on, tbh...
It's not even that, though. They didn't offer us a vote on the candidates, they chose Becky and then asked us to vote on whether or not they'd made the right call.Still I agree with you that its a weird thing to ask. Maybe this is the stalinism Paul Mason seems fixated on, finally coming to life! But if we have to tell a socialist pressure group, the very clear and self-evident fact that RLB is best choice for the left then we are much deeper shit than I thought.
It is still likely to be perceived as being 'jam tomorrow' or worse still "I want your vote so I'll say anything".So I think the then disillusioned working age population of these areas can absolutely be won over in four years time with specific plans for green infrastructure projects in their areas.
Oh my bad, I didn't know that(I never opened the email).It's not even that, though. They didn't offer us a vote on the candidates, they chose Becky and then asked us to vote on whether or not they'd made the right call.
What on earth would their plan had been if we'd said no?
Forgive me for not finding 'it doesn't actually matter what Labour do' to be a worthwhile point to engage with in this specific thread.It is still likely to be perceived as being 'jam tomorrow' or worse still "I want your vote so I'll say anything".
I suspect anything labelled a 'Green infrastructure project' will actually be running out of road by 2024, (no pun intended) there are too many 'elitist' backers who are pushing such schemes now and more climbing on the bandwagon, all very much in the idiom of "don't do what I do, do as I say" as they jet off somewhere, and they don't even realise they are doing more harm than good, in their efforts to look concerned.
From the 'White heat of Technology' from the mid 60's, through to the 'Northern Power House' of the 00's politicians of all kinds and persuasions have been gushing about redistribution to the North, equalising the balance between North and South, replacing past industries with new growth, etc.
Sorry it won't wash, it isn't just old men and women changing their voting habits and risking the wrath of their ancestors, many young people in the North especially after the Brexit delay and debacle, just don't trust politicians any more...full stop!
Most of those who voted Tory, for the first time in their life, actually don't really believe Boris will deliver on his promises, beyond Brexit; but if he does deliver on just a fraction, they will vote him in again. Labour is so distanced in thought as well as ideas from its past roots, it doesn't just have a mountain to climb, but has seas to swim and endless valleys to explore. Boris will have to foul up big time and similarly Labour change its ideas, to get anywhere near rebuilding the 'red wall'.
She's 'our Becky' and I will not.@DiseaseOfTheAge please stop calling her Becky
Tbf, that's proper, communism style, one party 'democracy' popular with despots back in the 70s. One candidate, you vote yes or no, and usually if the answer was no, they would fix the result another way.It's not even that, though. They didn't offer us a vote on the candidates, they chose Becky and then asked us to vote on whether or not they'd made the right call.
What on earth would their plan had been if we'd said no?
Unless you think there was a chance momentum members may have preferred an alternative candidate, which I doubt you do, then I think you're either being mischievous or paranoid here.Tbf, that's proper, communism style, one party 'democracy' popular with despots back in the 70s. One candidate, you vote yes or no, and usually if the answer was no, they would fix the result another way.
I wonder though how much this type of lack of trust in democratic processes could hurt momentum in the long term.
That is not what was said at all, it has to change its ideas to win back former supporters and also hope Boris fouls up!Forgive me for not finding 'it doesn't actually matter what Labour do' to be a worthwhile point to engage with in this specific thread.
I've spent all day asking people their ideas! Tell meThat is not what was said at all, it has to change its ideas to win back former supporters and also hope Boris fouls up!
The right response might be to ask... "change its ideas to what'"? However I suspect you are not really interested enough to ask that question, or to hear ideas?
True enough. The Tories also aren't stupid and have already moved to the left economically (whilst also becoming more totalitarian) and I expect them to continue in that vein to stymie a future challenge by Labour.Most of those who voted Tory, for the first time in their life, actually don't really believe Boris will deliver on his promises, beyond Brexit; but if he does deliver on just a fraction, they will vote him in again. Labour is so distanced in thought as well as ideas from its past roots, it doesn't just have a mountain to climb, but has seas to swim and endless valleys to explore. Boris will have to foul up big time and similarly Labour change its ideas, to get anywhere near rebuilding the 'red wall'.
In one of my many arguments with tankies, I found some interesting history - Stalin told some of his people to prepare the USSR for a full free election, sending everyone in the hierarchy down to local officials into deep panic. Then a month before the dates, after reading their panicky reports, he scrapped it, changed all the eligibility rules, and made it a yes/no election with the NKVD supervising.Oh my bad, I didn't know that(I never opened the email).
Yeah that is very odd and actually quite stalinist
link to the source?In one of my many arguments with tankies, I found some interesting history - Stalin told some of his people to prepare the USSR for a full free election, sending everyone in the hierarchy down to local officials into deep panic. Then a month before the dates, after reading their panicky reports, he scrapped it, changed all the eligibility rules, and made it a yes/no election with the NKVD supervising.
So what I'm saying is that Momentum is maybe more Stalinist than the man himself.
The point is momentum is meant to stand for democratising the party and yet they have just conducted a process I would not call democratic. I should imagine, then, some among their members being displeased with this. The point isn't that Long Bailey would have won anyhow, it is that members should have had a chance to vote for whomever.Unless you think there was a chance momentum members may have preferred an alternative candidate, which I doubt you do, then I think you're either being mischievous or paranoid here.
That would be a concern for the membership. If they are concerned I think we all know they are more than capable of making themselves heard on social media. I'm not seeing much concern myself. I suspect all is actually alright and your worries on their behalf are unnecessary.The point is momentum is meant to stand for democratising the party and yet they have just conducted a process I would not democratic. I should imagine, then, some among their members being displeased with this. The point isn't that Long Bailey would have won anyhow, it is that members should have had a chance to vote for whomever.
browser history is gone but it looks like this was the one: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2500596?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contentslink to the source?
The point is momentum is meant to stand for democratising the party and yet they have just conducted a process I would not democratic. I should imagine, then, some among their members being displeased with this. The point isn't that Long Bailey would have won anyhow, it is that members should have had a chance to vote for whomever. If she is overwhelminglyUnless you think there was a chance momentum members may have preferred an alternative candidate, which I doubt you do, then I think you're either being mischievous or paranoid here.
I don't know if it is a concern for sure. That's why my original post started with, "I wonder.."That would be a concern for the membership. If they are concerned I think we all know they are more than capable of making themselves heard on social media. I'm not seeing much concern myself. I suspect all is actually alright and your worries on their behalf are unnecessary.
RedChip, my friend, are you trying to have me believe that significant numbers of momentum members could be upset by this but their voices would not be heard on twitter?The point is momentum is meant to stand for democratising the party and yet they have just conducted a process I would not democratic. I should imagine, then, some among their members being displeased with this. The point isn't that Long Bailey would have won anyhow, it is that members should have had a chance to vote for whomever. If she is overwhelmingly
I don't know if it is a concern for sure. That's why my original post started with, "I wonder.."
Also since when have things only being factual if they are on twitter?
Momentum exist to push a certain agenda. If Momentum members voted for Philips then they'd be in a ridiculous situation wouldn't they? It'd be completely counter productive to their objectives.The point is momentum is meant to stand for democratising the party and yet they have just conducted a process I would not democratic. I should imagine, then, some among their members being displeased with this. The point isn't that Long Bailey would have won anyhow, it is that members should have had a chance to vote for whomever. If she is overwhelmingly
If compaigning for democratisation whilst not fully or properly practising it yourself isn't a textbook definition of hypocrisy, then what is?Momentum exist to push a certain agenda. If Momentum members voted for Philips then they'd be in a ridiculous situation wouldn't they? It'd be completely counter productive to their objectives.
Momentum aren't saying that all organisations should be democratic as far as I'm aware so I don't see it as an issue of hypocrisy.
But Corbyn won the argument?I can’t fathom why so many Labour members are happy to prioritise their ideological agenda in favour of actually getting into power. These aren’t stupid people I’m talking about either. Long-Bailey is never getting a Labour government into power.
Starmer will be getting my vote. Rayner for Deputy. Nandy is the only other remotely impressive candidate running for leadership.
I fear the outcome of this leadership race could finish the party for good.
Aye, I think it is possible some are but are silent to avoid uttering views not in sync with the majority. Guardian for example reported some displeasure on this.RedChip, my friend, are you trying to have me believe that significant numbers of momentum members could be upset by this but their voices would not be heard on twitter?
If they campaigned for the labour party to disband does that mean they'd have to disband themselves first or be hypocrites?If compaigning for democratisation whilst not fully or properly practising it yourself isn't a textbook definition of hypocrisy, then what is?
Very possible that some are, in fact certain, I would say! Whilst not remotely possible that they constitute anything near a meaningful number. Which is why I'm not taking you seriously.Aye, I think it is possible some are but are silent to avoid uttering views not in sync with the majority. Guardian for example reported some displeasure on this.
Sorry, but those comparisons are a bit silly.If they campaigned for the labour party to disband does that mean they'd have to disband themselves first or be hypocrites?
If they campaigned for labour to sack it's leader do they have to sack their own leader first?
WhySorry, but those comparisons are a bit silly.
Very possible that some are, in fact certain, I would say! Whilst not remotely possible that they constitute anything near a meaningful number. Which is why I'm not taking you seriously.
I guess you can believe whatever you want, but here are more comments I have found:
Laura Parker, who resigned as Momentum’s national coordinator after the election, made clear on Twitter on Saturday that she disapproved of its decision to recommend Long-Bailey: “Although I am pleased Momentum’s governing body accepted the principle of balloting its members on the leadership, I’m sorry they seem to have decided in advance what the answer is. Members should be able to choose from all Leader & Deputy candidates.”
Another Momentum member, Sabrina Huck, said one of the movement’s core objectives was to promote party democracy and so it should “lead by example”.
Because people who believe in the social democraric policies that Corbyn offered, and Long Bailey will build on, view centre ground politics/Blairism as the antithesis of their ideals.I can’t fathom why so many Labour members are happy to prioritise their ideological agenda in favour of actually getting into power. These aren’t stupid people I’m talking about either. Long-Bailey is never getting a Labour government into power.
Starmer will be getting my vote. Rayner for Deputy. Nandy is the only other remotely impressive candidate running for leadership.
I fear the outcome of this leadership race could finish the party for good.
I don't think this is a terribly unfair description of my views. As I've said before, I don't see how winning on a platform that doesn't involve drastic changes regarding carbon emissions is really a win. Nor do I think it possible to win without promising those changes given the electoral situation.Because people who believe in the social democraric policies that Corbyn offered, and Long Bailey will build on, view centre ground politics/Blairism as the antithesis of their ideals.
Better to fight for something you believe in and lose, than trade your beliefs in the hope of 'winning'. Because it wouldn't be winning to the left because a centrist party wouldn't pursue the type of change they want in the country.