Mark Thompson ‏@MarkReckons 3h3 hours ago

"Anyone can become a registered supporter, pay £3 to and vote to decide our next leader." - Harman in May this year. Mark that word. Anyone.

 

Mark Thompson ‏@MarkReckons 2h2 hours ago

The only other criteria mentioned was that they need to be on the electoral register. Nothing about purging ppl who voted for other parties.

 

 

Funny how the Labour Establishment only decided they demanded diehard, lifelong purity from any voters in the leadership contest after it became clear more members of the public were enthused by the left-wing message than the centrist one.

The supporters' system always demanded that people sign up to Labour values (which includes Clause I) - it existed before the leadership election began. A sloppily worded speech two years after the that type of affiliation was created doesn't change that.

And 'lifelong purity' doesn't come into it at all - HQ doesn't care if you used to vote Lib Dem or Green or SNP or Tory, as long as you didn't stand for those parties recently and as long as you weren't expressing public support for those parties recently. Being a supporter doesn't mean 'I support the party, conditional on only one candidate winning'. The kinds of people who've been vetted out are the people who it really would be a stretch to describe as broadly being Labour supporters. And it won't make a difference either way to the result.

The supporters' system always demanded that people sign up to Labour values (which includes Clause I) - it existed before the leadership election began. A sloppily worded speech two years after the that type of affiliation was created doesn't change that.

 

I'm sorry, but watching the speech, it's pretty clear it wasn't just sloppy wording - she meant that she wanted non-Labour voters to vote. The comment comes in the middle of a big passage about how they needed to be thinking about the people they need to win in 2020 and that it can't just be diehard Labour members talking to themselves, and she literally puts the stress on "Anyone, provided they're on the electoral register, can become a registered supporter" (10:33):

 

 

She and the rest of them are just moving the goalposts now because, in a sign of how poor their political antennae is, they completely misread the public appetite for a "centrist" message.

Edited August 22, 20159 yr by Danny

And 'lifelong purity' doesn't come into it at all - HQ doesn't care if you used to vote Lib Dem or Green or SNP or Tory, as long as you didn't stand for those parties recently and as long as you weren't expressing public support for those parties recently. Being a supporter doesn't mean 'I support the party, conditional on only one candidate winning'. The kinds of people who've been vetted out are the people who it really would be a stretch to describe as broadly being Labour supporters. And it won't make a difference either way to the result.

 

I voted Green in last year's European election, do you think I should be banned?

 

I'm completely mystified by this view that the #1 goal of general elections is to win over switchers, yet switchers should be barred from the selection of the leader. For better or for worse, a lot of ordinary people ARE going to decide whether they support a particular party conditional on whether a certain individual politician is the leader, so why shouldn't that reality be reflected in the leadership elections?

Edited August 22, 20159 yr by Danny

There's a difference between a recruitment drive and an open primary.

 

And no, there won't be a split. The Labour right are too ingrained within most bits of the party for it to be worth their while.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the careerists like Chuka and Tristram Hunt jumped ship to the Tories if they were offered cushy Cabinet jobs, but otherwise yes I agree there won't be a split.

In Stoke?!

or, in my case, as a paid-up UNISON member for 30-years I could have bothered to vote for the leadership but wasn't motivated enough to get off my arse given that I have never voted for Labour or the Conservatives in a general election. Corbyn winning will make that even less likely unless he's got some miraculous new economic miracle he can pull off without making things generally worse while focusing on improving things in very specific areas.

 

Consequences.

 

2020 is going to be a political mess generally, unless Cameron can keep the anti-EU brigade silent as they sulk after a failed vote to leave. If the unthinkable happens and the UK leave the EU, then all bets are off for all parties cos the consequences of that will be huge, probably economically as banks and others decide to relocate. That should make everything unpredictable for the UK's future in so many ways that all parties will fragment. If the Tories see Corbyn as a potential threat to a UK with no EU back-up safety-net to their cushy way of life (for all their rhetoric they do very nicely thank you out of the status quo) they may well instead focus their energies instead into annihilating him, and they have quite a large resource to do it.

 

So, will Labour fragment? Probably not, there's too much at stake on the horizon and most will just bite their lips and wait and see how the public react to Corbyn, and how he does. Given Corbyn has voted against the Labour hierarchy consistently on grounds of "conscience" and been quick to slag off previous leaders and colleagues it will be interesting to see how much loyalty he can generate over the long term when the tables get turned. Not as if he can complain about it without looking hypocritical as long as they just say it's a question of "conscience"......

In Stoke?!

What difference does that make? Cameron is only the MP for Witney because the previous incumbent jumped ship and joined Labour. He was then found a nice safe Labour seat in St Helens. The Tories would do the same for Tristram Hunt if he defected.

What difference does that make? Cameron is only the MP for Witney because the previous incumbent jumped ship and joined Labour. He was then found a nice safe Labour seat in St Helens. The Tories would do the same for Tristram Hunt if he defected.

They probably would, but it's still bizarre.

I voted Green in last year's European election, do you think I should be banned?

 

I'm completely mystified by this view that the #1 goal of general elections is to win over switchers, yet switchers should be barred from the selection of the leader. For better or for worse, a lot of ordinary people ARE going to decide whether they support a particular party conditional on whether a certain individual politician is the leader, so why shouldn't that reality be reflected in the leadership elections?

I have literally no idea why you said any of this in response to the quoted post, which said, uh, that HQ couldn't care less if you'd voted for another party in the past? It's only people who stood for other parties recently, or publicly fundraised for them, or were on their national executive committees, or whose online presence makes it clear they aren't Labour supporters at all that have been filtered out. Not switchers.

I wonder how much better the Blairites would've fared if they'd fielded Caroline Flint as their candidate:

 

 

She's a much better politician than Kendall IMO - I don't agree with most of what she says (especially the rubbish about "paying down the debt"), but she atleast gives fluent and coherent answers. Unlike Kendall and her limited collection of contrived slogans which she parrots while clearly not having understood or thought deeply about the issues at all.

I'm sorry, but watching the speech, it's pretty clear it wasn't just sloppy wording - she meant that she wanted non-Labour voters to vote. The comment comes in the middle of a big passage about how they needed to be thinking about the people they need to win in 2020 and that it can't just be diehard Labour members talking to themselves, and she literally puts the stress on "Anyone, provided they're on the electoral register, can become a registered supporter" (10:33):

 

 

She and the rest of them are just moving the goalposts now because, in a sign of how poor their political antennae is, they completely misread the public appetite for a "centrist" message.

Again, a stupid and inaccurate passage of a speech doesn't change the status of something that was pretty precisely defined in the party's constitution three years ago during Refounding Labour, and again after the Collins Review. A Harriet Harman speech doesn't change the constitution - if it did, we could have saved an awful lot of time over the last five years.

Again, a stupid and inaccurate passage of a speech doesn't change the status of something that was pretty precisely defined in the party's constitution three years ago during Refounding Labour, and again after the Collins Review. A Harriet Harman speech doesn't change the constitution - if it did, we could have saved an awful lot of time over the last five years.

 

She is the one in charge of the running of the contest, and the one who (in theory) has the most informed interpretation of the party constitution....yet what she says is irrelevant?

Edited August 22, 20159 yr by Danny

Well yeah. It wouldn't stand up especially well in a court of law if someone tried to bring legal action against the party given it's codified right there in the party constitution. Indeed, given the position she's in it's a total indictment of Harriet that she worded it that way in the first place - it's false advertising on her part.

Yvette Cooper is the only credible choice out of a dire group of candidates. Jeremy is a dreamer who will ruin the economy. Andy Burnham is untrustworthy the way he changes his politics to what it's apparently popular, he shot himself in the foot when he said he would work in a Corbyn led cabinet and Liz Kendall has just used the oppotunity as exposure for herself, she is a good interviewee but away from the cameras and meeting with regular people she crumbles and I can not relate.

Edited August 24, 20159 yr by Kieran.

I'd find it ironic if it turned out a backbencher who hates bankers ruined the economy.

I'd find it ironic if it turned out a backbencher who hates bankers ruined the economy.

 

:lol:

 

Jeremy is dangerous. You just can't print more money, borrow more money, put up more increased taxs to the rich, re-nationalize major services are not have a detrimental effect on the economy.

:lol:

 

Jeremy is dangerous. You just can't print more money, borrow more money, put up more increased taxs to the rich, re-nationalize major services are not have a detrimental effect on the economy.

Quantitative easing is a slippery slope (and adding "People's" to the front has really rubbed me up the wrong way) but it's not entirely without merit. Taxes on the rich can be mighty effective if you're clever about it - changing the Council Tax bands would be a start. Renationalisation has to be done in stages and devolved properly.

 

Basically, my main issue with Corbynomics is that it's all a bit broad strokes and the ideas haven't yet progressed beyond what you'd get from a five-minute focus group at an anti-cuts rally.

But then, let's not pretend that 80% of his supporters are looking for anything else.

But then, let's not pretend that 80% of his supporters are looking for anything else.

I have wondered whether I'm part of the 20%. Then I think about the prospect of Corbyn-Watson and reconsider.