Snap General Election called

[Zhivago]

I’d tend to agree that MPs should be up
for reselection at all GE’s but if you want to attract the right people and a wide range of people you need some stability. You also need to be careful that MP’s aren’t so busy pleasing and cosying up to a couple of hundred (wishful thinking in some associations) local members that they don’t serve as they see best and the rest of their constituents require.
Automatic reselection puts an awful lot of power in a very small number hands.

Another problem if you keep the same people in office for years on end is this career politician phenomenon... and the Westminster bubble... these are real problems in our democracy. We need people with new ideas, and you can't get that if they are blocked from becoming MPs by corrupt party processes.

Like Cotbyn, McDonnell, Abbott et al? Again, your only for it if it suits your ends.

I would support it under any leader. Any action that gives power back to the membership is to be lauded.

I find it insulting that you consider me to be a cynical aprincipled person who only supports it if it benefits me. I have principles and I follow these even if it is against my interests. I am in favour of higher tax for higher earners, despite already being in the highest tax bracket, for example.

[Zhivago]

Fair play, you have bought that hook, line and sinker. Corbyn is allowing Momentum to do his dirty work.

As for democracy, why don’t you tell me what happens when someone who is a Labour Party member but isn’t a Corbyn fan turns up to speak to a Momentum event? Or how about the abuse of non Corbyn MPs by Momemtum members. Momentum isn’t interested in democracy. It’s interested in control.

Could you give an example of such abuse? The only abuse I see is from the right... e.g. Joan Ryan calling her CLP trots communists stalinists or so... and Chuka Ummuna describing Momentum as Corbyn's 'Dogs' ... not to mention the abuse screamed by them... John Mann against Ken Livingstone, Corbyn being screamed at by Ian Austin during parliament when the Iraq War inquiry was discussed, Corbyn being labelled unjustly as an anti-semite... the list goes on and on.

We live in an age of smart phones and social media... where is all this abuse by momentum? I've seen nothing that sticks in my memory like the above.

Here is the one-eyed view that makes me think you’d suddenly have an issue with mandatory reselection should it move against your political beliefs.

Actually it was me asking for evidence of the abuse by Momentum. I do not have fixed opinions and I try to remain flexible in the face of evidence. I gave some instances of abuse by the right that I have perceived, is it too much to ask for examples of abuse by Momentum? Genuinely would like to form my opinion based on all the facts.

[Mellsblue]

Another problem if you keep the same people in office for years on end is this career politician phenomenon... and the Westminster bubble... these are real problems in our democracy. We need people with new ideas, and you can't get that if they are blocked from becoming MPs by corrupt party processes.

Like Cotbyn, McDonnell, Abbott et al? Again, your only for it if it suits your ends.

I would support it under any leader. Any action that gives power back to the membership is to be lauded.

I find it insulting that you consider me to be a cynical aprincipled person who only supports it if it benefits me. I have principles and I follow these even if it is against my interests. I am in favour of higher tax for higher earners, despite already being in the highest tax bracket, for example.

I believe that you, and all other Corbynistas, think that the end - a Corbyn government - justify virtually any means - means you’d cry foul at if they went against you. Feel free to be insulted.

[Mellsblue]

Could you give an example of such abuse? The only abuse I see is from the right... e.g. Joan Ryan calling her CLP trots communists stalinists or so... and Chuka Ummuna describing Momentum as Corbyn's 'Dogs' ... not to mention the abuse screamed by them... John Mann against Ken Livingstone, Corbyn being screamed at by Ian Austin during parliament when the Iraq War inquiry was discussed, Corbyn being labelled unjustly as an anti-semite... the list goes on and on.

We live in an age of smart phones and social media... where is all this abuse by momentum? I've seen nothing that sticks in my memory like the above.

Here is the one-eyed view that makes me think you’d suddenly have an issue with mandatory reselection should it move against your political beliefs.

Actually it was me asking for evidence of the abuse by Momentum.

It’s everywhere. Considering how well read you profess to be, I can’t believe you haven’t seen any.

[Puja]

The thing that I found outstanding about Chukka Umuna's letter was the outrage about Momentum being aggressive to him and his supporters. While I agree that Momentum is aggressive, divisive, and insular, it is notable that they didn't become that way apropos of nothing. Umunna and his ilk did everything possible to attack and undermine Corbyn, from mass resignations, leading a public revolt on intervention in Syria (which turned out to be a solid decision!), leadership challenges, briefing against him, leaking the election manifesto, and actively campaigning on a "When we've got rid of him" basis. Corbyn's original shadow cabinet did try to incorporate all the facets of Labour and they all resigned because he wouldn't quit and allow someone more suitable to them to lead.

While one can't defend Momentum rumbling over everything in a dickish manner, I think it's safe to say that they were provoked.

Puja

[canta_brian]

That’s a single example, hardly what is now an openly discussed tactic within Corbyn’s Labour. I’ll assume, though, that you think it was all above board and democratic. Just as you are happy with current manoeuvres in some constituencies.
It also wasn’t an attempt to make make reselection manadatory, which you knew is what I was referring to as you referenced McDonnell not publicly backing it. Speaking of which.....
McDonnell in saying one thing in public whilst whipping up the ground troops behind closed doors shock.

Another example...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 70588.html

Nothing wrong with a bit of democracy. It's not healthy to give politicians a job for life.

That was a Blairite being deselected. Hardly proof that the Blair leadership were leading a purge.
I agree that jobs for life leads to poor performamce and if you’re happy for it to work both ways then I won’t argue with your support of it. I doubt you’d be so supportive if New Labour supporters flooded a local party and ousted Williamson, Lewis, Abbott etc but maybe I’m overly cynical.

I think you might find that most Blairites looking to flood a political party are more likely to be joining the Conservatives.

[Mellsblue]

Another example...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 70588.html

Nothing wrong with a bit of democracy. It's not healthy to give politicians a job for life.

That was a Blairite being deselected. Hardly proof that the Blair leadership were leading a purge.
I agree that jobs for life leads to poor performamce and if you’re happy for it to work both ways then I won’t argue with your support of it. I doubt you’d be so supportive if New Labour supporters flooded a local party and ousted Williamson, Lewis, Abbott etc but maybe I’m overly cynical.

I think you might find that most Blairites looking to flood a political party are more likely to be joining the Conservatives.

I hope so.

[Peat]

Tbf, Labour have the strongest protections for MPs of any party. Independent of all other considerations, there's no reason not to relax them and bring them into line with other parties, unless you're an MP or a Union (who get a lot of power during the process).

And it is also only sensible and prudent that the make up of the Labour party MPs reflect the membership base, particularly when members now have a far bigger voice on who's leader than the MPs. To continue otherwise is to simply continue a mess.


Nevertheless, I'm sure that if the changes weren't in Corbyn's favour, we wouldn't be having them, no matter how sensible they are.

And it will always be worth a good chuckle when Corbynites explain how the circs are different and that disloyalty now is worse than when Jeremy did it and the leadership is right to move in a way to discipline the party that they deplored Blair for.

Ditto it'll be a good gallows laugh down the line if/when Labour don't get the number of votes they wanted and the Corbynites scream about centrist betrayal. And they'll be right in one sense and wrong in another, because they've made it abundantly clear they do not want centrist opinions, just centrist votes. Its why I have to disagree with Puja about Momentum not being aggressive apropos of nothing - it was aggressive from the get go and aggression was its intention. Momentum has always been the instrument for Corbyn to solidfy grip of the party - which was going to involve aggression, and people who wanted aggression - and why not? Only sensible politics. But its not like it was only a reaction to the PLP's rebellion - and the PLP's rebellion is as much a reaction to Momentum's blatant intention to force them into line as anything else.

The basic grim reality seems to be that the range of opinion that sees the Labour party as home these days is too broad to exist together without war. I'm not sure it has to be that way but the level of ingrained hate means it is, until someone manages to talk them all down. The only thing sadder and funnier than that is that the Tories still struggle massively to secure a majority in the face of that open goal. Its like watching a zombie fight a guy who keeps twitching and tearing their muscles.

[Zhivago]

Here is the one-eyed view that makes me think you’d suddenly have an issue with mandatory reselection should it move against your political beliefs.

Actually it was me asking for evidence of the abuse by Momentum.

It’s everywhere. Considering how well read you profess to be, I can’t believe you haven’t seen any.

So give me an example

[Digby]

As John Diamond once observed as the surgeon treating his throat cancer wondered if he'd like to know about the bleeding point, 'what's the bleeding point?'

[Puja]

Its why I have to disagree with Puja about Momentum not being aggressive apropos of nothing - it was aggressive from the get go and aggression was its intention. Momentum has always been the instrument for Corbyn to solidfy grip of the party - which was going to involve aggression, and people who wanted aggression - and why not? Only sensible politics. But its not like it was only a reaction to the PLP's rebellion - and the PLP's rebellion is as much a reaction to Momentum's blatant intention to force them into line as anything else.

I will have to continue disagreeing with you - the PLP's rebellion came from the membership making the 'wrong' choice in the election and Corbyn was only ever a short-term choice while someone sensible was lined up. The 'mainstream' never had any interest in working with Corbyn or even allowing him to work unmolested and so the first few years were a matter of survival rather than trying to force anyone into line. I find it amusing that they are now crying foul now the balance has tipped and Momentum have the upper hand and the weight of the party machinery behind them.*

Puja

*Although I will note again that I'm no fan of Momentum's behaviour in victory; I'd far rather they found a dignified peace rather than crushing their enemies, seeing then driven before them and then hearing the lamentation of their NEC candidates.

[Zhivago]

Its why I have to disagree with Puja about Momentum not being aggressive apropos of nothing - it was aggressive from the get go and aggression was its intention. Momentum has always been the instrument for Corbyn to solidfy grip of the party - which was going to involve aggression, and people who wanted aggression - and why not? Only sensible politics. But its not like it was only a reaction to the PLP's rebellion - and the PLP's rebellion is as much a reaction to Momentum's blatant intention to force them into line as anything else.

I will have to continue disagreeing with you - the PLP's rebellion came from the membership making the 'wrong' choice in the election and Corbyn was only ever a short-term choice while someone sensible was lined up. The 'mainstream' never had any interest in working with Corbyn or even allowing him to work unmolested and so the first few years were a matter of survival rather than trying to force anyone into line. I find it amusing that they are now crying foul now the balance has tipped and Momentum have the upper hand and the weight of the party machinery behind them.

Puja

Good point! Indeed the genesis of Momentum lay in protecting Corbyn in the face of the onslaught from the hostile media and PLP. You reap what you sow.

[Zhivago]

As John Diamond once observed as the surgeon treating his throat cancer wondered if he'd like to know about the bleeding point, 'what's the bleeding point?'

What's the point of posting here if you won't debate in good faith.

[Digby]

I'm not sure if I've ever posted in good faith, mostly I post for poops and giggles, which at least makes me a serious enough figure to run for the leadership of the current Labour party. Or it would if I was okay to contend with Momentum trolling not just me but my family, smashing up property, smearing faeces on my car, having my daughter receive rape threats...

[Peat]

Its why I have to disagree with Puja about Momentum not being aggressive apropos of nothing - it was aggressive from the get go and aggression was its intention. Momentum has always been the instrument for Corbyn to solidfy grip of the party - which was going to involve aggression, and people who wanted aggression - and why not? Only sensible politics. But its not like it was only a reaction to the PLP's rebellion - and the PLP's rebellion is as much a reaction to Momentum's blatant intention to force them into line as anything else.

I will have to continue disagreeing with you - the PLP's rebellion came from the membership making the 'wrong' choice in the election and Corbyn was only ever a short-term choice while someone sensible was lined up. The 'mainstream' never had any interest in working with Corbyn or even allowing him to work unmolested and so the first few years were a matter of survival rather than trying to force anyone into line. I find it amusing that they are now crying foul now the balance has tipped and Momentum have the upper hand and the weight of the party machinery behind them.*

Puja

*Although I will note again that I'm no fan of Momentum's behaviour in victory; I'd far rather they found a dignified peace rather than crushing their enemies, seeing then driven before them and then hearing the lamentation of their NEC candidates.

Did I say that the PLP's rebellion was solely a reaction to Momentum? It wasn't and everyone with half a brain cell knows that.

But at the same time, it was really obvious that Momentum and Corbyn were offering a choice between follow the party line entirely and getting disciplined/deselected. And Corbyn was just as disinterested in working with the PLP mainstream as they with him - always has been really - so that was never going to be comfortable with their beliefs and principles.

So, yeah, it was partially a reaction. And if you think that Corbyn and Momentum are doing what they are doing solely as a reaction and that they only tried to seize control of the party levers of power as a defensive measure, I really don't know what to say.

[Puja]

Its why I have to disagree with Puja about Momentum not being aggressive apropos of nothing - it was aggressive from the get go and aggression was its intention. Momentum has always been the instrument for Corbyn to solidfy grip of the party - which was going to involve aggression, and people who wanted aggression - and why not? Only sensible politics. But its not like it was only a reaction to the PLP's rebellion - and the PLP's rebellion is as much a reaction to Momentum's blatant intention to force them into line as anything else.

I will have to continue disagreeing with you - the PLP's rebellion came from the membership making the 'wrong' choice in the election and Corbyn was only ever a short-term choice while someone sensible was lined up. The 'mainstream' never had any interest in working with Corbyn or even allowing him to work unmolested and so the first few years were a matter of survival rather than trying to force anyone into line. I find it amusing that they are now crying foul now the balance has tipped and Momentum have the upper hand and the weight of the party machinery behind them.*

Puja

*Although I will note again that I'm no fan of Momentum's behaviour in victory; I'd far rather they found a dignified peace rather than crushing their enemies, seeing then driven before them and then hearing the lamentation of their NEC candidates.

Did I say that the PLP's rebellion was solely a reaction to Momentum? It wasn't and everyone with half a brain cell knows that.

But at the same time, it was really obvious that Momentum and Corbyn were offering a choice between follow the party line entirely and getting disciplined/deselected. And Corbyn was just as disinterested in working with the PLP mainstream as they with him - always has been really - so that was never going to be comfortable with their beliefs and principles.

So, yeah, it was partially a reaction. And if you think that Corbyn and Momentum are doing what they are doing solely as a reaction and that they only tried to seize control of the party levers of power as a defensive measure, I really don't know what to say.

Just as you didn't say it was solely a reaction, I didn't say it was only a defensive measure. Let's both acknowledge that neither of us are fools dealing only in absolutes - we're both intelligent people who can see the shades of grey.

My disagreement with you is that after Corbyn's first leadership win, he had bog all power. Momentum may have been a potential threat, as all gatherings of fanatics are, but they were small and underpowered, and Corbyn himself was so outnumbered in the PLP that he only got on the ballet in the first place out of pity. At the beginning, they were in no position to say follow the party line entirely or get deselected. He had to work with the PLP and include a load of them on the shadow cabinet because he didn't think he could get anything done without them. The Syria vote is a prime example - clearly something central to Corbyn's values, but he had to give everyone a free vote and allow people like Benn to lead an active revolt because he had no power to rein them in.

Ironically, if the right side of the PLP hadn't mass-resigned from the Shadow Cabinet and forced the second leadership election, I don't think they'd be as screwed as they now are. The first meant the Shadow Cabinet turned into 100% Corbyn supporters and he discovered that he could actually still get stuff done without including the right at all, and the second confirmed that even with him not even pretending to involve the right, he still had the support of the party. And, of course, their politicking lured May into calling her election and giving Corbyn a load of new MPs on his side and cutting the knees out of the argument that he was electoral poison.

So, yeah, anyone claiming Momentum are poor little put-upon angel would be an idiot and obviously this kind of power over the party was always their dream. But I think to claim that a major motivation of the PLP was fear of this outcome is spurious because this outcome was highly unlikely when Corbyn first became leader.

Puja

[Peat]

I think you're underestimating the extent to which this was the obvious outcome if Corbyn stayed in power with a clear majority among the selectorate. Being marginalised among the Parliamentary party was never going to stop him from gaining control over the levers of the wider party and rewriting the rules to make things easier for himself - on the contrary, the need to accelerate a new wave of MPs sympathetic to his cause made it all the more important. Ditto the fact it was the only power he could grab.

Maybe I'm speaking with too much hindsight, but I don't think the precariousness of Corbyn's situation back then should have blinded people to the potential of having such a secure base among the selectorate. Maybe the Soft Left didn't need to panic - I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn's successor comes from their ranks rather than Corbyn's own brand - but for the Right, it was always kill or be killed.

Well, that or learn to compromise, but since nobody else in Labour seems much interested in that, I can see why they didn't want to be pioneers.

And yes, the PLP have played their hand about as badly as possible.

[Puja]

I think you're underestimating the extent to which this was the obvious outcome if Corbyn stayed in power with a clear majority among the selectorate. Being marginalised among the Parliamentary party was never going to stop him from gaining control over the levers of the wider party and rewriting the rules to make things easier for himself - on the contrary, the need to accelerate a new wave of MPs sympathetic to his cause made it all the more important. Ditto the fact it was the only power he could grab.

Maybe I'm speaking with too much hindsight, but I don't think the precariousness of Corbyn's situation back then should have blinded people to the potential of having such a secure base among the selectorate. Maybe the Soft Left didn't need to panic - I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn's successor comes from their ranks rather than Corbyn's own brand - but for the Right, it was always kill or be killed.

Well, that or learn to compromise, but since nobody else in Labour seems much interested in that, I can see why they didn't want to be pioneers.

And yes, the PLP have played their hand about as badly as possible.

I'll agree with that! I'd actually be in favour of Thornberry as his successor - a better debater and orator than Corbyn (low bar), far less of a divisive brand, appears to be relatively competent (for a politician), and relatively principled and uncrooked (for a politician).

Puja

[Digby]

I think you're underestimating the extent to which this was the obvious outcome if Corbyn stayed in power with a clear majority among the selectorate. Being marginalised among the Parliamentary party was never going to stop him from gaining control over the levers of the wider party and rewriting the rules to make things easier for himself - on the contrary, the need to accelerate a new wave of MPs sympathetic to his cause made it all the more important. Ditto the fact it was the only power he could grab.

Maybe I'm speaking with too much hindsight, but I don't think the precariousness of Corbyn's situation back then should have blinded people to the potential of having such a secure base among the selectorate. Maybe the Soft Left didn't need to panic - I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn's successor comes from their ranks rather than Corbyn's own brand - but for the Right, it was always kill or be killed.

Well, that or learn to compromise, but since nobody else in Labour seems much interested in that, I can see why they didn't want to be pioneers.

And yes, the PLP have played their hand about as badly as possible.

I'll agree with that! I'd actually be in favour of Thornberry as his successor - a better debater and orator than Corbyn (low bar), far less of a divisive brand, appears to be relatively competent (for a politician), and relatively principled and uncrooked (for a politician).

Puja

Isn't she the genius who sneered at a working class street with an England flag on display?

[Mellsblue]

I think you're underestimating the extent to which this was the obvious outcome if Corbyn stayed in power with a clear majority among the selectorate. Being marginalised among the Parliamentary party was never going to stop him from gaining control over the levers of the wider party and rewriting the rules to make things easier for himself - on the contrary, the need to accelerate a new wave of MPs sympathetic to his cause made it all the more important. Ditto the fact it was the only power he could grab.

Maybe I'm speaking with too much hindsight, but I don't think the precariousness of Corbyn's situation back then should have blinded people to the potential of having such a secure base among the selectorate. Maybe the Soft Left didn't need to panic - I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn's successor comes from their ranks rather than Corbyn's own brand - but for the Right, it was always kill or be killed.

Well, that or learn to compromise, but since nobody else in Labour seems much interested in that, I can see why they didn't want to be pioneers.

And yes, the PLP have played their hand about as badly as possible.

I'll agree with that! I'd actually be in favour of Thornberry as his successor - a better debater and orator than Corbyn (low bar), far less of a divisive brand, appears to be relatively competent (for a politician), and relatively principled and uncrooked (for a politician).

Puja

Isn't she the genius who sneered at a working class street with an England flag on display?

Yep. A shadow-cabinet Labour MP who sneers at white van man, is an ex-barrister, lives in a £3mil house and is married to a Lord. If she were a Conservative could you imagine the abuse she would cop.

[Puja]

I think you're underestimating the extent to which this was the obvious outcome if Corbyn stayed in power with a clear majority among the selectorate. Being marginalised among the Parliamentary party was never going to stop him from gaining control over the levers of the wider party and rewriting the rules to make things easier for himself - on the contrary, the need to accelerate a new wave of MPs sympathetic to his cause made it all the more important. Ditto the fact it was the only power he could grab.

Maybe I'm speaking with too much hindsight, but I don't think the precariousness of Corbyn's situation back then should have blinded people to the potential of having such a secure base among the selectorate. Maybe the Soft Left didn't need to panic - I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn's successor comes from their ranks rather than Corbyn's own brand - but for the Right, it was always kill or be killed.

Well, that or learn to compromise, but since nobody else in Labour seems much interested in that, I can see why they didn't want to be pioneers.

And yes, the PLP have played their hand about as badly as possible.

I'll agree with that! I'd actually be in favour of Thornberry as his successor - a better debater and orator than Corbyn (low bar), far less of a divisive brand, appears to be relatively competent (for a politician), and relatively principled and uncrooked (for a politician).

Puja

Isn't she the genius who sneered at a working class street with an England flag on display?

She is, but it's hardly like "Disrespecting the working class" is an attack line open to the likes of Gove, Johnson or Rees-Mogg.

And to be fair, I'll bet money the inhabitants of that house voted UKIP in that by-election. It wasn't remotely politically sensible to say it and it's sad that the flag has been coopted enough that it's the case, but a house that's decided to have three St George's crosses hanging from the front during a UKIP vs Tories by-election (not during a football tournament) probably contains racists.

Puja

[Digby]

Yep. A shadow-cabinet Labour MP who sneers at white van man, is an ex-barrister, lives in a £3mil house and is married to a Lord. If she were a Conservative could you imagine the abuse she would cop.

Imagine the stick Corbyn would get if like Cameron he alligned his party in Europe with holocaust deniers

[Digby]

The other annoyance with Labour getting stuck into locking down power on the left for a decade to come is they have no details around any policy area. They have some broad values in some areas and broad avoidance on Brexit, but nothing is getting fleshed out in terms of what they actually want to do and how they'd pay for it

[Puja]

The other annoyance with Labour getting stuck into locking down power on the left for a decade to come is they have no details around any policy area. They have some broad values in some areas and broad avoidance on Brexit, but nothing is getting fleshed out in terms of what they actually want to do and how they'd pay for it

There's no value to them in doing that now anyway. Provide specifics and you provide something to be attacked on. Even vague details get turned into binding promises by the opposition. It's far more politic to keep your powder dry until there's an election and a manifesto.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Yep. A shadow-cabinet Labour MP who sneers at white van man, is an ex-barrister, lives in a £3mil house and is married to a Lord. If she were a Conservative could you imagine the abuse she would cop.

Imagine the stick Corbyn would get if like Cameron he alligned his party in Europe with holocaust deniers

And rightly so. The same should go for Merkel and any others. It’d all be MSM smears, though.