The Labour Party Shambles
The current infighting in the Labour Party has deep roots. This is how I remember the history.
I’ve over simplified this though I think it is fairly accurate.
The main decision making body used to be the National Conference (N.C.). This body decided the main policy of the party, though how the policy should be implemented was in the hands of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), consisting of Members of Parliament. I don’t remember exactly the percentages of voting rights allocated to each section; the PLP; affiliated unions, party members.
The most contentious issue was always the union block vote, which was based on the number of members who paid the political levy in each union. Each union’s executive decided how their votes should be cast, and importantly most never consulted their members before this was done. The right wing dominated most union executives until the nineteen sixties, when left leaning leaders emerged from the shop steward’s movement. This bit into the right’s domination at conferences. Shirley Williams for example (she became one of the gang of four), sat on the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee, and did so because of her union backers.
As the right’s grip on the unions was loosened the issue of the undemocratic block vote became an issue. The cry went up (mainly from the right wing) for ‘one member one vote’ and an end to the block vote. As I remember it, first the Labour N.C. was neutered and reduced to a policy showcase, similar to the Conservative Party, who had never pretended to be democratic. As a sop to the hard and soft left in the party, one member one vote was introduced as the union block vote was dissolved. The unions do of course still have power, to the extent they help fund the party.
The party membership could exercise their MP selection rights from an approved list of candidates. Over time this has led to a PLP to the right of most members of the party. The PLP selects the list from which the members may choose their leader. Corbyn was thought to have no chance of election so a few soft left MPs were persuaded to sign up for his nomination. Boy, did they get a shock when he was elected.
This is the situation we have today.
Thanks auld-bold. If i can
Thanks auld-bold. If i can carry on a couple questions from the other thread:.how much of the current struggle has to do with protecting blair et al from war crimes trubunals, how much is it ideology, and as fingers ( i think) suggested, how much is it corbyn isn't beholden to the party machine or is it a combo of all the above?
I'm not sure gunning for
I'm not sure gunning for Corbyn (which Blair seems to be doing) is going to do much to shield Blair from War crimes stuff. Isn't it more likely to do with regaining control of the party?
As you said the Tories are less democratic but they still have a vote of party members for leadership unless it's uncontested.
Absolutely dreadful
Absolutely dreadful counter-revolutionary article in Freedom. Shocking stuff: https://freedomnews.org.uk/the-end-of-dogma-keepcorbyn-as-a-transitional-demand/
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
Gordon Bennet, first we have Tory bashing on the voting thread worthy of the the winner of liberal of the year and then this chancer turns up to do a bit of thunder stealing. Check this shit out...
Tory bashing? Corbyn supporting? Fucking hell, it's like Facebook on a bad day.
The author seems to not
The author seems to not understand that anarchists are not the Left.
"Daniel Dawson is a reluctant anarchist, poet and musician from Coventry."
Isn't the whole article just espousing the standard issue Leninist crap?
Freedom say that tomorrow, they will be publishing a response to this position.
On twitter there was stuff
On twitter there was stuff saying Corbyn was being kept from meeting with his shadow cabinet. Anyone know what the story with this is?
The Labour Party was created
The Labour Party was created by the organised working class within the Trade Unions. It was created to represent working class interests within the existing parliamentary system. It is the only enduring movement created by the British working class. It has history and an emotional meaning to politically minded working class people.
Some of us understand that. Some don't.
The Labour Party was created
The Labour Party was created by the trade union bureaucracy to represent the interests of the trade union bureaucracy. Open to correction on this, but I think it's only under Corbyn that Labour has adopted a default position of supporting strikes.
No it was created by working
No it was created by working class people organised in their unions and cooperatives, and other organisations, to further their interests as against the interests of the ruling class as represented by the Liberal Party and the Whigs at the time. There was no such thing as bureaucracy at that time :)
Joseph Kay
Sleeper wrote: There was no
Sleeper
Weird then that the TUC's own history of itself describes measures by officials to clamp down on a militant rank-and-file a decade before the foundation of the Labour Party...
TUC
I can understand people
I can understand people wanting to vote for Corbyn- then they might be able to eat before the revolution finally happens, or not be worked to death or not be kicked out of their homes. Theres alot more people who want to vote Labour or who are Labour members than are in the anarchist movement or who want revolution, lets be honest, many, many more. Also a Social-Democratic government is, lets face it, going to be kinder to working-class people than a neo-liberal one. He's not the solution to all our problems but unlike most politicians, Corbyn isn't seeking to fuck over the poor.
It never ceases to amaze me
It never ceases to amaze me in what a lowly opinion most so called 'revolutionaries' actually hold the working class. They seem to have no respect for our organisations, our history or our ongoing struggles.
You introduced the word
You introduced the word bureaucracy, it's not in the TUC history article you link to either. Stop making shit up to suit your flawed anti-working class argument.
Joseph Kay
potrokin wrote: I can
potrokin
I also understand why people support Corbyn and wouldn't blame anyone for having illusions in the Labour left. Nor would I criticise anyone for buying a lottery ticket. After all, we all need something to hope for occasionally. This article, however, has no place in an anarchist publication, as it's always been our duty to point out the dead end of reformism and throwing in your lot with the left wing faction of capital. Years ago, there was some real shit in Freedom, particularly when it was in it's woolly radical liberal incarnation in the 80s. But even then, I don't recall it ever carrying such pro-Labour drivvel.
So, I have to say, I'm
So, I have to say, I'm surprised at the level of principal being displayed by the PLP at the moment. They are - for the first time in their lives for many of them, I imagine - putting ideology over electoral success.
Corbyn represents the first groundswell in Labour politics in a generation and they're willing to throw that away in the name ideological beliefs, which is a level of principal I thought Labour MPs incapable of. It just turns out their ideology is reactionary and openly displays the recuperative nature of "working class" political parties.
Sleeper, you're talking rubbish.
You're mistaking the interests of the trade unions and the political parties for those of the working class. Or, if I really want to be wanky about it, you're confusing representations of the working class with activity of the class-for-itself.
It is not what the working
It is not what the working class is, nor what it thinks it is, but what it must become.
Chilli #16 ‘So, I have to
Chilli #16
‘So, I have to say, I'm surprised at the level of principal being displayed by the PLP at the moment. They are - for the first time in their lives for many of them, I imagine - putting ideology over electoral success.’
I think this ‘principled’ stance is more apparent than real. They believe their jobs are on the line as they have no faith that Corbyn will deliver electoral success. So they have seized the opportunity of the referendum result to try and remove him, and by so doing help secure their positions, and regain control of the party machinery.
The sides have presented two different models of democracy: the PLP claim that as the UK is a representative democracy they have the right to represent the best interests of the millions of people who voted for them – so Corbyn must go because ‘they’ demand it; the Corbyn side claim they represent a ‘new politics’, a social movement, based on the wishes of the people from the ground up – it is the PLP who wish to usurp this basic democracy. I think there is an element of self-interest on both sides.
If many in the PLP thought Corbyn could bring job security and electoral success like good apparatchiks, they would line up behind him.
EDIT
An example of this PLP craving for electoral success is Angela Eagle, who against the wishes of her own constituency party has come out against Corbyn and may foolishly stand against him for the leadership (she is foolish in the sense that she is being used as a cat’s paw by the right wing, who normally would not give her the time of day).
I know my views of Boris are
I know my views of Boris are a bit controversial but love him or hate him he would be quite a spectacle as PM. On the other hand Jezza is a pretty cool cat with the ability to soothe the nerves. They would have provided an excellent foil for each other. The contrast with Gove whatever grey form of Labour sludge is rather depressing for those that enjoy the thrill of the parliamentary soap opera. Pity. It could have been such fun.
The Labour Party is indeed in a right old Naomi Cambells but whatever happens the conclusion will be a tepid, even more bastardised incarnation of their supposed 'socialism'.
Oh, and by the way Prolekin, Labour are a a neo-liberal party. Blair and Brown were the kings of that shit and as that is what capitalism requires I can't see them ever being anything else.
I think something worth
I think something worth noting is Corbynism as an expression of what Aaron Bastani calls 'political promiscuity', i.e. (mainly young, unaffiliated) people flooding into one thing to achieve some immediate end or fight some particular fight, then swarming somewhere else, with minimal ongoing committment.
A lot of people I wouldn't expect are 'joining' the Labour Party, but that involves paying £3, voting for Corbyn, then forgetting about it. With that minimal cost of entry, critiques of electoralism based on it being necessarily zero-sum with direct action might miss the mark. I'd be interested if older comrades think this phenomenon of low-committment, short-term organisation-joining is a new thing, or just a 'networked' version of the veritable left habit of 'ooh, shiny...'.
I do think it's still problematic. For starters, while Corbyn is being attacked partly for his principled refusal to give in to nativism, while he's being attacked, criticisms of e.g. him equivocating over calling the Met Police institutionally racist get forever postponed. And we don't talk about how Labour are already in power locally, and implicated in the worst kinds of social housing gatekeeping, collusion with property developers etc.
Plus this swarming from Syriza, to the General Election, to Corbyn for Leader, to the Referendum, to Corbyn for Leader (again) in a succession of 'temporary' commitments does seem to still squeeze out participation in more sustained work around housing, work, police violence etc.
All that said, the sheer
All that said, the sheer craven dishonesty of the anti-Corbyn spin, and its uniformity across the media, is really something to behold. All to render a modest social democrat who wants to renationalise the railways and have a bit of redistributive taxation utterly beyond the pale (while putting fash on the TV and front pages to explain why they're not racist, they just really love this country...).
More theoretically, I think we're witnessing the redundancy built into the ruling apparatus. When we talk about a 'structural critique' of the state, it's this kind of thing: even if you can capture one point in that apparatus, the rest of the apparatus turns on you.
Surely if nothing else the
Surely if nothing else the antics of the MP's in both the Tory and Labour Parties in particular before and after the Referendum in their opportunistic battles within and between their respective parties will have damaged what's left of the facade of parliamentary representative politics in the eyes of many workers - or am I being too hopeful about that - could maybe fuel ultra-right rather than ultra-left politics on the ground so to speak?
Auld, don't worry man, my
Auld, don't worry man, my last post was a bit tongue-in-cheek ;-)
JK, that was a good post.
This has some useful thoughts
This has some useful thoughts on "electability":
Jack S
Here's another mildly amusing
Here's another mildly amusing text from some other Leftists:
'You're about to read a plea from an anarchist group to back the leader of a political party...'
https://www.facebook.com/sabcatprinting/
Just about every significant
Just about every significant political issue now seems to reveal loads of 'anarchists' to be leftists.
so apparently the SPEW have
so apparently the SPEW have decided the most important thing is to support Corbyn
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/23164/01-07-2016/letter-to-organisers-of-16th-july-demo
Joseph Kay wrote: This has
Joseph Kay
From that article:
Jack S
Does anyone have a link for Owen Smith's statement? I'm interested as it looks as if he may end up as the leadership challenger (assuming the coup attempt hasn't already fizzled out).
Mark #28 ‘assuming the coup
Mark #28
‘assuming the coup attempt hasn't already fizzled out’
I think it unlikely that the right in the party will give way. Kinnock has just asked Corbyn to think of the party and leave office. In the past the left has been more loyal than the right in trying to preserve party unity, and that is what they are relying on this time. The right has enough contacts in the establishment to know that if they leave they will find a nice cushy number awaiting them. The real question is will Corbyn and the left bottle it, or will they risk the party splitting?
The democratic farce of making policy inside the Labour Party has been exposed when it appears Corbyn has been told some of ‘his’ policies may be retained if he leaves quietly.
The party policy is supposed to be shaped by the National Policy Forum (NPF):
‘The NPF meets several times a year to make sure that the direction of our policy reflects the broad consensus in the party. Between meetings, the representatives that make up the body liaise with the members, supporters and public who submit to Your Britain. NPF representatives will respond to submissions made, ask questions and engage in on-going debate about the issues that matter to you, feeding them back when the NPF meets to move our policy forward.
The National Policy Forum includes representatives of CLPs and regions, Labour Councillors, affiliated trade unions and socialist societies, the PLP, the EPLP and other stakeholder groups within the Party.’
In fact it’s a complete dog’s diner, and the real power lies within the PLP and the leadership. It is said Tony Blair used to make government policy sitting with a few pals on the settee in Downing Street.
Perhaps this farce will lead to a recognition by the membership of the hopelessness of Labour’s road to socialism.
EDIT
Kinnock said "If he has any sense of political team spirit, he should do his duty and resign."
Well, if there's anyone who
Well, if there's anyone who knows about getting elected it's Kinnock. I still remember his little terrified face staring out the back window of the limo as it arrived at Ealing the second time, after the weird bombast of the rallies: "We're all right! We're all right!" Fucking priceless.
Ex member here, whose still
Ex member here, whose still been on about a dozen Labour party e-mail lists and well known to my local branch.
As a summary Auld is largely correct, the only conference I ever went to was completely stage managed. All questions and motions, and who would speak for them were pre approved, and the delegates were quizzed on them before hand.
Though the influence of the TUC isn't just funding, affiliated Union members are balloted, so its still factored into leadership and National Officer elections. When Ed won it, it was widely reported that it was the votes from union members that clinched it for him over his brother.
The candidate selection for MP's is rather opaque, local branches can nominate people and get the vote to choose but the National organisation can parachute in candidates from anywhere, and manage the selection process. Usually the out of towners all came with big friends, like a Union recommendation, or a local party groups support.
Joseph Kay
Yes and no, motions supporting strikes have been passed before, then forgotten. Officially the Labour Party is committed to being "neutral" on strikes while its in government. That is of course usually bollocks, its intervened plenty of times when it fears a strike will destabilise the country.
Sleeper
This is correct, however that is the problem with the Labour party. Far too many people still associate what the Labour party is and does with socialism this is why nearly every other group with socialism in the name is obsessed with nationalisation.
Chilli Sauce
I'm afraid this isn't the case, the main justification the right wing of the labour party has used for years now is that in order to be electable the Labour party must move to the right in order to win a general election. They believe in making the Labour party as close to the Conservative party as possible. There motivated purely by a belief in electoral success.
rat wrote: The author seems
rat
Several days later, there is still no response from Freedom.
Agreed with Reddebrek #31. A
Agreed with Reddebrek #31.
A correspondent from the New Statesman on the BBC TV tonight said that Corbyn was not the first choice of the union leaders, though research shows that the small percentage of affiliated union members who did vote, heavily favoured Corbyn. So it is not like the ‘good old days’ when any ballots went through the union offices and when necessary opinions ‘corrected’.
If it comes to a new election for leader the Labour NEC will decide if Cordyn can run - being the present Leader, as it is very doubtful he would get fifty MPs to nominate him (again). The Statesman’s correspondent was very coy about what they would decide and reckoned it all depended on the day who they thought would win the decision to allow or disqualify him – as no one would want to be on the losing side. Fine principled fellows.
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
I hope I'm wrong in saying this but theres probably equal odds for winning the lottery and a large section of english people to do anything truly revolutionary.
"Anarchist
"Anarchist Momentum"
https://www.facebook.com/Anarchist-Momentum-1714794515468283/
Fantastic! Quote: Anarchists
Fantastic!
It is either a piss-take or has been written by a child.
Nah, It's serious and I know
Nah, It's serious and I know who (singular) it is.
Battlescarred wrote: Nah,
Battlescarred
Figured it was just one moonbat.
So it looks like the Labour
So it looks like the Labour Party is going to run an 'election' without Corbyn on the ballot and an unopposed 'challenger'. Which will probably trigger Corbyn to get a judicial review/high court injunction (it's a clear breach of party rules), a legal fight over who gets to keep the Labour Party name, and a split where one side has 150+ MPs but no members or money while the other has hundreds of thousands of members and trade union funds but only a handful of MPs. That said my understanding is most of the anti-Corbyn MPs are safe seat parachutists who may well lose their seats to a Labour candidate next election (assuming Corbyn keeps the name), which would mean the new party would lack members, funds, or MPs.
Looks like anti-Corbyn MPs
Looks like anti-Corbyn MPs might be planning a merger with pro-EU Tories, splitting the Tories too: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/labour-tory-mps-talk
Joseph Kay wrote: Looks like
Joseph Kay
You know whats really sad about all this, that was the plot to the finale of the New Statesman
Why doesn't Corbyn just form
Why doesn't Corbyn just form a new political party?
Joseph Kay wrote: Looks like
Joseph Kay
The fuck? The world really has gone crazy.
Or at least the facade of parliamentary democracy has finally come crashing down.
Chilli Sauce wrote: Joseph
Chilli Sauce
yeah, i wondered. i'm american and don't live with british politics on a daily basis but that sounded cracked.
Well its happened before, the
Well its happened before, the SDP in the 1980's was founded by defections from Labour with a few Conservatives and Liberals added to the mix.
Recall that Corbyn's being
Recall that Corbyn's being challenged in part because of alleged lack of media competence, then watch this:
I'm growing ever more
I'm growing ever more convinced that on 24. June I woke up in an increasingly implausible episode of The Thick of It.
Seriously, just look at this:
Aargghh! in pink on a pink union jack - because post-Corbyn Labour is no longer red socialist but wants to compete with UKIP on nationalist terms, and because Eagle is gay and a woman, and because women like pink.... Real Leadership.
Scallywag wrote: Why doesn't
Scallywag
I guess the Labour Party has tangible assets plus reputation that he considers worth fighting over. Also given as he's been a back bencher for 30 years or so, doesn't seem the type to ever leave. I imagine he thinks he's the true Labour and the Blairites are the entryists.
Can someone help explain
Can someone help explain what's going on today with the 17-15 NEC vote?
Also, it occurs to me that as ridiculous as these machinations are they illustrate better than anything we can say, exactly why electoral politics are a dead end prospect. I mean, if Labour is willing to blatantly break it's own rules and go against the obvious will of the majority of their constituency, all just to stop a left of center social democrat, imagine the lengths they would go to stop truly radical change.
The NEC is deciding who goes
The NEC is deciding who goes on the ballet for the up coming labour leadership election, the 17-15 vote is a vote to hold the vote over who goes on the ballet secratly, corbyn and his allies say corban has to be on it automatically the anti corbynists say he has to seek nominations from the labour mps. Basically they know he'd win easily so there are trying to stop him standing
Thanks! Presumably, this is
Thanks! Presumably, this is against the party by-laws? and if so i would imagine it would be easily over-turned in litigation, right? So I'm guessing they are betting on delaying litigation until after the election? If that's the case, this stuff is even more fucked up than i imagined. What's the feel for the chances that Corbyn can work his way out of this one?
Corbyn will be on the ballot,
Corbyn will be on the ballot, they voted 18-14. All the available legal advice and any sensible reading of the rules said the incumbent had to be on the ballot. Can't see where this can go now except a really dirty election, a Corbyn win, and a split taking 80% of the MPs but hardly any members or funding.
apparently they voted 18--14
apparently they voted 18--14 for corbyn to be on the ballet. According to stuff i saw on twiter earlier Eagle may simple drop it now. Would not be vary surprised if a bunch of anti corbyn mps decide to leave and form a new party
I'm surprised the 17-15
I'm surprised the 17-15 pre-vote wasn't indicative of the final vote. It's kind of hilarious from a distance that the Blairites accuse Corbyn of being bad at politics and not a good leader, and he continues to appear to out-maneuver them. I don't know if it's necessarily his skills or the plotters' incompetence, but their tenacity in the face if constant humiliation gives the impression they really, really disagree with him.
jesuithitsquad wrote: I'm
jesuithitsquad
Really disagree with him? I think that is putting it mildly.
This whole thing is a joke. Also, Teresa fucking May.
I meant as opposed to just a
I meant as opposed to just a standard Machiavellian power struggle. Probably not well stated.
jesuithitsquad wrote: I meant
jesuithitsquad
Yeah, their politics are like chalk and cheese. I see what you mean though.
So apparently after several
So apparently after several pro-Corbyn people left they passed a motion that wasn't on the agenda to disenfranchise about 130,000 members who've joined in the last 6 months (on the explicit promise of a vote in leadership elections), and to disenfranchise the '£3 registered supporters' unless they pay £25 in 48 hours. Hard to see how this won't end up in court.
Jesus. Like again, I don't
Jesus. Like again, I don't know much about UK politics, but how do these people expect to ever get elected, even for dog catcher, again? Are their seats safe enough to murder someone live on tv?
jesuithitsquad wrote: Jesus.
jesuithitsquad
As far as the right wing of the Labour party are concerned, it's Vegas or bust over this issue. And maybe for Corbyn's supporters too.
It would be embarrassing if it wasn't so tragic. Or the other way around.
It's what we should expect to
It's what we should expect to happen. The Labor Party breaks apart on the shoals of how much to support an "enlightened," integrated, international capitalism, while capitalism itself demonstrates again and in spades how unenlightened, disparate, parochial, reactionary, dysfunctional it truly is.
Now I expect much of the left will exercise its repetition compulsion and support Corbyn and advocate (an abdicate) for "Old Labor" as opposed to "New Labor" and if all else fails, urging Corbyn to leave the shell of the Labor Party and start a new party, that will of course, be born atrophied.
Here the Tories get jammed up by letting an incompetent, spoiled brat, Rupert Murdoch errand boy pretend he's a prime minister, and "labor" proves it can always one-up the Tories when it comes to morons, dunces, gutless fucks, venal bastards, and those other standards of capitalist order.
History might be a play written by the cruel, acted by the fools, and for the enjoyment of cynics.
Angela Eagle on the
Angela Eagle on the membership last year lol
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1608348862790470&id=1465075833784441
jesuithitsquad wrote: Jesus.
jesuithitsquad
That one's reserved only for Trump, I'm afraid ;-)
As far as I'm concerned, the
As far as I'm concerned, the Labour party have gone rogue, it's just got ridiculous.
They've apparently now
They've apparently now suspended all Labour Party branch meetings nationwide until after the election. Which conveniently halts the no confidence/deselection efforts against Eagle. Notional reason for this is safety, due to what seems like a largely fictitious campaign of 'Corbynite intimidation'.
Edit:
One of the interesting
One of the interesting aspects of this shambles is the 'common sense' political culture of the 200-300,000 (mostly younger, previously nonaffiliated) Corbynistas in terms of direct democracy: MPs should be recallable delegates of their branches, policies should reflect the membership, etc. It's unfortunate this political energy is being hoovered up by parliamentary shenannigans, and in a sense the anti-Corbyn Labour people are right: this is a syndicalism alien to the top-down paternalism of Labour Party traditions. (I know parliamentary syndicalism's an oxymoron, but the Miners' Next Step called for recallable MPs and member-lead policy etc).
I should add I think there's two separate sets of 'structural' problems here: the Labour Party machine, which for the time being, is being beaten, and the state itself. It's not impossible Corbyn's 'insurgents' might take over Labour and make it more member-led, devolving power to branches, making it easier to deselect MPs etc. We've seen fairly internally democratic opposition parties elsewhere (Syriza, Podemos). But then if the opposition party wants to govern, i.e. manage the capitalist state, there's a whole other set of forces pushing professionalisation, hierarchy, etc (again: see Syriza and Podemos as they got closer to power).
Chilli Sauce
Chilli Sauce
Fair play--he prophesied it even.. It could happen next week at the convention: a 3-way cage match between pence, christie & gingrich for VP. The losing two to be shot during primetime Thursday!! We were promised an exciting convention, after all!!
Joseph Kay wrote: They've
Joseph Kay
This is amazing. If you're gonna call it a coup, might as well do a proper job of it.
It's the 'Carry On Labour
It's the 'Carry On Labour Party', an all British farce - watch the candidates fall over each other in the 'I will unite the Party' competition.
Everyone's losing their damn
Everyone's losing their damn minds
Paul Mason is really becoming
Paul Mason is really becoming excruciatingly annoying (not going to say what would you expect from an ex-member of Workers Power cos I know some who are OK)
https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/corbyn-the-summer-of-hierarchical-things-ab1368959b80#.4yg83089h
Meanwhile Aaron Bastani of
Meanwhile Aaron Bastani of Novara Media has become a major cheerleader of Corbynmania
Labour's busy closing
Labour's busy closing applications to their BME affiliate:
And their LGBT one:
Whilst Scientists for Labour
Whilst Scientists for Labour has this:
Join
Temporary suspension of membership applications
We've just recieved a massive spike in membership applications - it's great to be loved! However, it's come to our attention that this may not be because science policy has become a priority for the nation but perhaps more to do with people trying to side-step the Labour NEC decision that eligibility to vote in the upcoming leadership election includes a cut-off threshold for membership: you have to have joined before Feb 2016.
Scientists for Labour is a science policy group. We are not a means for non-Labour members to hijack the Labour leadership election. That is not a judgement against or for any leadership candidate - we don't even know who will stand at this stage - but is a defence of the Labour NEC's rules.
All recent applications will be processed after the leadership contest.
If you still wish to make a new application, you can do so after the leadership contest.
For those that wish to join, full membership costs £10 per year, concessionary membership is £5 per year and branch membership is £50 per year.
People are talking a lot
People are talking a lot about the generation who are around 25 being supporters of Corbyn. But people are being taken in by all of this from my own generation who should know better, not to mention all those people connected to Reclaim The Streets and the anticapitalist movement from the 1990s and the early 200s.
Battlescarred wrote: Paul
Battlescarred
See also this tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/750242938727362560
Battlescarred
Battlescarred
Indeed, Novara now running a guide to deselection including the advice that "this requires years of hard work in branches and constituencies across the country."
In my area the pro Corbyn
In my area the pro Corbyn labour and SPEW have been rubbing shoulders together lately,
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/call-for-melanie-onn-mp-to-be-thrown-out-of-labour/story-29484819-detail/story.html
Theirs been a bit of a split in the two local branches and its getting quite bitter, I know at least one member has been suspended and is under investigation by the "compliance unit", yes that is an actual thing the Labour Party has. Looks like they're at the grassing each other up stage.
no1 wrote: I'm growing ever
no1
Nothing to do with Labour, but this guy is now Foreign Secretary:
[youtube]F1MVZYtX5Zg[/youtube]
A millionaire donor is now
A millionaire donor is now suing Labour to get Corbyn off the ballot, in a move even coup fixer Tom Watson has described as "unhelpful". I think we can safely upgrade this from shambles to omnishambles.
Over in the "Electoral
Over in the "Electoral Politics Is Not A Gateway" thead, there is a link to this story about Upton Sinclair's.1934 run for California Governor, which while written to be illustrative as a comparison to the Sanders candidacy in the US, really reminds me much more of the Labour fight.
Nice collection of Corbyn
Nice collection of Corbyn related clothing now available.
Also available in hoodies and t shirts.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/prayforpatrick/works/22483970-jeremy-for-leader-white?p=t-shirt&style=mhoodiez&body_color=charcoal_heather&print_location=front
he's onourable, inteligent,
he's onourable, inteligent, and nnice
When I see him he reminds me
When I see him he reminds me of a fellow who's just left the betting shop.
This ad exploits women
This ad exploits women
Momentum meeting last
Momentum meeting last wednesday,
[youtube]H7VaYrtSjoE[/youtube]
Fleur wrote: Nice collection
Fleur
Not how you spell his name, but what superlative could you do with 'Y'
I like the Quatermass
I like the Quatermass clip.
The squaddie is like the anarchist wondering off to join Momentum.
Labour are running two unity
Labour are running two unity candidates against Corbyn for double the unity: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/16/owen-smith-angela-eagle-labour-contest-anti-corbyn
Angela Eagle drops out,
Angela Eagle drops out, having served her role, leaving ex-BBC nonentity Owen Smith to challenge Corbyn for the leadership. What a pile of manure.
I don't understand why they
I don't understand why they have 'one member one vote' policy when ordinary members can't serve in the cabinet.
This article, though from a
This article, though from a Labour leftist viewpoint, does make some relevant points on the ‘Party-as-social-movement’ Corbynist claims;
http://labourlist.org/2016/04
http://labourlist.org/2016/04/mcdonnell-looks-to-create-20000-entrepreneurs-a-year/
So apparently Corbyn held a
So apparently Corbyn held a rally with several thousand people in Bristol last night and whoever controls the Bristol Labour Party website responded by deleting their site: http://www.labourbristol.org/
Lolz. In other news, Corbyn
Lolz. In other news, Corbyn has had a couple of significant victories: the High Court has ordered that all members should be able to vote in the leadership election, including the 130,000 new members who are mostly his supporters whom the NEC was saying couldn't vote. Also in the NEC elections the 6 people elected are all Corbynites, so now I believe Corbynites have a majority of the NEC.
Steven. wrote: Also in the
Steven.
iirc technically they don't have a majority until after conference September when the new NEC members take up their positions - which is potentially important (so far as anything in the LP is important) because it means it'll be the current 'moderate' leaning NEC up to the end of the leadership election.
http://www.theguardian.com/po
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/09/trotskyists-young-labour-members-jeremy-corbyn-tom-watson
;-)