Topic: Doesn't matter who you vote for as long as it's for the right reasons!

[Nobby Reserve]

Frankly, the election of leader should be left entirely to the PLP. If we elect MPs to run the country, they should be capable of electing their own leader. It makes little sense to have party members electing a leader if their choice is an anathema to those who must work under him/her.

I disagree fundamentally. The MPs should serve the Party, which is the membership.

[killer-heels]

Frankly, the election of leader should be left entirely to the PLP. If we elect MPs to run the country, they should be capable of electing their own leader. It makes little sense to have party members electing a leader if their choice is an anathema to those who must work under him/her.

The members should have a say. Unfortunately many members have been drafted in by the nerds of Momentum.

Those lot of members have to illustrate that they are not Momentum puppets and thus far they havent done so. Its fine they backed Corbyn first time round as I would have voted for him as well. But it seems like they just take their cue from whatever Momentum want them to do.

[killer-heels]

I disagree fundamentally. The MPs should serve the Party, which is the membership.

The unions should have more of a say then if thats the case.

[Nobby Reserve]

The members should have a say. Unfortunately many members have been drafted in by the nerds of Momentum.

Those lot of members have to illustrate that they are not Momentum puppets and thus far they havent done so. Its fine they backed Corbyn first time round as I would have voted for him as well. But it seems like they just take their cue from whatever Momentum want them to do.

Do you want to restrict membership of the party to people of a fairly narrow political opinion?

[killer-heels]

Do you want to restrict membership of the party to people of a fairly narrow political opinion?

Their political opinion is narrow. Like I said, i backed Corbyn first time around. But since then it seems whatever Momentum wants, happens, be it removing policy debates and votes from conference or attacking those people not seen to be loyal.

[So… Howard Philips]

I disagree fundamentally. The MPs should serve the Party, which is the membership.

Shouldn't MPs serve their constituents?

[Nobby Reserve]

Shouldn't MPs serve their constituents?

If you want to go by the book and not reality, then yes.

But our democracy evolved into a party political system. They stand for election on a joint, party manifesto and follow policy dictated by the party, enforced by party whips.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

FWIW, if I was designing the process from scratch I'd have the MPs choosing the leader, subject to subsequent endorsement by the party members and the unions.

[Zeb]

If you want to go by the book and not reality, then yes.

But our democracy evolved into a party political system. They stand for election on a joint, party manifesto and follow policy dictated by the party, enforced by party whips.

Our constitutional arrangement assumes independence of thought and action by MPs even within those party structures. The Prime Minister is subject to the confidence of the House. Robert Saunders has written a fair bit on how introducing mandates from members, rather than from judgement of MPs, has caused problems such as PMs now being elected by selfselecting minorities.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/why-party-members-should-never-be-allowed-elect-prime-ministers

[Jiminy Cricket]

I disagree fundamentally. The MPs should serve the Party, which is the membership.

That's an interesting interpretation of how the British parliamentary system operates. Do not individual MPs represent their constituency? They are trusted to apply their best judgements to votes of huge national import (I know, I know). And yet, they cannot be trusted to choose the best MP within their ranks to lead them - the leader they must work with and under?

Extending from the above, Parliament should choose the PM. This would have the added benefit of focusing minds of MPs to not choose the purest or most extreme of their ranks; rather, someone who will have wider appeal within Parliament (and the nation). Failure to do this would risk the election of a PM which is not from the majority party (something, surely, the dominant party would certainly wish to avoid). If the last election of PM was up to all MPs, there is little chance that Johnson would have won. Votes of no confidence, after the fact, are not the same, because, you know, party loyalty.

[Jiminy Cricket]

The members should have a say. Unfortunately many members have been drafted in by the nerds of Momentum.

Those lot of members have to illustrate that they are not Momentum puppets and thus far they havent done so. Its fine they backed Corbyn first time round as I would have voted for him as well. But it seems like they just take their cue from whatever Momentum want them to do.

And how's that worked out for us all? On face value, you appear to be arguing against my point. But in actuality, your comments only reinforces my argument. Leave it to members and you and up with Johnson and Corbyn.

[Jiminy Cricket]

The unions should have more of a say then if thats the case.

I do not understand how you arrive at that conclusion.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Do you want to restrict membership of the party to people of a fairly narrow political opinion?

Broaden it by letting MPs be the representatives of their constituents they are supposed to be.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Their political opinion is narrow. Like I said, i backed Corbyn first time around. But since then it seems whatever Momentum wants, happens, be it removing policy debates and votes from conference or attacking those people not seen to be loyal.

Again, sounds more like an argument for letting MPs make the decision.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Shouldn't MPs serve their constituents?

Yes. Though, the nation as a whole first. Serving the party should come no further up the list than third.

[Jiminy Cricket]

FWIW, if I was designing the process from scratch I'd have the MPs choosing the leader, subject to subsequent endorsement by the party members and the unions.

The problem with that is that MPs would be held to ransom: Pick our favoured MP as leader or will reject your choice until you select the 'correct' MP for the job.

[killer-heels]

Again, sounds more like an argument for letting MPs make the decision.

There is a middle ground somewhere between members, unions and MP’s deciding. In fact it was probably okay until Ed Milliband fucked things up.

[Mutton Geoff]

Frankly, the election of leader should be left entirely to the PLP. If we elect MPs to run the country, they should be capable of electing their own leader. It makes little sense to have party members electing a leader if their choice is an anathema to those who must work under him/her.

so if the members have no say in the matter why should bother to go out in all weathers trying to get these MP’s  elected, the problem over the decades was always the PLP being seen as some elitist club treating the members as not relevant  or worthy in the decision making!
 You go back to that ideology at your peril, there has to be a system that includes all but with a caveat that includes stepping down from the leadership if that is the only option left

[Jiminy Cricket]

Our constitutional arrangement assumes independence of thought and action by MPs even within those party structures. The Prime Minister is subject to the confidence of the House. Robert Saunders has written a fair bit on how introducing mandates from members, rather than from judgement of MPs, has caused problems such as PMs now being elected by selfselecting minorities.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/why-party-members-should-never-be-allowed-elect-prime-ministers

Thanks for that, Zeb. I agree wholeheartedly with the contents of that article from Robert Saunders.

[Jiminy Cricket]

There is a middle ground somewhere between members, unions and MP’s deciding. In fact it was probably okay until Ed Milliband fucked things up.

Well, I certainly agree that it operated better back then. But, as we have seen, rules change. Perhaps if the system for electing the leader was fundamentally different (and black and white), there would be less incentive to 'tinker'.

[Circa1892]

I disagree fundamentally. The MPs should serve the Party, which is the membership.

This is so fundamentally flawed and wrong I don't even know where to begin.

[Jiminy Cricket]

so if the members have no say in the matter why should bother to go out in all weathers trying to get these MP’s  elected, the problem over the decades was always the PLP being seen as some elitist club treating the members as not relevant  or worthy in the decision making!
 You go back to that ideology at your peril, there has to be a system that includes all but with a caveat that includes stepping down from the leadership if that is the only option left

They still have voice. Although MPs should represent their constituency, their views (and the views of constituents) necessarily will be influenced by argument (and party conferences and elsewhere). We are talking about electing the party leaders (and PM) here, not policies. Though, ultimately, I would leave policy up to MPs too. They are the ones who have the extra information and resources are have to make the policies work. And, because their control of Parliament is always limited (even if the have the majority of MPs), they will always need to make compromises. Or, should all Parliamentary decisions require the approval of members of the majority party? That would seem the logical conclusion (reductio ad absurdum) of your position.

Members should only influence policy and position of party MPs. They should not have direct votes on any of it.

[Zeb]

There is a middle ground somewhere between members, unions and MP’s deciding. In fact it was probably okay until Ed Milliband fucked things up.

Probably. There's the old 'representative or delegate?' argument to it too though, isn't there? Problem for me with the idea that MPs are party delegates is that they don't get sent to Parliament on purely party votes. Biggest branch near me is currently at around 10% of the electorate for the area it covers. Enough to sneak the odd councillor on a very low turnout local election but hardly a mandate even among Labour voters otherwise.

[filopastry]

Nandy has made it through to the final vote in the leadership contest.

[Mutton Geoff]

They still have voice. Although MPs should represent their constituency, their views (and the views of constituents) necessarily will be influenced by argument (and party conferences and elsewhere). We are talking about electing the party leaders (and PM) here, not policies. Though, ultimately, I would leave policy up to MPs too. They are the ones who have the extra information and resources are have to make the policies work. And, because their control of Parliament is always limited (even if the have the majority of MPs), they will always need to make compromises. Or, should all Parliamentary decisions require the approval of members of the majority party? That would seem the logical conclusion (reductio ad absurdum) of your position.

Members should only influence policy and position of party MPs. They should not have direct votes on any of it.

So first you say the members should have some input but in the end you state the members should not have any input in policy or the framework of the party including it's leader, cannot see that attracting members with the attitude of you can join pay your membership fee,  but go and sit over there and say nothing let us decide for you! How do members influence anything without any power to do so?

It has to said though most of you have been bleating on about it needs to be a broad church and totally inclusive, totally agree with that but when push comes to shove you want to only allow your own narrow views and to be told what to think by the political elite in the Westminster bubble (some of whom have no concept of problems faced by many in their constituencies) and others who pay lip service to it, in fact you seem to want them to tell the rest of us serfs how this party will be run.

This party will only work if it is inclusive of everyone with everyone having an equal say in the decision making about the party it's framework and future and certainly that includes the choice of the next leader

In the Beginning:

"The Labour Party originated in the late 19th century, meeting the demand for a new political party to represent the interests and needs of the urban working class, a demographic which had increased in number, and many of whom only gained suffrage with the passage of the Representation of the People Act 1884."

[Mutton Geoff]

On another matter often stated by one poster in particular about the membership and Momentum being the same thing, what actual percentage of the membership are in Momentum ?

The up to date figures for the total membership is 370,658 heading to 400,000 at its peak the total membership of Momentum was 40,000 so roughly speaking and with some crude maths that is 1 in 10 members at its peak, many will now have drifted away from Momentum or in the process of doing so,  so it will be probably more than 1-10 soon, hardly infested are they?

You could say within the NEC and the inner circle they had too much power but as fast as they arrived they can see any power diminished especially if their choice loses out in the leadership contest, some of the rest of their power can be eroded at the next conference with a new direction in place and far less apathetic members just sitting back and allowing momentum to be seemingly the voice of the party.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/more-people-have-joined-labour-since-the-election-than-are-in-the-entire-conservative-party-a6686001.html

Momentum  are in fact facing a backlash from their own members about the way they are running a ballot amongst the membership, see again people in the westminster bubble telling their members how to think is not going down well with those same members:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-momentum-member-ballot-deputy-candidates-a9283826.html

I would also expect if Starmer or Nandy win they will want their own team with them so again the Corbyn inner circle Milne et.al. could be got rid off in time.

So can we perhaps think that maybe not all members are in Momentum or even think like them or allow them to speak for them.

 Especially the poster with the Twitter style of posting

[Yorkykopite]

In the Beginning:

"The Labour Party originated in the late 19th century, meeting the demand for a new political party to represent the interests and needs of the urban working class, a demographic which had increased in number, and many of whom only gained suffrage with the passage of the Representation of the People Act 1884."

Very good.

And also in "the Beginning" the leader of the Labour party was elected exclusively by the Labour MPs. That system saw Labour through to 1983 when it was reformed to allow the unions and individual members to have a say. It produced great leaders (on the whole), electable parties, and a membership that topped a million. There was no discernible effect on the activism of the members. Indeed that's all Labour had when it came to campaigning. The money went elsewhere.

We should go back to that system. It's the best guarantee that the party will be led by someone capable of performing well in parliament and beating the Conservatives in elections.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Momentum’s influence goes well beyond their members within the membership, so if only 10% are momentum members id wager that many times more would have taken their lead for things like NEC voting, especially over the last 4 years

[oldfordie]

Momentum’s influence goes well beyond their members within the membership, so if only 10% are momentum members id wager that many times more would have taken their lead for things like NEC voting, especially over the last 4 years

Momentums mailing list ?
Was there a bit of a stink a few years back, Labour members were getting emails from Momentum, they wanted to know how Momentum got hold of Labour members email addresses. something like that anyway.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Very good.

And also in "the Beginning" the leader of the Labour party was elected exclusively by the Labour MPs. That system saw Labour through to 1983 when it was reformed to allow the unions and individual members to have a say. It produced great leaders (on the whole), electable parties, and a membership that topped a million. There was no discernible effect on the activism of the members. Indeed that's all Labour had when it came to campaigning. The money went elsewhere.

We should go back to that system. It's the best guarantee that the party will be led by someone capable of performing well in parliament and beating the Conservatives in elections.

Well, I did realise that. I was only just becoming interested in politics at that time and was not old enough to vote. Yep. We should definitely go back to that.

[west_london_red]

There is a middle ground somewhere between members, unions and MP’s deciding. In fact it was probably okay until Ed Milliband fucked things up.

I’ll keep saying this but it made no difference. Even under the old system Corbyn would have won, he won 49% of first preference votes amount members and even more with the affiliates. Take out the £3’ers and he still would have walked it.

[west_london_red]

In a positive step my TU is running a ballot on who it should endorse rather then just decided by the leadership.

[So… Howard Philips]

In a positive step my TU is running a ballot on who it should endorse rather then just decided by the leadership.

Which union is that?

[Yorkykopite]

In a positive step my TU is running a ballot on who it should endorse rather then just decided by the leadership.

That's really encouraging. You've probably said before (or maybe you don't want to say) but which union is this?

I thought this was encouraging too. Welcome signs of the party getting its act together at grass roots level: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/22/pick-long-bailey-and-its-over-the-view-from-the-ruins-of-labours-red-wall

Though I see Ian Lavery is asking Keir Starmer to stand down today. He's playing the gender card. Hypocrite.

[west_london_red]

TSSA - Transport Salaried Staffs Association, TU for non-operational ie white collar Transport Workers in the rail industry primarily, but also others like staff at places like Thomas Cook.

[Nobby Reserve]

Very good.

And also in "the Beginning" the leader of the Labour party was elected exclusively by the Labour MPs. That system saw Labour through to 1983 when it was reformed to allow the unions and individual members to have a say. It produced great leaders (on the whole), electable parties, and a membership that topped a million. There was no discernible effect on the activism of the members. Indeed that's all Labour had when it came to campaigning. The money went elsewhere.

We should go back to that system. It's the best guarantee that the party will be led by someone capable of performing well in parliament and beating the Conservatives in elections.

That system which saw just 3 elected Labour PM's in 60-odd years?

[Red-Soldier]

That system which saw just 3 elected Labour PM's in 60-odd years?

Yep.  Clearly they were on to a winner.

[Jiminy Cricket]

That system which saw just 3 elected Labour PM's in 60-odd years?

And - as per Yorky's comments a few posts up - just one elected PM since the Labour Party changed the rules in 1983 (previously, the leader was elected by the PLP only).

[Red-Soldier]

So first you say the members should have some input but in the end you state the members should not have any input in policy or the framework of the party including it's leader, cannot see that attracting members with the attitude of you can join pay your membership fee,  but go and sit over there and say nothing let us decide for you! How do members influence anything without any power to do so?

It has to said though most of you have been bleating on about it needs to be a broad church and totally inclusive, totally agree with that but when push comes to shove you want to only allow your own narrow views and to be told what to think by the political elite in the Westminster bubble (some of whom have no concept of problems faced by many in their constituencies) and others who pay lip service to it, in fact you seem to want them to tell the rest of us serfs how this party will be run.

This party will only work if it is inclusive of everyone with everyone having an equal say in the decision making about the party it's framework and future and certainly that includes the choice of the next leader

In the Beginning:

"The Labour Party originated in the late 19th century, meeting the demand for a new political party to represent the interests and needs of the urban working class, a demographic which had increased in number, and many of whom only gained suffrage with the passage of the Representation of the People Act 1884."

This is a good point.

[Yorkykopite]

That system which saw just 3 elected Labour PM's in 60-odd years?

Yes.

You could have said the system which saw the Labour Party grow from zero seats to almost 300 in 29 years and which saw Labour challenge and overthrow the Tory-Liberal duopoly.

Or you could have said the system that saw Labour form the government 8 times in 50 years.

Or you could have said the system that elected a leader who proved to be the most valuable civilian lieutenant that Churchill had during War and went on to spearhead the creation of a social-democratic welfare state that still exists in part today.