Friday 29th July 2016

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 3:40 pm

I'd better retract my earlier comment, because when it mattered professionally I would never have stated much that I do under my real name. Having said that, and now I am speaking of tone rather than specific content, I do wish that people would not address others online in a manner that they would not to their face. I'm the same regarding behind their backs too, which probably explains the lack of friends.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 3:42 pm

[quote="ohsocynical"]I've just read one Lab MP saying that new members joined up merely to support Corbyn, and they won't necessarily vote Labour.[/quot

Some Labour MPs have advertised in the national press for people to join Labour in order to get rid of Corbyn.
They won't necessarily vote Labour either.
This appears to be yet another attempt to smear Corbyn supporters.
btw I watched the Mcdonnell speech you linked to yesterday.
Which pointed out how badly Corbyn is being treated by many Labour Mps.He is a very brave man.
They should be so ashamed of themselves.Won't be,of course.
I hope nobody asks me to treat Owen Smith kindly in any way.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 3:43 pm

Recent good piece on the real name or username discussion.

http://qz.com/741933/internet-trolls-ar ... udy-finds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 3:46 pm

Hi all

What is all this focus on who people supported in the past and their legitimacy to join Labour

I remember a nonentity called Shawn Woodward. Was elected as a Tory ( I assume he voted for himself), decided he wanted to join Labour and then was parachuted into a safe seat!

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 3:56 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:Hi all

What is all this focus on who people supported in the past and their legitimacy to join Labour

I remember a nonentity called Shawn Woodward. Was elected as a Tory ( I assume he voted for himself), decided he wanted to join Labour and then was parachuted into a safe seat!

Of course it is legitimate for anyone to support or join Labour. Who has questioned that?

The huge influx of new members cannot but change the party however. The 4.5% (to which I belonged) must now with arrivals and departures be more like the 1%.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 4:05 pm

Earlier this month, the LSE published their research on newspaper articles about Jeremy Corbyn.
75% of the coverage misrepresented him and what he is reported as saying.

Now, mediareform.org.uk have published their research on television and online news reports.
The BBC TV news was the most unbalanced of all, with twice as many critical reports as positive.

That's now two respected sources saying that Corbyn is treated unfairly by the media - based on research.
Both reports are critical of the obvious bias, with BBC TV news coming in for most criticism.
Oddly, the online BBC News is not as biased as the TV News.

I think many of us knew or felt that this was happening - here's the proof.
Private Eye was right!

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 4:11 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Hi all

What is all this focus on who people supported in the past and their legitimacy to join Labour

I remember a nonentity called Shawn Woodward. Was elected as a Tory ( I assume he voted for himself), decided he wanted to join Labour and then was parachuted into a safe seat!
Of course it is legitimate for anyone to support or join Labour. Who has questioned that?

The huge influx of new members cannot but change the party however. The 4.5% (to which I belonged) must now with arrivals and departures be more like the 1%.

From a premium beer to a shandy.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 4:12 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:Hi all

What is all this focus on who people supported in the past and their legitimacy to join Labour

I remember a nonentity called Shawn Woodward. Was elected as a Tory ( I assume he voted for himself), decided he wanted to join Labour and then was parachuted into a safe seat!

Silly isn't it?
As if politicians don't want voters to change allegiance in their favour.
Of course,the message,loud and clear,is that the PLP does not want Corbyn supporters to join Labour.
As they most probably have a particularly contagious disease,think it is called socialism.Don't want that.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 4:14 pm

It made me wonder if there is any accurate way to anticipate what difference the surge in new members would make to a GE? Or not.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 4:19 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:Hi all

What is all this focus on who people supported in the past and their legitimacy to join Labour

I remember a nonentity called Shawn Woodward. Was elected as a Tory ( I assume he voted for himself), decided he wanted to join Labour and then was parachuted into a safe seat!

Indeed.

But then I have frequently been told that I was considerably less Labour than than the person telling me so. Which is true now I've left.
One person informed me that just because I pounded the pavements for Ed last time it didn't mean I was as Labour as they are because they have been doing it for longer. So there.

I'm aware that the plural of anecdote is not evidence - but I know of quite a few people who left Labour to join the LibDems or Greens (mainly due to Blair/Iraq) who now want to get back to Labour but are not being made welcome. As we know from last year, some high-profile people who did this were refused membership and "weeded out" before the last leadership contest. I wonder if they've had their fees refunded?

The party has made £2.5 Million from subscriptions paid by new members since the GE. Plus £4 Million in £25 "supporter" fees now.
That's a lot of money - which Labour is more than happy to take. But those folks aren't Labour. No, no, no. Not "real" Labour.

I get a bit sick of seeing posts on Twitter from people who say they want "their" party back from what they call Corbynites.
If you pay your subs, it's your party too - whoever you support.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 4:31 pm

Providing balanced views or arguments is worthless when the questions have no merit.

Postscript: That must explain Toby Young. Strangely enough I actually agreed with something he said a week or so ago... but then he had to go on, didn't he?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 4:40 pm

NO A 'CORBYNITE TAKEOVER' DIDN'T CAUSE LABOUR'S LOSS IN TOTNES

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... -in-totnes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 4:43 pm

ephemerid wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Hi all

What is all this focus on who people supported in the past and their legitimacy to join Labour

I remember a nonentity called Shawn Woodward. Was elected as a Tory ( I assume he voted for himself), decided he wanted to join Labour and then was parachuted into a safe seat!

Indeed.

But then I have frequently been told that I was considerably less Labour than than the person telling me so. Which is true now I've left.
One person informed me that just because I pounded the pavements for Ed last time it didn't mean I was as Labour as they are because they have been doing it for longer. So there.

I'm aware that the plural of anecdote is not evidence - but I know of quite a few people who left Labour to join the LibDems or Greens (mainly due to Blair/Iraq) who now want to get back to Labour but are not being made welcome. As we know from last year, some high-profile people who did this were refused membership and "weeded out" before the last leadership contest. I wonder if they've had their fees refunded?

The party has made £2.5 Million from subscriptions paid by new members since the GE. Plus £4 Million in £25 "supporter" fees now.
That's a lot of money - which Labour is more than happy to take. But those folks aren't Labour. No, no, no. Not "real" Labour.

I get a bit sick of seeing posts on Twitter from people who say they want "their" party back from what they call Corbynites.
If you pay your subs, it's your party too - whoever you support.

I've come to like and respect most previous Labour leaders. I wasn't enthusiastic about Blair, but liked some of the people around him and he was clearly an effective leader. As such, Labour has always felt like "my" party. I find myself unable to warm to Corbyn, however. I find him remote and unrelatable. His priorities aren't my priorities. I find him an ineffective politician, especially when I hear him giving a speech, when all too often he says little of interest or relevance to me. This isn't, however, what makes me feel like maybe Labour isn't "my" party anymore. Or, more accurately, not the party for me. What makes me feel that way is the huge numbers of Labour party members who are inspired by and enthusiastic about Corbyn. It's one thing to be a member of a broad church party with a wide spread of views, indeed the debate, the divisions and occasional convergences are fun and interesting, but Labour no longer feels like a broad church party. It's starting to feel like there's one very dominant viewpoint coalescing around Corbyn, with a significant mass of members in very strong agreement and then, of course, if you don't especially agree, you really don't belong, do you? This could change, of course, but it does make it hard for me to engage with Labour positively at the moment.

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 4:55 pm

ephemerid wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Hi all

What is all this focus on who people supported in the past and their legitimacy to join Labour

I remember a nonentity called Shawn Woodward. Was elected as a Tory ( I assume he voted for himself), decided he wanted to join Labour and then was parachuted into a safe seat!

Indeed.

But then I have frequently been told that I was considerably less Labour than than the person telling me so. Which is true now I've left.
One person informed me that just because I pounded the pavements for Ed last time it didn't mean I was as Labour as they are because they have been doing it for longer. So there.

I'm aware that the plural of anecdote is not evidence - but I know of quite a few people who left Labour to join the LibDems or Greens (mainly due to Blair/Iraq) who now want to get back to Labour but are not being made welcome. As we know from last year, some high-profile people who did this were refused membership and "weeded out" before the last leadership contest. I wonder if they've had their fees refunded?

The party has made £2.5 Million from subscriptions paid by new members since the GE. Plus £4 Million in £25 "supporter" fees now.
That's a lot of money - which Labour is more than happy to take. But those folks aren't Labour. No, no, no. Not "real" Labour.

I get a bit sick of seeing posts on Twitter from people who say they want "their" party back from what they call Corbynites.
If you pay your subs, it's your party too - whoever you support.

Recently we had a discussion at a meeting about a comparatively minor issue. When it came to the vote, it was pretty split. So it was agreed I would email all members and ask them to vote via email. One member - one vote. If I had to work out who was 'more' Green, presumably I'd have to take into account how long they'd been a member, how often [if at all] they come to meetings, how often [if at all] they came out leafleting. And would envelope addressing be considered more valuable than a stint of telling on election day or vice versa? Not to mention I'd have to calculate how many envelopes a member had addressed, how many leaflets they'd delivered, how many hours spent telling, and, and, and............

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 4:59 pm

This is very important!

Those of you familiar with my stuff here and elsewhere about the WCA, the Unum-inspired (and paid for) "research" done by Mansel Aylward on behalf of DWP, and the already discredited bio-psych-social model warped beyond recognition by Aylward and his pals, might be interested to read this - http://www.blueannoyed.wordpress.com/20 ... xcellence/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article contains links to the study; briefly, the researchers from the University of East Anglia and Glasgow University analysed the model developed by Aylward and Waddell and reviewed the evidence they base their model on - the researchers found that "there is no coherent theory or evidence behind this model" and that the publications etc. issued by Aylward and Waddell revealed "a cavalier approach to scientific evidence".

Nobody involved in this issue will be surprised by this - I've been banging on about Aylward for years. Campaigners like the wonderful Mo Stewart have at long last got the academic proof they need to support what they have been saying all along.

We know that Unum is behind this version of disability denial; they have been at it for years here in the UK ever since Peter Lilley brought them in to "consult". Aylward moved from his post as Chief Medical Officer for DWP into the top job at Unum's "research" centre in Cardiff and is the man behind the so-called evidence that Freud, Purnell, and Cooper (to their eternal shame) used to justify the introduction of ESA and the Work Capability Assessment. The same flawed thinking is behind PIP, despite ample proof of the harm it does.

The reason why this is so important is that Dr.Tom Shakespeare, one of three academics involved in this research, is a well-known and respected researcher in all aspects of disability studies, medical sociology, and medical ethics. He knows what he's doing.
This research is not likely to make much difference right now - but it is more ammunition in the fight to abolish the WCA, which people like me and many others have endured now for nearly 8 long years. Hopefully, some influential people will take note.

Those of you who follow me on Twitter - please could you re-tweet the link so as many people see it as possible? Thank you.

PS - while we argue here about the internecine squabbling going on in Labour politics, perhaps this could act as a reminder for some why people like me campaign when what we should be doing is getting on with looking after our ill-health and adjusting to increasing debility.
ESA, the WCA, the reconsiderations, appeals, tribunal hearings - which I have already been through 6 times - go on. I am still waiting for a response from Maximus/DWP regarding my latest assessment; and the stress of it all, knowing that I might have to endure months of no income while I fight my corner again, is hard enough even though I am lucky enough to have support.
And thanks to the pension changes, I've got another 6 years of this.

This is what has led to some people taking their own lives; this is what makes sick people sicker; and this is what both New Labour, the Tories, and the LibDems are responsible for. I thank the gods for people like Mo Stewart, and I hope Dr.Shakespeare's work is widely reported.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 5:01 pm

ephemerid wrote:Earlier this month, the LSE published their research on newspaper articles about Jeremy Corbyn.
75% of the coverage misrepresented him and what he is reported as saying.

Now, mediareform.org.uk have published their research on television and online news reports.
The BBC TV news was the most unbalanced of all, with twice as many critical reports as positive.

That's now two respected sources saying that Corbyn is treated unfairly by the media - based on research.
Both reports are critical of the obvious bias, with BBC TV news coming in for most criticism.
Oddly, the online BBC News is not as biased as the TV News.

I think many of us knew or felt that this was happening - here's the proof.
Private Eye was right!

What a terrifically mysogynist post Ephe. You should be ashamed of your baseless smears against the BBC's best and brightest... [Pssst. Am I doing this right? Should I throw in something about anti-Semitism too?]

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 5:08 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Earlier this month, the LSE published their research on newspaper articles about Jeremy Corbyn.
75% of the coverage misrepresented him and what he is reported as saying.

Now, mediareform.org.uk have published their research on television and online news reports.
The BBC TV news was the most unbalanced of all, with twice as many critical reports as positive.

That's now two respected sources saying that Corbyn is treated unfairly by the media - based on research.
Both reports are critical of the obvious bias, with BBC TV news coming in for most criticism.
Oddly, the online BBC News is not as biased as the TV News.

I think many of us knew or felt that this was happening - here's the proof.
Private Eye was right!
What a terrifically mysogynist post Ephe. You should be ashamed of your baseless smears against the BBC's best and brightest... [Pssst. Am I doing this right? Should I throw in something about anti-Semitism too?]

Come ON Jonny!

You and I both know that Laura Kuensservativeberg is above reproach and it is all Corbyn's fault that Marathon bars are called Snickers and BARRY SCOTT!!!!!! is no longer telling us that "BANG! the dirt is gone!"

Anyway, it's sexist to disapprove of John Humphreys. You have to disapprove of Mishal Husain as well. Or I'll tell Jess, so I will.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 5:16 pm

The Michaela Debates; would that it t'were so simple

The other side of that letter.

http://behaviourguru.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... at-it.html

It was still a dreadful letter for a school to send out.

sputnikkers · Post by **sputnikkers** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 5:17 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:Hi all

What is all this focus on who people supported in the past and their legitimacy to join Labour

I remember a nonentity called Shawn Woodward. Was elected as a Tory ( I assume he voted for himself), decided he wanted to join Labour and then was parachuted into a safe seat!

To address your last point first, I think that persuading and enabling a sitting MP to 'cross the floor' is a political coup and statement in its own right and deserving of special consideration - with regard to damage to opponents as well as many factors such as experience, reputation, ability etc., brought with them.

I think that this also hints at your first point. From my point of view, as a tribal Labour voter, who (and any member of my family) has never voted anything else - indeed I would have voted for the proverbial donkey - but didn't have to, apart from indirectly for Mr Foot's rather smart non-donkey-jacket 'donkey jacket' - although I thought he was probably a mistake.

I always assumed that the purpose of the Labour Party was to provide a trusted public face that would get them elected to enable legislation for the benefit of ordinary rather than privileged folk. Through the end of the Wilson/Heath (I first voted against!) eras this seemed to become more and more sophisticated and presidential culminating in the Saatchi marketing/branding/spinning of party via the right leader with the right message.

Thus, one of the main jobs - the most crucial one - of the party machine is to somehow, anyhow determine a way to present that 'right leader' who can deliver the 'right message' with some kind of appeal and authenticity in front of the voters. Previously, even with block votes etc., the machine didn't do too bad of a job. Unfortunately, the Ed compromise proved that he was not that one either.

Suddenly, Ed has left behind a completely new system where the 'democracy' of the MPs to influence and choose from their own peers is undermined by the democracy of 'The Members' who seem to have ownership of the MPs and Staffers without regard to responsibility to the Voters. As only a 'Voter' who will never join any party 'out of principle' (weird I know but I can explain) I find myself disenfranchised by some group of people who, as far as I know, have no political qualifications or democratic responsibility or accountability for the way they have undermined the sitting MPs by forcing on them and imposing on me as a 'Voter' someone who is neither effective as a leader nor seems to me to have the insight, mental acuity, authenticity and public integrity required in a Labour leader.

Yet we have some anonymous groupings within/as 'Membership/Selectorate' now apparently 'owners' of the Labour brand because 'democracy' even though some, or even many, (probably most?) of them have voted against Labour at some time in the past - a Venn diagram to show amount of overlap would have come in handy!

The YouGov survey (from sample size 1217) suggests 96% have voted Labour, 41% LibDem, 34% Green, 9% Conservative, 2% each for UKIP, SNP & Plaid, SO Else() 1% and 1% never voted.

Yet the person these 'anti-Labour' voters impose also formed his alliances within STW with comrades opposing, undermining and toxifying the Labour brand from the (I thought laughable and long gone until I read about them in 2001) 'hard left' warring, multi-factional, pseudo-peaceniks (at least mostly one-sided - and mostly dishonourable people willing to lie and deceive - apart from maybe Caroline Lucas?) with no actual solutions to any actual problems. The type that I would never have anything to do with since encountering the SWP before I reached the age of majority but wanted to get into pubs.

But as I stated, I have no ownership and, therefore no rights to moan - because 'democracy' - though the quite shocking disloyalty (compared to my voting record) of the new 'democratic' 'Owners' does rankle somewhat. But hey, activists are activists (one of my reasons for my not becoming one!) and will probably flit from party to party just like MPs when it suits them. However, it does mean that I will have to make my statement in the next GE, by holding my nose and, as a protest, voting 'Tory'. There, never ever thought I'd say that (another good reason for anonymity)! I feel dirty but cleansed of responsibility for supporting some beast with 'a Labour Party' sticker on it that might well be dead to me and, I believe, will continue to hurt the people and tradition I cared most about for 'principles' I do not hold.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 5:25 pm

sputnikkers wrote: I will have to make my statement in the next GE, by holding my nose and, as a protest, voting 'Tory'. .

That seems daft to me, and doesn't follow from the rest. I've no sympathy at all for Corbyn and don't belong in a party led by him, but that doesn't mean you have to vote Tory for heaven's sake.

JustMom · Post by **JustMom** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 5:27 pm

Why not vote green if you must protest,or even spoil your vote,but tory !!!

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 5:37 pm

sputnikkers wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Hi all

What is all this focus on who people supported in the past and their legitimacy to join Labour

I remember a nonentity called Shawn Woodward. Was elected as a Tory ( I assume he voted for himself), decided he wanted to join Labour and then was parachuted into a safe seat!
To address your last point first, I think that persuading and enabling a sitting MP to 'cross the floor' is a political coup and statement in its own right and deserving of special consideration - with regard to damage to opponents as well as many factors such as experience, reputation, ability etc., brought with them.

I think that this also hints at your first point. From my point of view, as a tribal Labour voter, who (and any member of my family) has never voted anything else - indeed I would have voted for the proverbial donkey - but didn't have to, apart from indirectly for Mr Foot's rather smart non-donkey-jacket 'donkey jacket' - although I thought he was probably a mistake.

I always assumed that the purpose of the Labour Party was to provide a trusted public face that would get them elected to enable legislation for the benefit of ordinary rather than privileged folk. Through the end of the Wilson/Heath (I first voted against!) eras this seemed to become more and more sophisticated and presidential culminating in the Saatchi marketing/branding/spinning of party via the right leader with the right message.

Thus, one of the main jobs - the most crucial one - of the party machine is to somehow, anyhow determine a way to present that 'right leader' who can deliver the 'right message' with some kind of appeal and authenticity in front of the voters. Previously, even with block votes etc., the machine didn't do too bad of a job. Unfortunately, the Ed compromise proved that he was not that one either.

Suddenly, Ed has left behind a completely new system where the 'democracy' of the MPs to influence and choose from their own peers is undermined by the democracy of 'The Members' who seem to have ownership of the MPs and Staffers without regard to responsibility to the Voters. As only a 'Voter' who will never join any party 'out of principle' (weird I know but I can explain) I find myself disenfranchised by some group of people who, as far as I know, have no political qualifications or democratic responsibility or accountability for the way they have undermined the sitting MPs by forcing on them and imposing on me as a 'Voter' someone who is neither effective as a leader nor seems to me to have the insight, mental acuity, authenticity and public integrity required in a Labour leader.

Yet we have some anonymous groupings within/as 'Membership/Selectorate' now apparently 'owners' of the Labour brand because 'democracy' even though some, or even many, (probably most?) of them have voted against Labour at some time in the past - a Venn diagram to show amount of overlap would have come in handy!

The YouGov survey (from sample size 1217) suggests 96% have voted Labour, 41% LibDem, 34% Green, 9% Conservative, 2% each for UKIP, SNP & Plaid, SO Else() 1% and 1% never voted.

Yet the person these 'anti-Labour' voters impose also formed his alliances within STW with comrades opposing, undermining and toxifying the Labour brand from the (I thought laughable and long gone until I read about them in 2001) 'hard left' warring, multi-factional, pseudo-peaceniks (at least mostly one-sided - and mostly dishonourable people willing to lie and deceive - apart from maybe Caroline Lucas?) with no actual solutions to any actual problems. The type that I would never have anything to do with since encountering the SWP before I reached the age of majority but wanted to get into pubs.

But as I stated, I have no ownership and, therefore no rights to moan - because 'democracy' - though the quite shocking disloyalty (compared to my voting record) of the new 'democratic' 'Owners' does rankle somewhat. But hey, activists are activists (one of my reasons for my not becoming one!) and will probably flit from party to party just like MPs when it suits them. However, it does mean that I will have to make my statement in the next GE, by holding my nose and, as a protest, voting 'Tory'. There, never ever thought I'd say that (another good reason for anonymity)! I feel dirty but cleansed of responsibility for supporting some beast with 'a Labour Party' sticker on it that might well be dead to me and, I believe, will continue to hurt the people and tradition I cared most about for 'principles' I do not hold.

If you want to vote Tory then vote Tory it is your prerogative but it is a strange thing to do - especially a party that has been led by an incompetent, whose members are a very eclectic bunch indeed, who have managed to probably inflict the most damaging economic fate on the country since a very long time and whose current leader has demonstrated some very dodgy decisions regarding immigration

It is these types of posts I find odd to be honest

I understand why some people may not like Corbyn. I understand why some people who voted/joined Labour because of Blair are finding things difficult. We on the left have plenty of experience of that feeling I can tell you

What I do not understand is why people think that the Tories in their present incarnation are in anyway an alternative.

The only reason I think is people are swayed by the media lies and misrepresentations.

It is worth remembering this started back in 2008 - Brown, Miliband and Corbyn have all experienced this same level of attack from internally...and it has to stop or it will continue

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 5:43 pm

@Howsillyofme1

If you want to vote Tory then vote Tory it is your prerogative but it is a strange thing to do - especially a party that has been led by an incompetent, whose members are a very eclectic bunch indeed, who have managed to probably inflict the most damaging economic fate on the country since a very long time and whose current leader has demonstrated some very dodgy decisions regarding immigration

It's the Tories with their six years of ineptitude and cruelty who have pushed so many people to embrace Corbyn. It's just unfortunate the PLP have drifted so far to the right.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 5:46 pm

Why not go the whole hog and vote UKIP? At least they're for the common man.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 5:52 pm

Just whilst we are on economic incompetence

The Labour Government under Brown was destroyed by the financial crisis and this has lasted until now. The big Labour problem was the lack of a response to Osborne's lies (yes he who supported deregulation and had no answer to the crisis himself) in 2010 - not voting in Corbyn

It is interesting though that Labour actually had a limited blame for the crisis. They did not react to the rising debt linked to house prices, they listened too much to the financial industry and they did get too hubristic. These are all secondary reasons though and are not in any way shape or form primary causes

The likely coming crisis though can, by contrast, be laid directly at the door of that 'Much better leader than Corbyn' who had an unnecessary referendum and couldn't get his party to support him, and who also ensured the most pro-European demograph was prevented from voting.

Will he get the blame from the press?
Will he get the blame from the public?
Will he get the blame from the PLP?
Will he get the blame from anybloodyone?

If anyone wants to blame Corbyn for his multitude of apparent failures, or Smith for that matter' then I will only take them seriously if they have not praised the past incompetent PM as being a 'better leader and PM'!

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:05 pm

Yet the person these 'anti-Labour' voters impose also formed his alliances within STW with comrades opposing, undermining and toxifying the Labour brand from the (I thought laughable and long gone until I read about them in 2001) 'hard left' warring, multi-factional, pseudo-peaceniks (at least mostly one-sided - and mostly dishonourable people willing to lie and deceive - apart from maybe Caroline Lucas?) with no actual solutions to any actual problems. The type that I would never have anything to do with since encountering the SWP before I reached the age of majority but wanted to get into pubs.

Sorry Sputnikkers, are you including Greens among that group or am I being misled by your reference to Caroline? Only it's not a description I would recognise as being applicable to my Green colleagues.

pala · Post by **pala** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:09 pm

sputnikkers wrote:
Suddenly, Ed has left behind a completely new system where the 'democracy' of the MPs to influence and choose from their own peers is undermined by the democracy of 'The Members' who seem to have ownership of the MPs and Staffers without regard to responsibility to the Voters. As only a 'Voter' who will never join any party 'out of principle' (weird I know but I can explain) I find myself disenfranchised by some group of people who, as far as I know, have no political qualifications or democratic responsibility or accountability for the way they have undermined the sitting MPs by forcing on them and imposing on me as a 'Voter' someone who is neither effective as a leader nor seems to me to have the insight, mental acuity, authenticity and public integrity required in a Labour leader.

You don't seem to know much about Corbyn which is understandable, I suppose, given the appalling coverage. Try this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGXVHHxxnZQ

Long interview but worth watching.

I don't agree with his "optimism" at the end.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:11 pm

Some people spend so much time looking down their nose that all they see is the bogey man.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:13 pm

see the Cameron/Osborne Hinckley C nuclear power station seems to be in a bit of bother

The project itself is very weak but the sheer incompetence in managing the project in unbelievable.......Cameron was still a better leader than Corbyn and Miliband though according to all those Westminster commentators!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:16 pm

: CojEAT4WEAA1FKR.jpg (44.71 KiB) Viewed 9755 times

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:18 pm

utopiandreams wrote:Some people spend so much time looking down their nose that all they see is the bogey man.

Quote of the week

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:21 pm

News UK News Department for Work and Pensions
DWP forced to reveal vast list of firms using benefit claimants for unpaid work after 4-year legal fight

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dw ... ar_twitter

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:32 pm

I'd like to claim that as my own, ohso, but am beginning to think my mother may have told me something similar when I was young.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:39 pm

I used to live in Jess Phillips neck of the woods back then and people literally spat at my parents in the street, a blue eyed blonde with an Indian chap. You should have heard the comments too, indeed we kids were smacked if we spoke like them (sorry howsillyofme1, not quite the Black Country).

Postscript: I hope I remember hsom's origins correctly.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:44 pm

Willow904 wrote:
ephemerid wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Hi all

What is all this focus on who people supported in the past and their legitimacy to join Labour

I remember a nonentity called Shawn Woodward. Was elected as a Tory ( I assume he voted for himself), decided he wanted to join Labour and then was parachuted into a safe seat!

Indeed.

But then I have frequently been told that I was considerably less Labour than than the person telling me so. Which is true now I've left.
One person informed me that just because I pounded the pavements for Ed last time it didn't mean I was as Labour as they are because they have been doing it for longer. So there.

I'm aware that the plural of anecdote is not evidence - but I know of quite a few people who left Labour to join the LibDems or Greens (mainly due to Blair/Iraq) who now want to get back to Labour but are not being made welcome. As we know from last year, some high-profile people who did this were refused membership and "weeded out" before the last leadership contest. I wonder if they've had their fees refunded?

The party has made £2.5 Million from subscriptions paid by new members since the GE. Plus £4 Million in £25 "supporter" fees now.
That's a lot of money - which Labour is more than happy to take. But those folks aren't Labour. No, no, no. Not "real" Labour.

I get a bit sick of seeing posts on Twitter from people who say they want "their" party back from what they call Corbynites.
If you pay your subs, it's your party too - whoever you support.
I've come to like and respect most previous Labour leaders. I wasn't enthusiastic about Blair, but liked some of the people around him and he was clearly an effective leader. As such, Labour has always felt like "my" party. I find myself unable to warm to Corbyn, however. I find him remote and unrelatable. His priorities aren't my priorities. I find him an ineffective politician, especially when I hear him giving a speech, when all too often he says little of interest or relevance to me. This isn't, however, what makes me feel like maybe Labour isn't "my" party anymore. Or, more accurately, not the party for me. What makes me feel that way is the huge numbers of Labour party members who are inspired by and enthusiastic about Corbyn. It's one thing to be a member of a broad church party with a wide spread of views, indeed the debate, the divisions and occasional convergences are fun and interesting, but Labour no longer feels like a broad church party. It's starting to feel like there's one very dominant viewpoint coalescing around Corbyn, with a significant mass of members in very strong agreement and then, of course, if you don't especially agree, you really don't belong, do you? This could change, of course, but it does make it hard for me to engage with Labour positively at the moment.

OhSoCynical posted lists of Corbyns' policies yesterday.
Which ones did you disagree with?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:51 pm

In terms of policy development

Is it realistic for Corbyn to have, even partially developed, policies after 9 months under the conditions he has been leader under?

Did Miliband have defined policies by mid 2011 - did he hell!

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 6:54 pm

utopiandreams wrote:I used to live in Jess Phillips neck of the woods back then and people literally spat at my parents in the street, a blue eyed blonde with an Indian chap. You should have heard the comments too, indeed we kids were smacked if we spoke like them (sorry howsillyofme1, not quite the Black Country).

Postscript: I hope I remember hsom's origins correctly.

you have indeed - lovely Wolverhampton, and from part of the town officially in the Black Country (a perennial argument of where it stops and starts!)

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 7:00 pm

I know I ought to sympathise but often find myself wondering how much bullying is really suffered by those who shout loudest. Try walking in my shoes as a prepubescent lad that was regularly beaten up for having a head start on my tan. I also remember my mother finding my five or six year old sister in the bath in tears, having scrubbed herself so much her arms were bleeding.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 7:11 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Willow904 wrote: I've come to like and respect most previous Labour leaders. I wasn't enthusiastic about Blair, but liked some of the people around him and he was clearly an effective leader. As such, Labour has always felt like "my" party. I find myself unable to warm to Corbyn, however. I find him remote and unrelatable. His priorities aren't my priorities. I find him an ineffective politician, especially when I hear him giving a speech, when all too often he says little of interest or relevance to me. This isn't, however, what makes me feel like maybe Labour isn't "my" party anymore. Or, more accurately, not the party for me. What makes me feel that way is the huge numbers of Labour party members who are inspired by and enthusiastic about Corbyn. It's one thing to be a member of a broad church party with a wide spread of views, indeed the debate, the divisions and occasional convergences are fun and interesting, but Labour no longer feels like a broad church party. It's starting to feel like there's one very dominant viewpoint coalescing around Corbyn, with a significant mass of members in very strong agreement and then, of course, if you don't especially agree, you really don't belong, do you? This could change, of course, but it does make it hard for me to engage with Labour positively at the moment.
It surprises me to hear things like this because you only have to look at the Twitter feeds of Corbyn-opposing MPs, or BTL on sites like Labourlist to see that there are an awful lot of Labour people who really don't like Corbyn or his supporters and aren't afraid to say so forcefully. The majority view is probably in favour of Corbyn (as we'll find out soon enough, I suppose) but there are still significant groups who hold a very different view.

The reason I'm starting to feel Labour is no longer 'my' party is mainly because there seem to be so many genuinely horrible people in it - those who are wont to get abusive towards anyone who don't support Corbyn (the majority of whom I suspect were SWP types shouting into the wind before 2015) and just as much those who are willing to accuse everyone in Momentum of making daily rape threats to Jess Phillips etc.

There don't seem to be many grown ups left in the entire country, so maybe we shouldn't be too surprised to see that reflected in the Labour Party, especially among those who choose to communicate primarily through social media.

It's the unquestioning lionizing of Corbyn among new members that concerns me. Like those caught up in Nick Clegg's "new politics" that turned out to be the old politics, I fear it can't end well. The sheer belief a large section of the Labour membership have in him and McDonnell simply isn't merited by their limited ability. Ultimately they are compromised by their reliance on outside support, from Momentum, from Unite. They themselves may be decent and honest, but so is Ed, so are others in Labour. The idea that Corbyn is somehow different is one I struggle to subscribe to. He is in a position of power, as others have been before him, and however good his own intentions, those who put him there, be it the members, the unions or Momentum, will all be lining up to exploit that and, as you have observed, a small but significant minority of those people are not particularly nice. From the start I have worried that Momentum is not the antidote to Progress, but a mirror image. Recent events are making it harder to dismiss that feeling as nonsense and I continue to remain sceptical of Corbyn's leadership with little hope of it turning out well I'm afraid.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 7:18 pm

The Socialist Workers' Party claims it has 6,000 members.
I have read in several places that it has about 3,500 active members.

Momentum claims to have more than 100,000 active members.
On 28th.June, labourlist said that Momentum had about 8,000 members.

What we know for certain, unlike the groups mentioned above, is that the Labour Party now has 515,000 members.
At the last General Election, there were 270,000 Labour members.
That's a difference of 245,000 new people, not all of whom could possibly belong to the SWP before or or Momentum now.
A handful of the 270,000 in 2015 may be ex-Militant. Who knows?
Even if new people joined Momentum, being generous, they represent less than a quarter of the total membership now.
So "traditional" Labour members remain more numerous.

People who say they want their party back because "hard left" Momentum types have taken over are wrong.
They still have their party. There are still many more of them than there are of Momentum people.

Anyone who has studied psychology knows that people lash out against the things they fear - even if their fear is misplaced.
The vitriol dished out against Corbyn, even before he won the leadership, shows how rattled some people are.
Margaret Beckett - real "old" Labour, if you will - nominated Corbyn in an effort to widen the debate. She had no clue how popular h'd be.
The anti-Corbyn briefings came from the same people who thought Ed was the wrong brother, in the main.

What all this suggests to me is a Labour heirarchy totally out of touch with what party members were thinking.
They've compounded that by constant sniping and crass ineptitude in their failed efforts to get rid of him.
And still they keep on - even though the support from CLPs keeps coming in. They're not listening.

Owen Smith is a very intelligent man. He must know all this - and I have to say that by standing for the leadership he's a brave man, too.
He's risking a lot to challenge Corbyn at this time; even so, if I had a vote it wouldn't go to him.
If in the unlikely event he wins, I have every expectation that he will not get the support he needs to do the job.
Brown didn't. Ed didn't. Corbyn isn't. Smith won't.

While all this nonsense goes on, Labour as a party is at war - within its own heirarchy and its own membership.
It should be at war with the Tories.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 7:22 pm

Looking on from the outside, I wonder how much the PLP refuse to accept that they really have little chance of beating the Tories alone. Have any of the anti-Corbyn members suggested reaching out to other parties?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 7:59 pm

utopiandreams wrote:I know I ought to sympathise but often find myself wondering how much bullying is really suffered by those who shout loudest. Try walking in my shoes as a prepubescent lad that was regularly beaten up for having a head start on my tan. I also remember my mother finding my five or six year old sister in the bath in tears, having scrubbed herself so much her arms were bleeding.

That's just awful.

I worked at St.Charles Hospital in Ladbroke Grove when I started in A&E - that was back when parts of Notting Hill were still a no-go area for the police! (Shows how old I am...)
Trellick Tower was a neglected council block then (flats go for up to £500K there now) and we served a very mixed community with some real deprivation.

There was always a lot of argy bargy between gangs of whites on some estates and blacks on others. Razoring was the thing then....

One evening a young black girl (of about 10 I seem to remember) was brought in with full thickness burns caused by bleach. She'd tried to make her skin whiter by applying it neat.
She was sent off to a burns unit, and I would imagine that she is scarred for life. Poor little thing.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 8:00 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:In terms of policy development

Is it realistic for Corbyn to have, even partially developed, policies after 9 months under the conditions he has been leader under?

Did Miliband have defined policies by mid 2011 - did he hell!

More fool me too (sorry I can't help repeating the odd line that only I appreciate) but yes I completely agree plus as I said the other day he only became leader one week before conference and must surely need another.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 8:00 pm

Rebecca wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
ephemerid wrote:
Indeed.

But then I have frequently been told that I was considerably less Labour than than the person telling me so. Which is true now I've left.
One person informed me that just because I pounded the pavements for Ed last time it didn't mean I was as Labour as they are because they have been doing it for longer. So there.

I'm aware that the plural of anecdote is not evidence - but I know of quite a few people who left Labour to join the LibDems or Greens (mainly due to Blair/Iraq) who now want to get back to Labour but are not being made welcome. As we know from last year, some high-profile people who did this were refused membership and "weeded out" before the last leadership contest. I wonder if they've had their fees refunded?

The party has made £2.5 Million from subscriptions paid by new members since the GE. Plus £4 Million in £25 "supporter" fees now.
That's a lot of money - which Labour is more than happy to take. But those folks aren't Labour. No, no, no. Not "real" Labour.

I get a bit sick of seeing posts on Twitter from people who say they want "their" party back from what they call Corbynites.
If you pay your subs, it's your party too - whoever you support.
I've come to like and respect most previous Labour leaders. I wasn't enthusiastic about Blair, but liked some of the people around him and he was clearly an effective leader. As such, Labour has always felt like "my" party. I find myself unable to warm to Corbyn, however. I find him remote and unrelatable. His priorities aren't my priorities. I find him an ineffective politician, especially when I hear him giving a speech, when all too often he says little of interest or relevance to me. This isn't, however, what makes me feel like maybe Labour isn't "my" party anymore. Or, more accurately, not the party for me. What makes me feel that way is the huge numbers of Labour party members who are inspired by and enthusiastic about Corbyn. It's one thing to be a member of a broad church party with a wide spread of views, indeed the debate, the divisions and occasional convergences are fun and interesting, but Labour no longer feels like a broad church party. It's starting to feel like there's one very dominant viewpoint coalescing around Corbyn, with a significant mass of members in very strong agreement and then, of course, if you don't especially agree, you really don't belong, do you? This could change, of course, but it does make it hard for me to engage with Labour positively at the moment.
OhSoCynical posted lists of Corbyns' policies yesterday.
Which ones did you disagree with?

I think I've been pretty clear previously that I have been disappointed by Corbyn's interpretation and response to the EU referendum result. I feel I have also been clear that it isn't a question of general principle or specific policy, but what is prioritised that has left me dissatisfied. Too much time and attention to Trident and foreign policy and other issues which will long be in the past by the next election, whilst economic collaboration with economics experts ( an idea I welcomed ) has been neglected and allowed to fall apart. I feel the appointment of Seamus Milne was unnecessarily provocative, and an indication that words of compromise with those further to the right are no more than that, just empty words. I'm also unhappy with the increasingly unprofessional nature of the party under Corbyn, being still unsure how Momentum got hold of my mobile number.
I liked many of Ed's policies, I like plenty of Corbyn's too, but then I liked a lot of Tony Blair's policies also. I have always preferred Labour to the Tories, but a list of policies isn't enough for me to prefer Corbyn specifically, because lots of other people can and do offer policies I like, including some from other parties like the Libdems or the Greens. Corbyn needs to convince he can make his policies happen. He has not.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 8:08 pm

Willow904 wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
Willow904 wrote: I've come to like and respect most previous Labour leaders. I wasn't enthusiastic about Blair, but liked some of the people around him and he was clearly an effective leader. As such, Labour has always felt like "my" party. I find myself unable to warm to Corbyn, however. I find him remote and unrelatable. His priorities aren't my priorities. I find him an ineffective politician, especially when I hear him giving a speech, when all too often he says little of interest or relevance to me. This isn't, however, what makes me feel like maybe Labour isn't "my" party anymore. Or, more accurately, not the party for me. What makes me feel that way is the huge numbers of Labour party members who are inspired by and enthusiastic about Corbyn. It's one thing to be a member of a broad church party with a wide spread of views, indeed the debate, the divisions and occasional convergences are fun and interesting, but Labour no longer feels like a broad church party. It's starting to feel like there's one very dominant viewpoint coalescing around Corbyn, with a significant mass of members in very strong agreement and then, of course, if you don't especially agree, you really don't belong, do you? This could change, of course, but it does make it hard for me to engage with Labour positively at the moment.
It surprises me to hear things like this because you only have to look at the Twitter feeds of Corbyn-opposing MPs, or BTL on sites like Labourlist to see that there are an awful lot of Labour people who really don't like Corbyn or his supporters and aren't afraid to say so forcefully. The majority view is probably in favour of Corbyn (as we'll find out soon enough, I suppose) but there are still significant groups who hold a very different view.

The reason I'm starting to feel Labour is no longer 'my' party is mainly because there seem to be so many genuinely horrible people in it - those who are wont to get abusive towards anyone who don't support Corbyn (the majority of whom I suspect were SWP types shouting into the wind before 2015) and just as much those who are willing to accuse everyone in Momentum of making daily rape threats to Jess Phillips etc.
There don't seem to be many grown ups left in the entire country, so maybe we shouldn't be too surprised to see that reflected in the Labour Party, especially among those who choose to communicate primarily through social media.

It's the unquestioning lionizing of Corbyn among new members that concerns me. Like those caught up in Nick Clegg's "new politics" that turned out to be the old politics, I fear it can't end well. The sheer belief a large section of the Labour membership have in him and McDonnell simply isn't merited by their limited ability. Ultimately they are compromised by their reliance on outside support, from Momentum, from Unite. They themselves may be decent and honest, but so is Ed, so are others in Labour. The idea that Corbyn is somehow different is one I struggle to subscribe to. He is in a position of power, as others have been before him, and however good his own intentions, those who put him there, be it the members, the unions or Momentum, will all be lining up to exploit that and, as you have observed, a small but significant minority of those people are not particularly nice. From the start I have worried that Momentum is not the antidote to Progress, but a mirror image. Recent events are making it harder to dismiss that feeling as nonsense and I continue to remain sceptical of Corbyn's leadership with little hope of it turning out well I'm afraid.

No. It's dead simple. It's the undemocratic actions of the PLP that has caused the upsurge. And every time they try another tack to unseat him, the more people join.
And you must have noticed he's very determined. He's not let the PLP blackmail or bully him, so I doubt he'll let any other organisation do it.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 8:10 pm

The poor girl, ephe. Still in my case I learned never to be intimidated and my sister's a pretty tough cookie herself. My brother was fair so only tended to suffer abuse secondhand, just as painful mind when it happened... always outnumbered or older lads. Mmm outnumbered then too. No wonder we were taught to box, but then my namesake and late uncle was an armed forces champion in India.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 8:15 pm

There is a Tory MP on C4 News who is being absolutely disgraceful in attacking a woman economist

Will we see the papers full of misogyny comments, or calling him an extremist....will we hell as like

This is what is really pissing me off at the moment

I will say it again

Corbyn is by no means my ideal leader
He won because of a complete disconnect between the PLP and their members/voters
Members of the PLP and outside have undermined the leaders of the party since 2008
Senior members of the party openly supported Tory policies between 2010-2015 and beyond
The other candidates in 2015 were woeful
Labour 1997-2010 did not make transformational change to reverse the Thatcher catastrophe

People are fed up and at the moment there is a choice for those people between Labour and UKIP......they have been completely ignored since 1979 and they are disengaging from the political process and only get involved to vote Leave or for UKIP.......outside the major cities

Corbyn is not the full answer but by god the likes of Hunt and others of his ilk are definitely not - but they think they are

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 8:17 pm

utopiandreams wrote:Looking on from the outside, I wonder how much the PLP refuse to accept that they really have little chance of beating the Tories alone. Have any of the anti-Corbyn members suggested reaching out to other parties?

Not in my area. At the Council elections in May, we had an 'all out' so 3 seats going in each of 12 wards. In my ward, we had two Lib dem Councillors and one Labour Councillor [Mike] - who had won the seat the previous year. Some of you may recall my story of how I found myself hugging him and his wife in celebration, whilst standing in the middle of the Labour group, still wearing my Green rosette! Anyway, this year he lost his seat back to the Lib dems. One of our Green candidates for the ward went to commiserate with him and was berated by other Labour party people at the count for "being a fucking disgrace and taking 'Mike's votes". Mike didn't take that attitude btw.

Later they came onto our facebook page making the same comments. Some of us politely pointed out they weren't 'their votes'. Seemingly, it was raised at their next Labour party meeting. Mike, and some of the other Labour party members [many of whom I'm friendly with], pointed out that we were correct. They aren't their votes and if they want them, they have to try and persuade people to change their vote from Green to Labour. The man in control of Labour locally is both their Chair and their Election agent. He is an obnoxious piece of work. He is as low down and dirty as the local lib dems. His attitude was that in fact we had stolen their votes!

Some of the Labour party people locally want to work with us. It is never going to happen while their current Chair/Election agent is in position. It is no wonder that some local Labour party members have already left and joined us. It is also no wonder that more are considering doing the same.

Post by **refitman** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 8:19 pm

I've just seen a fantastic new name for Liam Fox (in the tradition of OGRFPG:

The Disgraced Mr Fox, Order of the Fur Cuff and Dye

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 29 Jul, 2016 8:23 pm

ephemerid wrote:The Socialist Workers' Party claims it has 6,000 members.
I have read in several places that it has about 3,500 active members.

Momentum claims to have more than 100,000 active members.
On 28th.June, labourlist said that Momentum had about 8,000 members.

What we know for certain, unlike the groups mentioned above, is that the Labour Party now has 515,000 members.
At the last General Election, there were 270,000 Labour members.
That's a difference of 245,000 new people, not all of whom could possibly belong to the SWP before or or Momentum now.
A handful of the 270,000 in 2015 may be ex-Militant. Who knows?
Even if new people joined Momentum, being generous, they represent less than a quarter of the total membership now.
So "traditional" Labour members remain more numerous.

People who say they want their party back because "hard left" Momentum types have taken over are wrong.
They still have their party. There are still many more of them than there are of Momentum people.

Anyone who has studied psychology knows that people lash out against the things they fear - even if their fear is misplaced.
The vitriol dished out against Corbyn, even before he won the leadership, shows how rattled some people are.
Margaret Beckett - real "old" Labour, if you will - nominated Corbyn in an effort to widen the debate. She had no clue how popular h'd be.
The anti-Corbyn briefings came from the same people who thought Ed was the wrong brother, in the main.

What all this suggests to me is a Labour heirarchy totally out of touch with what party members were thinking.
They've compounded that by constant sniping and crass ineptitude in their failed efforts to get rid of him.
And still they keep on - even though the support from CLPs keeps coming in. They're not listening.

Owen Smith is a very intelligent man. He must know all this - and I have to say that by standing for the leadership he's a brave man, too.
He's risking a lot to challenge Corbyn at this time; even so, if I had a vote it wouldn't go to him.
If in the unlikely event he wins, I have every expectation that he will not get the support he needs to do the job.
Brown didn't. Ed didn't. Corbyn isn't. Smith won't.

While all this nonsense goes on, Labour as a party is at war - within its own heirarchy and its own membership.
It should be at war with the Tories.

What I have noticed is when constituency members are denied the chance to take part in helping to nominate a leader [as in Bracknell] and CLP meetings are stopped along with all the other tricks that have been tried, their reaction is 'I have a right to be heard. I'll join Momentum.'
I just wonder how shredded the PLPs feet are going to get [from shooting themselves in the foot]before they see some sense.