Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[BREXIT] Farewell Europe, and thanks for all the Fish stocks

1303133353639

Posts

  • TubeTube admin Administrator, ClubPA admin
    Detestable.

    Hobnail wrote: »
    This forum has taken everything from me
    This hurts but I deserve it

    HermanoOmnipotentBagel
  • JoeUserJoeUser regular Registered User regular
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Gumpy wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Hermano wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Hermano wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Hermano wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    not having him on the ballot seems really petty. what's the harm in it, sounds like he wouldn't win anyway

    he's supposedly much more popular among the segment of the party that is allowed to vote on the final ballot than among the party leadership which selects who goes on the ballot, I think?

    There's no supposedly about it, he was elected leader less than a year ago with an overwhelming majority
    This is confusing my feeble American mind. Where is the division, exactly? Is it that Labour voters like Corbyn but elected Labour parliamentary representatives hate him? Like if a US president was despised by their own congressional majority? I thought that in parliamentary systems the people voted for the representatives and then the representatives chose the leader, and that there weren't popular votes specifically for prime ministers or opposition leaders.

    The division is basically between members of the Labour Party (anybody from the public who wants to join up) and the PLP (the Parliamentary Labour Party, who are the elected members of Parliament)

    The Labour leader is chosen by the whole party, and a lot of people joined the Labour Party during the leadership campaign due to Corbyn. The PLP in general don't want him because they're mostly centrist New Labour types instead of traditional socialists.
    How many people are in the Labour Party? I was imagining something more on the scale of "a couple hundred people on the DNC" than "X million registered Democrats" which I guess was way off.

    Wikipedia-
    In August 2015, prior to the 2015 leadership election, the Labour Party reported 292,505 full members, 147,134 affiliated supporters (mostly from affiliated trade unions and socialist societies) and 110,827 registered supporters; a total of about 550,000 members and supporters. As of November 2015 the party has approximately 380,000 members.
    Oh. So in terms of relative exclusivity, we're talking something on the approximate scale of "registered Democrats who have donated money to a political campaign". Like, more exclusive than "American primary voter" but not enormously so. Thanks, that helps.

    You can only be in one party and if the others find out you're cheating on them they get cross with you
    I mean, for the purposes of this comparison don't think any typical American citizens donate to both Democrats and Republicans, or even multiple primary candidates of the same party (at the same time). Well, billionaires and corporations do, but I assume they're a very small portion of 380,000 Labour members.

    Membership in a political party in the United States is a checkbox when you register. Even then, 50 percent of registered voters still declare themselves independent.

    The amount of party members who contribute, volunteer, or participate in party functions or even primaries are also much smaller than the registered members.
    But the vote which made Corbyn opposition leader was limited to people who donated at least 3 pounds or whatever, right? Is that a specific membership tier that grants voting rights not available to the rest of registered members? Or an arbitrary rule that applied only to that specific vote?

    They changed it to 3 pounds to try to get more members, but most who joined were for Corbyn.

    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    RE: New UK leadership

  • JoeUserJoeUser regular Registered User regular
    Also those members that want to upgrade only have a couple of select days to do so.

    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
  • ZythonZython regular Registered User regular
    Gumpy wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Hermano wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    not having him on the ballot seems really petty. what's the harm in it, sounds like he wouldn't win anyway

    he's supposedly much more popular among the segment of the party that is allowed to vote on the final ballot than among the party leadership which selects who goes on the ballot, I think?

    There's no supposedly about it, he was elected leader less than a year ago with an overwhelming majority
    This is confusing my feeble American mind. Where is the division, exactly? Is it that Labour voters like Corbyn but elected Labour parliamentary representatives hate him? Like if a US president was despised by their own congressional majority? I thought that in parliamentary systems the people voted for the representatives and then the representatives chose the leader, and that there weren't popular votes specifically for prime ministers or opposition leaders.

    Labour's huge electoral breakthrough was in 1997 when the centralist moderniser/archdemon of the furthest ring (delete according to which side of the party you're on) Tony Blair managed to gain 150 seats in one election. (For reference, the 2015 general which saw the tories manage to become the majority party was a swing of 24 seats). Blairs victory was a landslide without modern precedent, ended 17 years of Tory rule and stood against everything Corbyns side of the party believed in.

    Corbyn thinks he can win back that lost ground, but instead of appealing to the centre like Blair did he can do it by appealing to the left.

    The PLP believes that Corbyn can't achieve it, and may actually lose them ground, because Blair won the majority by moving into the centre and not in completely the opposite direction.

    Drama abounds

    Personally, I find this to be a very strange thing, since in the U.S., Democratic attempts to run towards the right have been less successful. Although I guess that "left-leaning Democrat" is more aligned with Tony Blaire than Jeremy Corbyn.

    Switch: SW-3245-5421-8042 | 3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | PSN: Zaithon
    Steam: pazython
    BahamutZERO
  • honoverehonovere regular Registered User regular
    Gumpy wrote: »
    Oooh hello

    Sounds like they're actually restricting voting in the contest to people who were members before Feb this year unless they pay an extra £25 - Sounds like this is how they next plan to fight it out

    Ah yes, the always popular pay-to-win model.

    OmnipotentBagel
  • JoeUserJoeUser regular Registered User regular
  • GumpyGumpy There is always a greater powerRegistered User regular
    Zython wrote: »
    Gumpy wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Hermano wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    not having him on the ballot seems really petty. what's the harm in it, sounds like he wouldn't win anyway

    he's supposedly much more popular among the segment of the party that is allowed to vote on the final ballot than among the party leadership which selects who goes on the ballot, I think?

    There's no supposedly about it, he was elected leader less than a year ago with an overwhelming majority
    This is confusing my feeble American mind. Where is the division, exactly? Is it that Labour voters like Corbyn but elected Labour parliamentary representatives hate him? Like if a US president was despised by their own congressional majority? I thought that in parliamentary systems the people voted for the representatives and then the representatives chose the leader, and that there weren't popular votes specifically for prime ministers or opposition leaders.

    Labour's huge electoral breakthrough was in 1997 when the centralist moderniser/archdemon of the furthest ring (delete according to which side of the party you're on) Tony Blair managed to gain 150 seats in one election. (For reference, the 2015 general which saw the tories manage to become the majority party was a swing of 24 seats). Blairs victory was a landslide without modern precedent, ended 17 years of Tory rule and stood against everything Corbyns side of the party believed in.

    Corbyn thinks he can win back that lost ground, but instead of appealing to the centre like Blair did he can do it by appealing to the left.

    The PLP believes that Corbyn can't achieve it, and may actually lose them ground, because Blair won the majority by moving into the centre and not in completely the opposite direction.

    Drama abounds

    Personally, I find this to be a very strange thing, since in the U.S., Democratic attempts to run towards the right have been less successful. Although I guess that "left-leaning Democrat" is more aligned with Tony Blaire than Jeremy Corbyn.

    Democrats moving right are moving away from what the British people consider to be the centre, and American swing states are a different kettle of fish to the English battleground constituencies

  • HermanoHermano regular Registered User regular
    fucking incredible, can't let the poors think they have a say in politics


    PSN- AHermano
    LiiyaSolarchrishallett83VegemyteAlbino BunnyAngelina
  • OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    I thought buying votes was gross. I didn't even consider the possibility of charging for them.

    cdci44qazyo3.gif

    VegemyteShadowhopeZibblsnrt
  • LiiyaLiiya regular Registered User regular
    £25 is a lot of money for many people.

    HermanoPanda4Youchrishallett83tynicSlacker71ZibblsnrtAlbino BunnyVeldrinBahamutZERONeoTomaAngelina
  • Schmimpy Pim- no god what am I sayingSchmimpy Pim- no god what am I saying regular Registered User regular
    It's hard to get people to vote when it's free!

  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    Wow, that's uh...

    That seems pretty bad?

    sig.png
    CambiataNyysjanKwoaru
  • SolarSolar regular Registered User regular
    Labour is just a fucking mess

    as a Labour voter I'm fucking disgusted

  • ZythonZython regular Registered User regular
    I thought buying votes was gross. I didn't even consider the possibility of charging for them.

    You never heard of a poll tax?

    Switch: SW-3245-5421-8042 | 3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | PSN: Zaithon
    Steam: pazython
    NeoToma
  • WyvernWyvern regular Registered User regular
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Gumpy wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Hermano wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Hermano wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Hermano wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    not having him on the ballot seems really petty. what's the harm in it, sounds like he wouldn't win anyway

    he's supposedly much more popular among the segment of the party that is allowed to vote on the final ballot than among the party leadership which selects who goes on the ballot, I think?

    There's no supposedly about it, he was elected leader less than a year ago with an overwhelming majority
    This is confusing my feeble American mind. Where is the division, exactly? Is it that Labour voters like Corbyn but elected Labour parliamentary representatives hate him? Like if a US president was despised by their own congressional majority? I thought that in parliamentary systems the people voted for the representatives and then the representatives chose the leader, and that there weren't popular votes specifically for prime ministers or opposition leaders.

    The division is basically between members of the Labour Party (anybody from the public who wants to join up) and the PLP (the Parliamentary Labour Party, who are the elected members of Parliament)

    The Labour leader is chosen by the whole party, and a lot of people joined the Labour Party during the leadership campaign due to Corbyn. The PLP in general don't want him because they're mostly centrist New Labour types instead of traditional socialists.
    How many people are in the Labour Party? I was imagining something more on the scale of "a couple hundred people on the DNC" than "X million registered Democrats" which I guess was way off.

    Wikipedia-
    In August 2015, prior to the 2015 leadership election, the Labour Party reported 292,505 full members, 147,134 affiliated supporters (mostly from affiliated trade unions and socialist societies) and 110,827 registered supporters; a total of about 550,000 members and supporters. As of November 2015 the party has approximately 380,000 members.
    Oh. So in terms of relative exclusivity, we're talking something on the approximate scale of "registered Democrats who have donated money to a political campaign". Like, more exclusive than "American primary voter" but not enormously so. Thanks, that helps.

    You can only be in one party and if the others find out you're cheating on them they get cross with you
    I mean, for the purposes of this comparison don't think any typical American citizens donate to both Democrats and Republicans, or even multiple primary candidates of the same party (at the same time). Well, billionaires and corporations do, but I assume they're a very small portion of 380,000 Labour members.

    Membership in a political party in the United States is a checkbox when you register. Even then, 50 percent of registered voters still declare themselves independent.

    The amount of party members who contribute, volunteer, or participate in party functions or even primaries are also much smaller than the registered members.
    But the vote which made Corbyn opposition leader was limited to people who donated at least 3 pounds or whatever, right? Is that a specific membership tier that grants voting rights not available to the rest of registered members? Or an arbitrary rule that applied only to that specific vote?

    They changed it to 3 pounds to try to get more members, but most who joined were for Corbyn.
    What did it cost before it was 3 pounds? How did it compare to the 25 pound contribution they're demanding now?

    Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
  • Darth WaiterDarth Waiter Elrond Hubbard Mordor XenuRegistered User regular
    Gundi wrote: »
    RE: New UK leadership

    It's like they *want* to be on my shitlist.

  • GumpyGumpy There is always a greater powerRegistered User regular
    Wyvern wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Gumpy wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Hermano wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Hermano wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Hermano wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    not having him on the ballot seems really petty. what's the harm in it, sounds like he wouldn't win anyway

    he's supposedly much more popular among the segment of the party that is allowed to vote on the final ballot than among the party leadership which selects who goes on the ballot, I think?

    There's no supposedly about it, he was elected leader less than a year ago with an overwhelming majority
    This is confusing my feeble American mind. Where is the division, exactly? Is it that Labour voters like Corbyn but elected Labour parliamentary representatives hate him? Like if a US president was despised by their own congressional majority? I thought that in parliamentary systems the people voted for the representatives and then the representatives chose the leader, and that there weren't popular votes specifically for prime ministers or opposition leaders.

    The division is basically between members of the Labour Party (anybody from the public who wants to join up) and the PLP (the Parliamentary Labour Party, who are the elected members of Parliament)

    The Labour leader is chosen by the whole party, and a lot of people joined the Labour Party during the leadership campaign due to Corbyn. The PLP in general don't want him because they're mostly centrist New Labour types instead of traditional socialists.
    How many people are in the Labour Party? I was imagining something more on the scale of "a couple hundred people on the DNC" than "X million registered Democrats" which I guess was way off.

    Wikipedia-
    In August 2015, prior to the 2015 leadership election, the Labour Party reported 292,505 full members, 147,134 affiliated supporters (mostly from affiliated trade unions and socialist societies) and 110,827 registered supporters; a total of about 550,000 members and supporters. As of November 2015 the party has approximately 380,000 members.
    Oh. So in terms of relative exclusivity, we're talking something on the approximate scale of "registered Democrats who have donated money to a political campaign". Like, more exclusive than "American primary voter" but not enormously so. Thanks, that helps.

    You can only be in one party and if the others find out you're cheating on them they get cross with you
    I mean, for the purposes of this comparison don't think any typical American citizens donate to both Democrats and Republicans, or even multiple primary candidates of the same party (at the same time). Well, billionaires and corporations do, but I assume they're a very small portion of 380,000 Labour members.

    Membership in a political party in the United States is a checkbox when you register. Even then, 50 percent of registered voters still declare themselves independent.

    The amount of party members who contribute, volunteer, or participate in party functions or even primaries are also much smaller than the registered members.
    But the vote which made Corbyn opposition leader was limited to people who donated at least 3 pounds or whatever, right? Is that a specific membership tier that grants voting rights not available to the rest of registered members? Or an arbitrary rule that applied only to that specific vote?

    They changed it to 3 pounds to try to get more members, but most who joined were for Corbyn.
    What did it cost before it was 3 pounds? How did it compare to the 25 pound contribution they're demanding now?

    Not exactly

    The 3 pound thing wasn't to be a Labour party member - It was to be a "supporter" who could basically vote in the leadership elections. Actual membership fees are a lot higher (as its one of the main sources of party funding). This hasn't made membership more expensive I believe (which is something like £40?) but it has made it so you can't jump in for the leadership contests cheap as chips anymore.

    tynic
  • DiarmuidDiarmuid regular Registered User regular
    Liiya wrote: »
    £25 is a lot of money for many people.


    Panda4You
  • TubeTube admin Administrator, ClubPA admin
    The left and right in the UK and US aren't as far apart as people make out. The US hard right is a little harder right and the UK hard left is a little harder left. That's about it.

    Hobnail wrote: »
    This forum has taken everything from me
    This hurts but I deserve it

    OghulkLord_Asmodeus
  • GumpyGumpy There is always a greater powerRegistered User regular
    Labour membership is still between £12 - 48 a year, depending on your state of work ect. That hasn't changed with this

  • Bad-BeatBad-Beat regular Registered User regular
    Larry the cat votes remain – in pictures

    Finally, a UK politics article that I thoroughly enjoyed.

    JoeUserIron WeaselSlacker71
  • gtrmpgtrmp regular Registered User regular
    JoeUser wrote: »

    Surely disenfranchising their newest voters en masse couldn't possibly have any detrimental effect on the party's future prospects

  • OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    gtrmp wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »

    Surely disenfranchising their newest voters en masse couldn't possibly have any detrimental effect on the party's future prospects

    Somehow hasn't stopped the Republican Party in America yet.

    cdci44qazyo3.gif

  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver regular Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Zython wrote: »
    I thought buying votes was gross. I didn't even consider the possibility of charging for them.

    You never heard of a poll tax?

    I thought basically every modern democracy had done away with that

    Twitch Channel
    Steam: munkus_beaver
    Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but it dies in the process.
    http://www.ccfa.org/
  • JoeUserJoeUser regular Registered User regular
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic regular Registered User regular
    Zython wrote: »
    I thought buying votes was gross. I didn't even consider the possibility of charging for them.

    You never heard of a poll tax?

    I thought basically every modern democracy had done away with that

    Remember that political parties are private organisations and voting within them is not considered a right. The same way the US primaries can have electoral processes that wouldn't hold constitutional water.

    That doesn't mean you can't criticise them, but they're not breaking the law.

    Slacker71
  • JoeUserJoeUser regular Registered User regular
    13 PMs!

    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
    chrishallett83Rhesus PositiveShadowhopetynic
  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    Liiya wrote: »
    £25 is a lot of money for many people.

    even if it wasn't voter taxes are sort of abhorrent in basic principle

    chrishallett83lonelyahava
  • JoeUserJoeUser regular Registered User regular
    Owen Smith is in the running now, and he's thought to have more support than Eagle.

    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
  • JoeUserJoeUser regular Registered User regular
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular

    Look. Say what you will about the 18-hour nap day plan or the initiative to fund research into finding a way to catch the red dot on the floor and wall that your new cat overlords are trying to push through Parliament, but their scheme to provide free catnip at clinics is deeply problematic.

    I sometimes post pretty pictures to twitter: https://twitter.com/matthewandworld
    RMS OceanicCambiataHermanoSlacker71Harry DresdenAngelina
  • OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    JoeUser wrote: »

    I, for one, welcome and all that.

    cdci44qazyo3.gif

    NyysjanJoeUserchrishallett83Iron WeaselRainfallDarth WaiterNartwakLord_AsmodeusDedwrekkaSlacker71Albino BunnyVeldrinHarry DresdenPeewiAngelina
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Gundi wrote: »
    Liiya wrote: »
    £25 is a lot of money for many people.

    even if it wasn't voter taxes are sort of abhorrent in basic principle

    Voter taxes are, but party dues are not. Really this is them trying to fix the earlier £3 supporter cockup, they've just chosen to do that it in the least democratic, most optically repugnant way they could think of.

    Labour continues as the party of least ept strategic thinkers. Which, given the stiff competition... Yeah.

    honoverechrishallett83KetBrapots+pansSnicketysnickSolarSkeithSlacker71
  • a5ehrena5ehren regular AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2016
    I'm honestly surprised that they had the "pay a little money to vote on leadership" option to begin with.

    If you aren't going to go US-style and make party registration free for internal votes (which, ehhhhhhh), I don't see the reason for a middle step.

    a5ehren on
  • TubeTube admin Administrator, ClubPA admin
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Owen Smith is in the running now, and he's thought to have more support than Eagle.

    I have a better chance of winning it than Angela fucking Eagle

    Hobnail wrote: »
    This forum has taken everything from me
    This hurts but I deserve it

  • honoverehonovere regular Registered User regular
    Tube wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Owen Smith is in the running now, and he's thought to have more support than Eagle.

    I have a better chance of winning it than Angela fucking Eagle

    Even Eddie had better chances?

  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    I'm honestly surprised that they had the "pay a little money to vote on leadership" option to begin with.

    If you aren't going to go US-style and make party registration free for internal votes (which, ehhhhhhh), I don't see the reason for a middle step.

    It was a ploy to keep Corbyn from winning. It backfired tremendously.

    chrishallett83HermanoASimPersongtrmp
  • TubeTube admin Administrator, ClubPA admin
    honovere wrote: »
    Tube wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Owen Smith is in the running now, and he's thought to have more support than Eagle.

    I have a better chance of winning it than Angela fucking Eagle

    Even Eddie had better chances?

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/angela-eagle-less-electable-than-eddie-the-eagle-finds-survey-20160713110708

    Hobnail wrote: »
    This forum has taken everything from me
    This hurts but I deserve it

  • JoeUserJoeUser regular Registered User regular
    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
    DisruptedCapitalistRMS OceanicArdolToxchrishallett83FencingsaxtynicSolarcB557Darth WaiterSkeithOghulkVeldrinlonelyahavaVegemyteAngelina
Sign In or Register to comment.