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.
Whoever is in the group of people that calls itself the 'Labour Party' are showing themselves up to be a bunch of spoilt children.
From over here, it looks like your politicians are taking bets over who can be the first one to start the rioting.
Well, I'm Irish
But whatever happens in the UK usually finds a way to fuck things up over here, so I'm very interested in the various shitshows we're seeing right now.
0
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
in that case making it so the most likely to win can't win by not putting them on the ballot sounds, uh, bad
Who can win the leadership and who can win a general are... fairly different things
I think letting the members of the Party decide who they want to run in an election is perfectly reasonable.
Never said it wasn't reasonable - Just explaining the reasoning behind why the party is trying to keep off a candidate who can win the leadership election
The left wing in England is a fucking joke at the moment.
tbf, a Labour MP was murdered not that long ago
And they all immediately forgot about it to concentrate on the ludicrous power grab of the moment. The death of an MP didn't cause them to start jockeying for power, and they were a joke for a long time before that.
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.
Party membership works a bit different to the US system, I think. Like the vast majority of voters is not member of any party, so the membership base of Labour that wants Corbyn might not be representative of the votership in elections who voted for their respective MPs who don't want Corbyn.
edit: Actually Trump and the GOP might be the closest analogue. Just imagine the GOP had no party discipline.
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.
PSN- AHermano
+3
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
Labour's problem has historically been that it's largely controlled by a recalcitrant hard-left element who have no intention of getting elected and would in fact consider being elected to be a symptom of a lack of ideological purity. They want to shout "fuck the tories!" and talk about how much better things would be if they got in.
Tony Blair, for all he's demonised, did more for the progressive cause than any Labour leader in history because it turns out getting elected is a pretty important part of that whole deal.
+4
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
It is worth noting that the Sharks are half the political descendent of members of the Labour party who split off in 1981 the last time this all happened
Yes she has ultimate power but it's understood that she'd never actually pull the trigger without having complete support.
Because dissolving parliament without massive support from the general public would have her removed from power.
So all she has to do is be way more popular than Parliament? ...Wait, by god, the woman's playing the long con!
I suspect that not insignificant amount of Brits would, at this point, happily have the Queen as the only power in government.
And only reason lot more are not, is because of Charles (deservedly or not).
I'd happily go back to the monarchy being the only source of government. The Queen has a good head on her shoulders, Charles cares about the environment and is a bit hippy ( apparently likes alternative medicine), but still ok, William is pretty much by all accounts well adjusted and a nice guy, maybe a bit dull, and theres plenty of time for George to get a good education on how not to be a shithead.
Thats the probably the next 50 years (at least) of government sorted out.
Lets face it, its not like they can be worse than the current lot of knobjockeys we have for a government
Charles has said before how people should not rise above their station. The queen's coronation saw her being decked out in gold and jewels while the country was still rationing. However they market themselves, they're a bunch of toffs who have no incentive to give a damn about the people.
I can see the advantages of a constitutional monarchy, but god help us if they were ever actually in charge.
And?
Would selling of those gold and jewels have changed the food situation?
And how much would sbuying them back later have cost?
Personally, i am a bit iffy about selling of state property to pay for temporary expenditures, no matter how necessary (usually better to take a loan), might as well start selling chairs and tables and just write on the floor if you do.
That said, were those actual state property or do they belong to the crown?
People just don't like that kind of shit. Remember how the last Pope went around wearing golden tablecloths and diamond slippers and whatnot, wasn't popular
Well, difference is, that the Queen is a monarch of a country because her ancestors had a bigger armies than other people.
Pope is a leader of a religion that the founder of told them to sell all your belongings and give to the poor.
I expect different behaviour from a monarch than i do from a pope (actually, i don't expect it, but feel justified in criticizing the pope for not being different due the chruches own claims).
Man I guess so, I think that if you are the figurehead for a bunch of broke ass people and go around bedecked in jewels it will never be a good look
Queen does not go around bedecked in jewels.
Crowning ceremonies are pretty much a one of event and than the crap goes back to a museum for people to gawk at.
Now, no doubt there are people who don't like it, that is the case for everything.
But i would be interested to see any data on the opinions of the people at the time about the issue.
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.
This time last year the Lib Dems could be said to be on the verge of Parliamentary Extinction. Tim Farron might just be able to dodge that particular bullet if he plays his cards right.
Not necessarily back to the heights of pre-2010, but I'd say he has nowhere to go but up.
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
The problem with the PLP narrative in this is that they're conveniently forgetting the last two general elections they cocked up, and makes them screaming about how unelectable Corbyn is seem a bit laughable
PSN- AHermano
0
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
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
The problem with the PLP narrative in this is that they're conveniently forgetting the last two general elections they cocked up, and makes them screaming about how unelectable Corbyn is seem a bit laughable
To be fair on the PLP, they didn't get their candidate in the last round either and the election before would have been bloody hard to win with the amount of fatigue that had built up after three terms of Labour in power.
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.
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
Gordon Brown essentially fighting that election to a draw was an incredible political feat and he should be applauded for it. 3 terms and one of the most hostile media environments imaginable.
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.
Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
0
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
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.
It kinda matters more in England because some parties (like... the Labour party) are kinda big coalitions of smaller parties with their own active identities and it gets real blurry. Particularly since when this Corbyn saga kicked off it was partly due to party membership being offered out to the public for a real cheap price in order to get a more electable leader in and accidentally letting back in all the old hard left groups that Labour had driven out since 1997.
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.
0
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
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
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
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?
Posts
We're halfway into one of those already
PSN- AHermano
I'd be very surprised if that led anywhere
Courts unlikely to get in middle of an inter party shitfest
Who can win the leadership and who can win a general are... fairly different things
The actual party staff and internal appointees
From over here, it looks like your politicians are taking bets over who can be the first one to start the rioting.
I think letting the members of the Party decide who they want to run in an election is perfectly reasonable.
Well, I'm Irish
But whatever happens in the UK usually finds a way to fuck things up over here, so I'm very interested in the various shitshows we're seeing right now.
Never said it wasn't reasonable - Just explaining the reasoning behind why the party is trying to keep off a candidate who can win the leadership election
And they all immediately forgot about it to concentrate on the ludicrous power grab of the moment. The death of an MP didn't cause them to start jockeying for power, and they were a joke for a long time before that.
Party membership works a bit different to the US system, I think. Like the vast majority of voters is not member of any party, so the membership base of Labour that wants Corbyn might not be representative of the votership in elections who voted for their respective MPs who don't want Corbyn.
edit: Actually Trump and the GOP might be the closest analogue. Just imagine the GOP had no party discipline.
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.
PSN- AHermano
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
Tony Blair, for all he's demonised, did more for the progressive cause than any Labour leader in history because it turns out getting elected is a pretty important part of that whole deal.
It is worth noting that the Sharks are half the political descendent of members of the Labour party who split off in 1981 the last time this all happened
Crowning ceremonies are pretty much a one of event and than the crap goes back to a museum for people to gawk at.
Now, no doubt there are people who don't like it, that is the case for everything.
But i would be interested to see any data on the opinions of the people at the time about the issue.
Also this.
Wikipedia-
PSN- AHermano
Not necessarily back to the heights of pre-2010, but I'd say he has nowhere to go but up.
I mean Jesus Christ, Ed Milliband? If his brother had gotten in, he might have actually won the election and we can't have that.
So the question may be what those 400,000 thought of Europe
The problem with the PLP narrative in this is that they're conveniently forgetting the last two general elections they cocked up, and makes them screaming about how unelectable Corbyn is seem a bit laughable
PSN- AHermano
To be fair on the PLP, they didn't get their candidate in the last round either and the election before would have been bloody hard to win with the amount of fatigue that had built up after three terms of Labour in power.
You can only be in one party and if the others find out you're cheating on them they get cross with you
It kinda matters more in England because some parties (like... the Labour party) are kinda big coalitions of smaller parties with their own active identities and it gets real blurry. Particularly since when this Corbyn saga kicked off it was partly due to party membership being offered out to the public for a real cheap price in order to get a more electable leader in and accidentally letting back in all the old hard left groups that Labour had driven out since 1997.
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.
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
oh shit