The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[PompeyVillan]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Not sure what you’ve got to do with this. I was responding to @PompeyVillan. He appeared to think Labour’s last manifesto had a commitment to Remain in the EU, it didn’t

No I didn't, and I didn't actually say that. I said Brexit wouldn't have happened with a Labour government. Which is quite different. Although to be honest that's not a particularly clear statement. It would have been better to be clear that Labour would never have dreamed of allowing Brexit to happen, because they wouldn't have had a referendum on EU membership. 

 

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

8 hours ago, bickster said:

Not sure what you’ve got to do with this. I was responding to @PompeyVillan. He appeared to think Labour’s last manifesto had a commitment to Remain in the EU, it didn’t

Well 'what I have to do with this' is the same as on every topic, ie everything and nothing all at the same time. I added my opinion that I thought @PompeyVillan's original point was quite obvious, even if it could have been made more clearly. I'm not sure why that opinion is less valid than the three people who were allowed to voice the opposite opinion without being asked 'what they've got to do this', but if you're telling me that my contributions to the thread aren't welcome then i can of course stop making them. 

[blandy]

8 hours ago, PompeyVillan said:

No I didn't, and I didn't actually say that. I said Brexit wouldn't have happened with a Labour government....because they wouldn't have had a referendum on EU membership. 

Acting leader Harriet Harman has said Labour will now support plans for an EU referendum by the end of 2017.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32863749

and many other sources. So while it’s true Miliband opposed the idea, once he left, labour supported the idea. It’s all hypothetical I suppose, sliding doors and all that, but the dam was always going to burst at some point, unless the causes of the “leave” result were addressed, rather than fed, by politicians.

[bickster]

11 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Sure. But the point is still true, though I suppose it would have been clearer if it said 'under Ed Miliband' after 'Labour government'. 

 

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well 'what I have to do with this' is the same as on every topic, ie everything and nothing all at the same time. I added my opinion that I thought @PompeyVillan's original point was quite obvious, even if it could have been made more clearly. I'm not sure why that opinion is less valid than the three people who were allowed to voice the opposite opinion without being asked 'what they've got to do this', but if you're telling me that my contributions to the thread aren't welcome then i can of course stop making them. 

Apologies, read it as I'd, hence my confusion as to what you were saying was some sort of defence of something you didn't say

[PompeyVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Acting leader Harriet Harman has said Labour will now support plans for an EU referendum by the end of 2017.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32863749

and many other sources. So while it’s true Miliband opposed the idea, once he left, labour supported the idea. It’s all hypothetical I suppose, sliding doors and all that, but the dam was always going to burst at some point, unless the causes of the “leave” result were addressed, rather than fed, by politicians.

Aye, I see where you're coming from but thats quite different to proposing the bill in the first place. Anyway I don't disagree with your second point, the appetite for a referendum would never be quelled whilst folk were being squeezed and then told to blame immigrants, the EU and whatever else for their plight. 

[HanoiVillan]

'What if Miliband had won the election' is quite an interesting jumping off point for alternative histories to be honest. 

[snowychap]

Labour given £10m more than Tories last year, says Electoral Commission

Quote

Labour raised nearly £10m more than the Conservatives last year in what is thought to be the largest amount ever raised over 12 months by a single political party.

Jeremy Corbyn’s party was given £55.8m in 2017, while the Conservatives managed to raise £45.9m, also their highest ever total, as both parties financed general election campaigns. However Tory income from membership slumped from £1.46m to £835,000 in a year, while Labour received £16m from membership subscriptions, according to the data, an increase of £2m from last year.

The figures were released on Wednesday morning by the Electoral Commission, the donations watchdog, which found that 10 parties reported having gross income or total expenditure in 2017 of more than £250,000. In total, these parties reported £125,322,000 income and £122,194,000 expenditure.

Labour beat its previous highest amount of £51m which was raised in 2015, also a general election year, but one that was fought under Ed Miliband. The Tories’ second highest amount ever raised in a single year came in 2010, when donors gave £43.1m.

Labour also received £18m in donations from its members, while Tory members gave £34m, the data shows.

The figures also show that the Tories received £1.7m from legacies, twice as much as Labour.

Even Corbyn’s critics have been surprised by the way that his popularity has turned around the party’s funding model. Under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the party was reliant on a small number of wealthy donors.

Now the party is reliant upon smaller donations from ordinary members. Membership of Labour has soared from 200,000 in 2015 to 552,000 in January 2018, according to reports.

Liberal Democrat spending outstripped income last year, according to the Electoral Commission – they raised £9,710,00 and spent £10,454,00. Similarly, UKIP raised £1,739,000 and spent £1,939,000.

A far cry from their worries about huge debts a decade ago.

[peterms]

10 hours ago, snowychap said:

Labour given £10m more than Tories last year, says Electoral Commission

A far cry from their worries about huge debts a decade ago.

So Labour raised it from lots of ordinary people while  the tories got it from Crispin Odey, various anonymous funds, and, oooh, i don't know.

[chrisp65]

turns out that financially, the best tories are dead tories

[bickster]

33 minutes ago, peterms said:

So Labour raised it from lots of ordinary people while  the tories got it from Crispin Odey, various anonymous funds, and, oooh, i don't know.

Remeber when Militant took a weekly levy from its members... it was accused of being a cult

[peterms]

Yes I do.

Yes, it was.

I fought against them.

This is nothing like that.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Yes I do.

Yes, it was.

I fought against them.

This is nothing like that.

Momentum is pretty much the new Militant, different tactics but a party within a party, yes. As far as I’m aware the Labour Party rules still preclude that unless it’s the Cooperative Party but I could be wrong

[peterms]

8 hours ago, bickster said:

Momentum is pretty much the new Militant, different tactics but a party within a party, yes. As far as I’m aware the Labour Party rules still preclude that unless it’s the Cooperative Party but I could be wrong

Momentum seems to be much more like the groups which have always existed within the Labour Party (and other parties).  In Labour, an example would be the Labour Co-ordinating Committee.  They were pretty organised, holding private meetings, running slates, arranging for candidates to be imposed on constituencies, making complaints against political rivals to get disciplinary action taken against them and so on.  I don't see Momentum doing anything going as far as that, and I don't recall complaints that LCC was a party within a party.  Militant was quite different, and was an example of a pre-existing political grouping adopting a tactic of joining in order to wield influence.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Momentum seems to be much more like the groups which have always existed within the Labour Party (and other parties).  In Labour, an example would be the Labour Co-ordinating Committee.  They were pretty organised, holding private meetings, running slates, arranging for candidates to be imposed on constituencies, making complaints against political rivals to get disciplinary action taken against them and so on.  I don't see Momentum doing anything going as far as that, and I don't recall complaints that LCC was a party within a party.  Militant was quite different, and was an example of a pre-existing political grouping adopting a tactic of joining in order to wield influence.

Hmm no I disagree, Momentum has been actively recruiting people to themselves first and then getting them to join Labour, that's the very definition of entryism

For the first two years of its existence, you could join Momentum and not even be in the Labour Party, that only changed last year

It also requires a separate membership fee

The LCC, Clause Four and most of the other factions of a similar ilk were always, just that factions from within the membership, Momentum isn't

Apart from not being quite Trotskyite and not selling a newspaper, I fail to see the difference

To my mind, it's an entryist organisation, not a grouping from within.

 

[peterms]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

Hmm no I disagree, Momentum has been actively recruiting people to themselves first and then getting them to join Labour, that's the very definition of entryism

For the first two years of its existence, you could join Momentum and not even be in the Labour Party, that only changed last year

It also requires a separate membership fee

The LCC, Clause Four and most of the other factions of a similar ilk were always, just that factions from within the membership, Momentum isn't

Apart from not being quite Trotskyite and not selling a newspaper, I fail to see the difference

To my mind, it's an entryist organisation, not a grouping from within.

 

The Fabian Society actively recruits people and encourages them to join Labour.  You can be a member of the Fabians and not of Labour (though not a member of a party actively opposed to Labour).  The Fabians have a separate membership fee.  It issues its own publications.

I think most people would regard the Fabians as an organisation, a faction, a current of thought, a pressure group seeking to influence Labour in their preferred direction, but not describe them as entryists or call their activities illegitimate.

I would see Momentum is a similar way, though I don't think they are as structured or as organised as the Fabians, I have the impression they are looser and more freewheeling than that.

I saw the LCC as more nefarious than that, seeking to expel people and impose candidates through their control of key parts of the party machinery.  They preferred to work this way rather than try to win over the membership through argument and get candidates selected by a vote of the members.  They were quite effective at it, and the PLP contains examples of their handiwork.  The same people are still active, though the LCC is no more.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

The Fabian Society actively recruits people and encourages them to join Labour.  You can be a member of the Fabians and not of Labour (though not a member of a party actively opposed to Labour).  The Fabians have a separate membership fee.  It issues its own publications.

I think most people would regard the Fabians as an organisation, a faction, a current of thought, a pressure group seeking to influence Labour in their preferred direction, but not describe them as entryists or call their activities illegitimate.

I would see Momentum is a similar way, though I don't think they are as structured or as organised as the Fabians, I have the impression they are looser and more freewheeling than that.

I saw the LCC as more nefarious than that, seeking to expel people and impose candidates through their control of key parts of the party machinery.  They preferred to work this way rather than try to win over the membership through argument and get candidates selected by a vote of the members.  They were quite effective at it, and the PLP contains examples of their handiwork.  The same people are still active, though the LCC is no more.

Not really, The Fabian Society is an officially affiliated Socialist Society

Momentum isn't

[Dr_Pangloss]

40 minutes ago, bickster said:

Hmm no I disagree, Momentum has been actively recruiting people to themselves first and then getting them to join Labour, that's the very definition of entryism

For the first two years of its existence, you could join Momentum and not even be in the Labour Party, that only changed last year

It also requires a separate membership fee

The LCC, Clause Four and most of the other factions of a similar ilk were always, just that factions from within the membership, Momentum isn't

Apart from not being quite Trotskyite and not selling a newspaper, I fail to see the difference

To my mind, it's an entryist organisation, not a grouping from within.

 

Yes not quite that far but still having many 'members' at the lunatic fringe of left wing politics.

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not really, The Fabian Society is an officially affiliated Socialist Society

Momentum isn't

If pressure groups which aren't (yet) affiliated socialist societies are entryist, then there would be a long list of entryists, and the term would lose its meaning.

Militant are seen as an entryist group because their loyalty was to Militant above all else, and they consciously joined Labour as a centrally directed tactic.  They were essentially a political party in their own right, with internal disciplinary procedures, issuing instructions to members (including moving to other parts of the country in order to pursue their aims, which goes well beyond what most parties do). 

With Momentum, it seems to me that some existing party members joined the group, others were attracted to join Labour through being interested in what Momentum were doing and seeing it as a new and more attractive approach than they had perceived the party previously.  It's really not the same thing, and it appears the term is being applied to Momentum as a signal of disapproval rather than as an accurate description.

 

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

If pressure groups which aren't (yet) affiliated socialist societies are entryist, then there would be a long list of entryists, and the term would lose its meaning.

Militant are seen as an entryist group because their loyalty was to Militant above all else, and they consciously joined Labour as a centrally directed tactic.  They were essentially a political party in their own right, with internal disciplinary procedures, issuing instructions to members (including moving to other parts of the country in order to pursue their aims, which goes well beyond what most parties do). 

With Momentum, it seems to me that some existing party members joined the group, others were attracted to join Labour through being interested in what Momentum were doing and seeing it as a new and more attractive approach than they had perceived the party previously.  It's really not the same thing, and it appears the term is being applied to Momentum as a signal of disapproval rather than as an accurate description.

 

I wasn't aware of any other people criticising Momentum for a similar thing, I'm purely going from my experience with Militant in the 80's and comparing that to Momentum now

Your posts are very contradictory by the way. First of all, Momentum are like the Labour Co-Ordinating Committee, then they are like the Fabian Society, even from you're own posts these are very different beasts. So it might be to say that it appears you are comparing it to other groups as a signal for approval rather than an accurate description

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Your posts are very contradictory by the way. First of all, Momentum are like the Labour Co-Ordinating Committee, then they are like the Fabian Society, even from you're own posts these are very different beasts. So it might be to say that it appears you are comparing it to other groups as a signal for approval rather than an accurate description

The three organisations are alike in all being pressure groups influencing the Labour Party.  They are obviously different in other respects.  To say this is not contradictory - clearly I'm not saying they are all identical in every respect.  The comparison is to illustrate why I see Momentum as more similar to other pressure groups, than to Militant.

And it's not a signal of approval, just a way of saying that the influencing behaviour of Momentum, like that of other pressure groups, is legitimate.  (Actually, some of what the LCC got up to seems to be less legitimate that what I've seen reported about Momentum.  But they weren't expelled for that, they disbanded when they had achieved their goal of taking control of the party by the Blairites).