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

[peterms]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

The political make up of the party as a whole was vastly different in both numbers and outlook under Blair than it is today. The membership was more moderate, the membership was much smaller.

Blair sought to increase membership.  It was a big part of his agenda in the early days, and involved approaches he had trialled in his own constituency.  He moved the party significantly to the right, as we know.  During his tenure the proportion of working class MPs declined, and the proportion of carrer MPs increased (see this for example):

Quote

..."Before Tony Blair came to power there was only a modest difference in working-class and careerists positions on welfare reform. But our research finds that during his premiership - the influence of working-class MPs dropped while there was a rise in the influence of careerist politicians.

"The former had a stronger ideological attachment to welfare provision because it benefits working-class voters, whereas the latter's greater concerns for electoral success and career advancement meant they were more likely to support welfare reforms. The findings suggest that the large shift from working-class MPs to career politicians in the British Labour Party considerably weakened the representation of working-class voters' interests. Put bluntly, careerist MPs are much more likely to blow with the political winds."

When the Labour Party first achieved electoral success in the 1920s, more than 70% of its MPs were drawn from working-class backgrounds. This has declined drastically from the mid- 80s and today just 8% of Labour MPs are working-class. 

Working-class have been replaced one for one with careerists, a rare phenomenon up until the 80s when career MPs made up just a 10th of the party. Careerists are now the largest occupational group, outnumbering MPs from public and voluntary sector, private and financial sectors and professional backgrounds, such as lawyers, doctors, journalists, engineers and academics, whose representation has remained consistent over the past 30 years.

The dramatic reduction in working-class MPs is partly a result of political recruitment; the decline of traditional trade unions and access routes into politics for working class individuals. In addition, the profession now requires greater resource of time, effort and money...

Although Blair wanted to increase membership, in fact it declined during his term, as very many people became deeply unhappy with the rapid rightward shift in party policy.  Those remaining were more content, and so the membership generally had more right-wing views than either before or after this membership attrition.  Some of the people who left because of him and his clique are returning, and people are also joining who were previously not engaged with party politics.  Don't you think a larger membership is better for a party than a smaller membership?

2 hours ago, bickster said:

By and large it is still as it's always been, the unions controlling the party and that goes all the way to the top with Corbyn. The Unions have moved to the left, so has the party and so has the membership but that is all being controlled by the Unions. Blair at least managed to wrestle some control away from the unions but they were always there in the background having an influence, now it's just bigger

The unions don't control the party.  They have a strong influence, as do the PLP and the membership.

What is your basis for saying the unions have moved to the left?  It's true that some of the more right-wing unions aren't as dominant now, and the old cabal of leaders of the engineers and electricians doesn't wield the power it used to, but the unions in general don't seem to have shifted left, as opposed to some right-wing individual powerbrokers having lost influence.  Overall, the influence of the unions seems less than in previous decades.

[blandy]

18 hours ago, peterms said:

I know you see Corbyn as the root cause of anything wrong with Labour, but the problems between MPs and party members are often down to MPs having been pushed onto local parties which did not choose them.  This was a conscious strategy pursued over many years by the Blairites when they controlled the party machinery.  Kate Hoey is just one example.

The PLP on the whole probably has views which are to the right of the membership on the whole.  I think that most members accept that they may have an MP whose views may not fully reflect their own, if the MP is good in other ways and is an asset to the party.  When some MPs actively join in trying to undermine and sabotage the elected leadership, then it's likely that party members will start asking why they should tolerate it, especially when a lot of people accepted right wing control for years even if it wasn't their personal preference.

 

Much of that is fair comment, though I'm not sure I see all of Labour's problems (and there are many) down to Corbyn.

The LP is massively divided, and my comment was in the context of him being (possibly) claimed as just the type of character to bring together a divided party. He hasn't, IMO, he's made it  much more divided.

The aspect of MPs and party selection (and it applies ot any party, really) is interesting. If, say, an party MP has been in a seat for a good while, consistent large majorities from the voters, and then the party Leader changes and is now someone who holds different kinds of views, should that MP be removed because 65 out of 100 Local Party members have the hump with them? - it applies to Tories in seats where loads of former UKIP members have joined, or Labour where momentum types have joined, or wherever. Isn't there also an aspect of the overall constituency repeatedly voting in  the MP by large numbers being effectively deprived of a good MP by a few 10s or a couple of hundred Brexity throbbers - like with Johnson becoming PM via the votes of a tiny fraction of the countiry's electorate?

There has to be recognition of parties being able to choose who represents them, but also of voters (wider than just the party) not having their wishes overridden.

Whether Blair or Corbyn, May or Major, parties have always placed some "preferred" candidates in some seats - either to give them a first taste of an election or to actually get them elected. As you say many local parties accept that. Some moan, some really kick-off. I'm sure we won't see Corbyn's son, or any of his Union leader chums' children or favourites getting cushy seats, right? 

 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, peterms said:

Overall, the influence of the unions seems less than in previous decades.

Len McLuskey is extremely influential and close with Catweazle, unfortunately. He's been spouting off on everything from AS to Brexit for a while. I cancelled the political part of my Union fees to Unite because of him and the way he [note to self, don't write a libel] "won" the Unite leadership contest, amongst other things.

But probably the unions overall are no more left or right than previously.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

If, say, an party MP has been in a seat for a good while, consistent large majorities from the voters, and then the party Leader changes and is now someone who holds different kinds of views, should that MP be removed because 65 out of 100 Local Party members have the hump with them? - it applies to Tories in seats where loads of former UKIP members have joined, or Labour where momentum types have joined, or wherever

The first question would be why local members have the hump with them.  If you look at actual cases where moves are made to deselect and which attract a lot of support (rather than being just a couple of people), then it tends to be dissatsifaction with their performance over a period, rather than disapproval of the views they hold.  It might be lack of work locally, voting record, involvement in some dodgy business like expenses or being in hock to lobbyists, acting against the party by attacking the leadership. 

Local parties are aware of the risk of being perceived to get rid of someone on a whim, and I don't see them doing this.  But it's not a job for life, and MPs don't have the right to retain the nomination come what may.  They start with a great advantage of being the incumbent, having had the chance to build relationships with active local members over years, having been able to build up a track record, as well as the perceived risk of removing them if they are popular.  But some seem to think the position is theirs as of right, and they should be allowed to do whatever they want and still get reselected.  No-one would expect that in any other job, and it's very odd that some think that politics should be different.

Brexit is something of an exception to this, and I suspect that in seats which are very strongly for or against, some MPs are more at risk over taking a contrary view than for other policy issues.

The Tory-UKIP issue is different again, and it seems there has been a very focussed and determined effort at entryism of the kind Labour saw in the 80s with Militant.  It seems to be confined to a few areas though, I think?

[blandy]

46 minutes ago, peterms said:

The first question would be why local members have the hump with them.  If you look at actual cases where moves are made to deselect and which attract a lot of support (rather than being just a couple of people), then it tends to be dissatsifaction with their performance over a period, rather than disapproval of the views they hold

My perception is very much the opposite of that.

An MPs performance as an MP, where they have a duty to represent ALL their constituents, rather than do what their local party wants them to.

Though I suppose it's a partially grey area because if an MP has one set of views and a leader another - then the MP will almost, by default, either be speaking against the party and Leader's (new) line or failing to properly put across their views.

Mostly, my perception is that MPs, and Labour in particular wants to remove those not "loyal to Jeremy". It's nothing to do with how well they've done their jobs as MPs representing the constituents, and all to do with "She said Jeremy needed to do more on AS"  etc.

We even had Chris Williamson a year or so ago, going round the constituencies of MPs he felt insufficiently loyal to Saint Jeremy, with his "Democracy Roadshow" sort of wondering out loud if "carry on like you are and you might have a little democratic accident". That's former PFI supporting, Tory co-operating,  Chris Williamson (now suspended) MP.

[peterms]

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

An MPs performance as an MP, where they have a duty to represent ALL their constituents, rather than do what their local party wants them to.

When party members select a candidate for an election, they are selecting them as a representative of the party.  The duty of an MP to represent all constituents is a completely different issue.  If someone wants to represent constituents and not a political party, they should stand as an independent.  If they wish to represent constituents and also a political party, they will be selected according to how well party members feel they would represent them.  And if you are selected as a representative of a party, then it is entirely reasonable for party members to expect you to act in line with the party.  This is not a radical new notion.  It's how political parties work.  And every politician knows it.

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

Mostly, my perception is that MPs, and Labour in particular wants to remove those not "loyal to Jeremy". It's nothing to do with how well they've done their jobs as MPs representing the constituents, and all to do with "She said Jeremy needed to do more on AS"  etc.

Again, doing constituency work is a core requirement of the job.  It's not some sort of invulnerability shield for failing to act in line with party policy, or seeking to mount a coup, or issuing public statements intended to undermine the party and cause electoral problems.  This is simply a commonplace.  It's not unique to politics.  Try slagging off your firm in public, and defending yourself on the basis that you carried out your core tasks last week.

[HanoiVillan]

35 minutes ago, blandy said:

An MPs performance as an MP, where they have a duty to represent ALL their constituents, rather than do what their local party wants them to.

Though I suppose it's a partially grey area because if an MP has one set of views and a leader another - then the MP will almost, by default, either be speaking against the party and Leader's (new) line or failing to properly put across their views.

Political party members have the right to choose who will represent their party at the next election. The decision is made by party members, not by all constituents. It might be stupid to choose someone other than the incumbent (not least because if they are popular enough, they may win as an independent or split your party's vote), but it is unquestionably the right of party members to make those decisions. 

37 minutes ago, blandy said:

Mostly, my perception is that MPs, and Labour in particular wants to remove those not "loyal to Jeremy". It's nothing to do with how well they've done their jobs as MPs representing the constituents, and all to do with "She said Jeremy needed to do more on AS"  etc.

It is highly likely that even if Labour were to win an election, they would do so with a small majority, and in that case what the party could actually do in office would be determined largely by what the group of most moderate Labour MP's would tolerate before voting No Confidence in the government. If Labour members want Corbyn's policies, they should probably be more aggressive in deselecting MP's who are openly hostile to the leadership, not less. Of course, there are political consequences to doing so, but that's the balance they have to consider. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Try slagging off your firm in public, and defending yourself on the basis that you carried out your core tasks last week.

 

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Of course, there are political consequences to doing so, but that's the balance they have to consider. 

Two tiny quote extracts, but I think (at least for me) if I speak as a private citizen about something my Company is doing or did, then there is no legal leg to stand on for my Co. to sack me, or discipline me.

Of course with an MP, it's to an extent different, because they are always both, but "As a resident of Town, I reject Fracking and the risks associated with it, even though it's X party policy" is a frequent type of an MP objection/rebellion. Or "as a shareholder I am massively disappointed with the performance of the shares under the Chairmanship of X" - it's fine.

On HV's quote -  both peter and HV seem to take the (perfectly fair) view that "members decide and they can decide what the heck they like". That's fine as a view. My observational point is that if/where this goes against wider interests of the local community, say then our political and voting (election) system can mean that good people are binned off because entryists or whoever effectively hijack/legitimately*, democratically decide to hoof out whoever.

* delete as appropriate to your views.

As HV says "there are consequences" - and not just politically, but for the local population or nation.

Just because Blairites allegedly did X, doesn't mean it's OK for Corbynites to allegedly do it. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

Anyway, Labour's stuffed with Corbyn as leader and his angry tramps trying to deselect large numbers of MPs. Comply or die (metaphorically) is not a good ethos for an open, broad church kind of party. The tories have gone the same way. They're goosed, too.

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

if I speak as a private citizen about something my Company is doing or did, then there is no legal leg to stand on for my Co. to sack me, or discipline me. 

 Of course with an MP, it's to an extent different, because they are always both

Even with whistleblowers, where there is meant to be protection, people get sacked.  On issues where there is less obvious public interest, it's even more likely people will be punished.  In the case of people who are very obviously publicly identified with the organisation, as you rightly say MPs are, it makes no sense to say that someone is expressing a view only as a private citizen.  Their representative role cannot be set aside in people's minds.

The example you give about fracking is a good one.  Parties have traditionally allowed MPs to vote and speak against an issue of significant local importance without treating it as a disciplinary issue.  Heathrow would be another example.  But that doesn't extend to everything, and there are many discussions between whips and MPs about the acceptable limits of dissent.  If MPs regularly breach the lines, and can't win the support of their local party, they may find themselves at risk of deselection.  That's neither surprising, nor undemocratic, nor objectionable; it's the old question of whether you wish to be in the group and whether you are prepared to accept the rules of the group and meet their expectations.  Again, it's absolutely not unique to politics, and you will see the same thing in companies, in vol orgs, in social gatherings, and in the playground.

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

our political and voting (election) system can mean that good people are binned off because entryists or whoever effectively hijack/legitimately*, democratically decide to hoof out whoever. 

It's a more common criticism that people are selected and promoted who are just lobby fodder.  But are there examples you have in mind of people who were good MPs, who were removed by deselection for no good reason? 

[bickster]

15 minutes ago, peterms said:

But are there examples you have in mind of people who were good MPs, who were removed by deselection for no good reason? 

If she'd stayed Luciana Berger would have been one, She was actually back bench MP of the year last year (and is up for it again), I'm not a fan of her politics personally but as a constituency MP, serving the interests of her constituents and also representing a number of important charities in parliament she is and was tireless. And she only left because of the abuse from  inside the party towards her and the antisemitic abuse started first, the deselection process that was begun was just a part of the whole antisemitic campaign from within her whole CLP against her

[peterms]

32 minutes ago, bickster said:

If she'd stayed Luciana Berger would have been one, She was actually back bench MP of the year last year (and is up for it again), I'm not a fan of her politics personally but as a constituency MP, serving the interests of her constituents and also representing a number of important charities in parliament she is and was tireless. And she only left because of the abuse from  inside the party towards her and the antisemitic abuse started first, the deselection process that was begun was just a part of the whole antisemitic campaign from within her whole CLP against her

Interesting example.  I gather she was parachuted in, and lived in the home of the offical who ran the selection process, during the selection process; an unusual arrangement, and one that doesn't inspire confidence.

Criticised for disloyalty, presented it as being targeted for attacking antisemitism.  Backer of the chicken coup.

As you say, if she'd stayed, I would have expected her record to prompt some serious examination.

I'm sure there must be a better example than this.

[bickster]

Just now, peterms said:

Criticised for disloyalty, presented it as being targeted for attacking antisemitism.  Backer of the chicken coup.

I'm sorry Peter but that bit is utter codswallop, such were the threats against her, she required a police escort. The antisemitism came before the claims of disloyalty by a number of years

Her record as a constituency MP was second to none, her voting record was pretty solid too, she'd rebelled far less times that St Jezza ever did. Getting Berger out was nothing short of an Antisemitic Witch Hunt because of her support for a two state solution (which is also Labour Party policy is it not?)

Its the prime example, its exactly what you were talking about

[peterms]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm sorry Peter but that bit is utter codswallop, such were the threats against her, she required a police escort. The antisemitism came before the claims of disloyalty by a number of years

Her record as a constituency MP was second to none, her voting record was pretty solid too, she'd rebelled far less times that St Jezza ever did. Getting Berger out was nothing short of an Antisemitic Witch Hunt because of her support for a two state solution (which is also Labour Party policy is it not?)

Its the prime example, its exactly what you were talking about

She received death threats from a nazi who had previously been jailed for threatening other women.

What is the connection with the Labour Party?

I see it commonly insinuated that she was at risk from Labour members, a lazy and false trope which I'm dismayed to see you repeating by implication.

Death threats are increasing.  They have been made against Corbyn as well, who is probably more at risk.  I'm sure we all condemn this.

Please dont seek to suggest that they are a tactic of Labour infighting; such a suggestion would do you no credit.

[bickster]

35 minutes ago, peterms said:

I see it commonly insinuated that she was at risk from Labour members, a lazy and false trope which I'm dismayed to see you repeating by implication.

Sorry but I've seen the threats and downright abuse (not death threats but threats nonetheless) from Labour Party members so why you believe that hasn't happened is beyond my comprehension because I know it to be true. It's not a false trope it's the truth. I've seen it and heard it from people I know to be real people and members of her CLP and it goes back before Corbyn was even a serious contender for anything.

I'm really not sure why you've convinced yourself that this isn't the case

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm really not sure why you've convinced yourself that this isn't the case 

Well, I've been influenced by the evidence I've seen of actual death threats.   But if you have examples of threats to Berger from Labour Party members, I'm happy to review them if you care to post the evidence.  Up to now, evidence has seemed in short supply.   If you can move things forward, that would be good.

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, peterms said:

But if you have examples of threats to Berger from Labour Party members, I'm happy to review them if you care to post the evidence.  Up to now, evidence has seemed in short supply.   If you can move things forward, that would be good.

You want me to do your research? You think I should record conversations I've overheard? bonkers

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

You want me to do your research? You think I should record conversations I've overheard? bonkers

So no evidence then.  I'm shocked.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

So no evidence then.  I'm shocked.

Evidence does not need to be on the internet Peter and I'm not in the habit of posting individual peoples Facebook posts especially as in all likelihood they no longer exist

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Evidence does not need to be on the internet Peter and I'm not in the habit of posting individual peoples Facebook posts especially as in all likelihood they no longer exist

It has been characteristic of Labour Party disciplinary cases that old posts on social media have been researched and preserved and used as evidence.

Evidence does not need to be on the internet.  But it does need to exist and be able to be seen, or heard.  Otherwise it's stories.  Gossip.  Anecdata.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

It has been characteristic of Labour Party disciplinary cases that old posts on social media have been researched and preserved and used as evidence.

Evidence does not need to be on the internet.  But it does need to exist and be able to be seen, or heard.  Otherwise it's stories.  Gossip.  Anecdata.

Well my gossip comes from me seeing it and hearing it