Democracy denied?

BrownSupporter Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:53:23 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

I was looking forward to a Leadership election so that I could vote for Gordon.  I feel I have been denied this by the failure of the left to support a candidate who could even get on the ballot paper.  Who can I complain to?






tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Democracy denied? | 106 comments (106 topical)

Re: Democracy denied (#1)

by David Boothroyd on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:10:05 PM GMT

Complain to John McDonnell. He is learning that disloyalty is its own reward. John McDonnell has voted against the Labour government more often than any other Labour MP; it is poetic justice that when he wanted to get people to subsume their doubts and endorse him, he was unable to get his putative supporters to fall into line. I hope the new leadership sees many fewer Labour MPs breaking the whip.


Re: Democracy denied (#5)

by Mikael on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:45:14 PM GMT

Oh come on Boothroyd.... How is it disloyal to stand up for what you - as a Labour-man and a Socialist - believe in? John McDonnell is indeed guilty of that, but it hardly makes him disloyal. The only one who's been disloyal to the Party is Brown for having denied Party members contest.

BS, I would consider changing sides if I were you. The only real culprit here is King Gordon I Brown of the House of New Labour and Blair dynasty (bet you like the sound of that Boothroyd, you are all in favour of ceremonial titles and positions, aren't you???). To a lesser extent the other Blairites/Brownites who opposed a democratic contest are to blame as well.

Brown's mandate will forever be stained by illegitimacy... and he's got only himself to blame for that!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#6)

by David Boothroyd on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:01:14 PM GMT

It's reactions like that which illustrate exactly why John McDonnell isn't on the ballot.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#8)

by doctordunc on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:03:56 PM GMT

Like what? I wouldn't question Brown's legitimacy because he has none to question.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#9)

by David Boothroyd on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:20:59 PM GMT

Let's just step into a parallel universe in which John McDonnell has made it on to the ballot and wins. He becomes Prime Minister. There is no sign that a John McDonnell government is going to be other than controversial; some Labour MPs go to him and say "I'm not happy with your policy and I intend to vote against it". How on earth is John McDonnell, with his record of disloyalty, going to be in a position to ask others to subsume their doubts and back him? Answer: he isn't. Disloyalty is its own reward.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#11)

by Mikael on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:35:18 PM GMT

John McDonnell stands for what Labour always has stood for: Socialism, Equality and Justice. Most of the other PLP members stand for their career alone! Who's really disloyal here, Boothroyd!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#12)

by Mikael on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:35:54 PM GMT

???


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#13)

by David Boothroyd on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:38:01 PM GMT

You're like the parent at the Army cadet passing out parade who said "Oh look! They're all out of step except our Jimmy".


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#18)

by Mikael on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:55:14 PM GMT

Oh yeah, good one, Boothroyd! I don't know about "out of step",but "your Gordon" clearly is out of touch! As for you; well you seem to be mistaking the concept of "discipline" with that of "blind loyalty" and "dictatorial manoeuvres"!If the "discipline" in question were in line with the decisions of the Party of Conference, then fine - if it isn't, it's the moral, and political, duty of PLP members to rebel. John has, for the last decade, remarkably done his duty where and when many of his colleagues have failed! Your camp is bankrupt, Boothroyd! How long are you gonna keep defending what can't possibly be defended - Stalinism!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#21)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:47:17 PM GMT

I think not.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#22)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:47:38 PM GMT

I think not.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#23)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:48:48 PM GMT

Sorry, posted twice.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#24)

by Mikael on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:51:41 PM GMT

Why apologising for posting it twice when you shouldn't even have posted it once...


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#60)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:12:11 AM GMT

I think not.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#15)

by doctordunc on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:46:30 PM GMT

John made it very clear that he would reintroduce that lost thing, party democracy, and the broad church. I think people are lot less quick to 'rebel' on issues where they feel there's been a full, proper debate in which they've engaged. If people still had a principled reason to 'rebel' - then good for them. Any 'discipline' in that matter should - just as it should now - come from 'below' not from 'above' (note how the party right are horrified by the idea of local parties deselecting 'disloyal' MPs, but perfectly relaxed about leaders withdrawing the whip - an illustration of democratic priorities, I suspect).


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#16)

by jkitleft on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:51:48 PM GMT

I think some people have had no choice but to disagree with Blair. Even most of those who hail from the right of the party have found themselves disagreeing with Blair (Austin Mitchell, Gwyneth Dunwoody, Dennis Healey) like Roy Hattersley. But as Duncan pointed out to me (rookie mistake of me) that being a rebel in todays Labour Party, doesn't mean you're a left-winger. Indeed, I heard someone on this website accuse a more left-wing person than them, of wanting to 'return to the days of the far-left, Michael Foot, Tony Benn and Roy Hattersley'. I don't think any of them are far-left, and to suggest Hattersley is is absoloutely absurd


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#10)

by Mikael on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:28:03 PM GMT

What reaction... The legitimate reaction I displayed after having found out that members will be denied a contest????

Your indifference - your acceptance of this situation, the fact that, implicitly, you rejoice as the Party is being assassinated - is shameful. Once you've understood that, Boothroy, we'll discuss ideas. Until then I mark you down as an incurable careerist and a coward. If Brown really believed that he would have won the election without any difficulty, then why didn't he allow one to take place??

To me, this means two things:

1) Brown is an illegitimate tyrant who scorns at democratic practices and has nothing but contempt for Party members.

2)John McDonnell is the legitimate leader of the Party and would have won the election had he been granted ballot-access - which he wasn't due to the 300 odd careersits in the PLP.

Brown didn't himself a favour by preventing a contest. He's the first "leader" of the Party ever to be crowned (God save the King, eh Boothrooyd??), such is the tragic legacy of New Labour.

I pledge allegiance to the Party - always! To Brown - never!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#17)

by jkitleft on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:54:06 PM GMT

I take the words of Alice Mahon ( who although i don't always agree with, I think she was an excellent MP). "It's our Party. Leaders come and go. But it's our party."


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#27)

by Ian G on Fri May 18, 2007 at 11:23:25 AM GMT

"John McDonnell is the legitimate leader of the Party and would have won the election had he been granted ballot-access - which he wasn't due to the 300 odd careersits in the PLP"

I think you've crossed the line into fantasy now.

I've never before said this to anyone on here, but if you have so much contempt for people selected by members in CLPs up and down the country, maybe you should reconsider your membership.

Yes, I'm sure you can tell me tales where there were dodgy practices in this or that selection and I'll believe you, but you're talking about almost every Labour seat in the country. It should be clear to you that you're actually in a tiny minority.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#30)

by Mikael on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:12:00 PM GMT

No I am not, actually. I will accept that I am in a minority, but not a tiny minority. It should be clear to you that after ten years of New Labour the PLP membership is more than likely to be distorted. I am not saying that all of the 300 odd Labour MPs who nominated Stalin are careerists per se... I think that many of them did it out of fear for Uncle Joseph's likely retaliation had they failed to do so. Your indifference is sickening Ian. People like you disgust me!

As for "John McDonnell is the legitimate leader of the Party and would have won the election had he been granted ballot-access", you know what I meant. Don't make it sound delusional. You can't possibly present Brown as the legitimate leader of the Party - he wasn't elected and has no mandate.

As far as my adherence to the Labour Party is concerned, I'll stick to it - it'll lose many a member in the coming weeks anyhow, I fear. Furthermore, it wouldn't be if I left and thereby allowed disgusting careerists like yourself to take over the Party without any difficulty whatsoever - you'll have to fight for it, and you know you'll lose.

By the way if you're comfortable with anti-democratic practices (such as the one we've just seen), may you ought to join a Fascist Paramilitary group - they're even better at it than New Labour, though not much!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#54)

by Ian G on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:49:36 PM GMT

Can you not conduct an argument without resorting to insult and invective? I wanted a contest and I'm very sorry there wasn't a contest. What annoys me is that people infer from the lack of contest that the process was undemocratic. It wasn't. There simply wasn't another credible candidate.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#55)

by Mikael on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:22:23 PM GMT

Having a Self-proclaimed leader is anti-democratic, I am afraid. There is just no other way about it.

I have a certain degree of contempt for most PLP at the moment, but the fact that you implicitly sugested that I have the same contempt for CLP members was very insulting; so don't come and tell me that I am the one who resorts to insults here.

Finally, I believe that your suggestion concerning John's credibility as a candidate is disgusting - if you find that insulting, then feel free to feel insulted!

John is a fine MP, a honest man of Labour, and a, finally, a man of principle who represent the views of many Party members - more than you'd ever be ready to admit, I am sure. He deserved to stand; the members, and the Party, deserved a say - they didn't get it.

The title of Ken Livingstone's book, "I voting changed anything, they would abolish it", comes to mind. Voting would have made all the difference - the Left would have made a show of strength (and, trust me, it will in the future) - so New Labour abolished it!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#33)

by JR on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:49:28 PM GMT

McDonnell the legitimate leader? Get over yourself - he lost spectacularly. The left has no power over the party at all.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#56)

by doctordunc on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:30:45 PM GMT

He didn't lose. Gordon didn't win. There was no election. Gordon's the leader of the PLP. So what?


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#58)

by JR on Fri May 18, 2007 at 07:50:22 PM GMT

Don't be childish Dunc. Gordon DID win and he will be the next leader of the Labour party. McDonnell well and truly lost in that he couldn't even get enough nominations let alone votes.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#63)

by jkitleft on Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:52:20 AM GMT

Gordon won, but he won the nomination for leader of the PLP


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#64)

by jkitleft on Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:52:46 AM GMT

didn't realise someone had just said that


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#73)

by doctordunc on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:46:01 AM GMT

Gordon won the nominations, yes. He won it so 'well' that it prevented there being an election. So nobody will ever know who would have won that. I have to conclude Gordon wasn't 100% sure, based on his extraordinary actions this week (unless he's just an idiot...)


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#74)

by JR on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:06:49 PM GMT

We are all 100% sure that McDonnell would have lost to Brown. Brown tried his hardest to eliminate the opposition - that's what you do in a democracy. If he eliminates Cameron in the same way he destroyed McDonnell, then we should all be happy with him.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#77)

by doctordunc on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:13:56 PM GMT

I agree with your final premise up to a point, JR. I assume you wouldn't agree with him changing the law so he doesn't have to bother with an election at all?


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#78)

by JR on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:17:49 PM GMT

No, but having read below that you would support state ownership of the media (backed up by Marxist Mikael), I'd hardly say the left are in any way democratic.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#79)

by doctordunc on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:37:37 PM GMT

I would support various forms of common ownership of the media. Why is that less democratic than it being owned by unelected demagogues like Murdoch?


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#80)

by JR on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:50:24 PM GMT

The media must be free. I can understand the BBC being a public broadcaster. But the notion that all national and local newspapers, radio, television and even internet news-sites all being owned by the government is like something out of 1984 - we would be condemned by every country in the Western world and I find it unbelievable that you could find that acceptable.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#81)

by doctordunc on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:53:28 PM GMT

Various forms of common ownership. I have never mentioned being owned by the government (but the BBC and Channel 4 are internationally very well thought of, while Fox News is an international disgrace.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#83)

by Mikael on Sat May 19, 2007 at 01:33:07 PM GMT

Never mind JR, Duncan. It's pretty pointless to try to have a serious political discussion with someone who can't distinguish between "common/state ownership" and "(direct)government control", I am afraid.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#85)

by JR on Sat May 19, 2007 at 05:48:47 PM GMT

I'm fundamentally opposed to both, apart from the BBC. The state should not have ownership of all 'news' and don't even pretend that your argument is logical in anyway. It's an absurd idea and one that goes completely against a free, democratic country.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#84)

by JR on Sat May 19, 2007 at 05:47:07 PM GMT

What a stupid comparison to make - they are thousands of independent broadcasters who are perfectly good, so why you needed to bring Fox News into it I'm not sure.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#86)

by doctordunc on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:19:12 PM GMT

Why is it a stupid comment to make? Yes, there a lots of good independent broadcasters. Did I suggest there weren't? I was merely making the point that there are independent broadcasters that put out undiluted propaganda, and state-owned public-service broadcasters that are widely respected. Am I wrong?


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#102)

by JR on Sat May 26, 2007 at 12:24:37 AM GMT

You are certainly wrong to suggest that all these independent media organisations (good or bad) should be put into state ownership. And if you agree with what Scargill said, which was that he would make them tell the news from his point of view, that is hardly letting them act independently is it Dunc, when the government has to step in and tell them to report differently?


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#87)

by jkitleft on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:53:45 PM GMT

Indeed. However Fox News feels like that scene in Clockwork Orange, where that guy is brainwashed with images of death and war. Fox News is all about Propaganda. However, if we have a country of free media, Fox can broadcast their right-wing crackpot ideas, but i have the right not to watch (and i choose to exercise that right frequently)


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#88)

by Mikael on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:57:27 PM GMT

But why would you argue that the media is more "free" when owned by Murdoch than when owned by the state/public. that's utter and complete nonsense. Commonly owned media would, for example, set some quality standards... right now we have to live with Murdochian crap!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#89)

by jkitleft on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:55:57 AM GMT

You don't. He owns 4 papers in UK. The (sunday)Times, The Sun and The News of The World. If he owned ALL the media, then intervention, and breaking the monopoly over press would be necessary. But right now, I can choose to not listen to Murdochian views, and watch more Liberal news coverage, and read more Liberal media coverage.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#90)

by Glass House on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:09:32 AM GMT

Murdoch's media has a 'line', the Guardian has a 'line', the BBC has a 'line' - everyone has a line.

Better to have a multitude of lines than attempt only to have one.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#91)

by Mikael on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:21:40 AM GMT

Common ownership of the media doesn't imply that the media would have the same line through and through. Editorial independence is paramount. The State would own the "means of communication" so as to set quality standards and ensure maximum availability, not in order to determine the editorial line of the papers/T.V broadcasting networks.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#93)

by Glass House on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:09:40 PM GMT

So why bother to take the media into public ownership in the first place?


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#96)

by Mikael on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:53:21 PM GMT

"The State would own the "means of communication" so as to set quality standards and ensure maximum availability..."

That's why! The private sector could neverdo this, and mere regilation on part of the State wouldn't be enough to secure that it were done.

The Media must be nationalised under democratic control.

Again, there you go, the case for socialistation in a nutshell!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#97)

by Mikael on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:54:16 PM GMT

"socialisation", of course!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#98)

by Glass House on Sun May 20, 2007 at 03:14:47 PM GMT

Although Im happy with some state ownership of media (BBC), beyond that I think that the less state control of the media, the better,

Otherwise you're just asking for interference.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#99)

by Glass House on Sun May 20, 2007 at 03:15:45 PM GMT

I think that the less state ownership of the media, the better,


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#100)

by Mikael on Sun May 20, 2007 at 03:25:08 PM GMT

'Cause Murdoch ownership is far better, right? Note the sarcasm. P.S. How do you get itallics?


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#103)

by JR on Sat May 26, 2007 at 12:27:22 AM GMT

Murdoch ownership of 4 newspapers is infinitely better than the state owning all forms of media, which is more extreme than I ever thought a member of the Labour party would suggest.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#106)

by jkitleft on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:42:51 AM GMT

If Brown is to introduce a constitution, he should add 3 amendments to the bill immediately. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Press. The whole point about Murdoch's 'monopoly' is that, if people want to buy Murdoch's papers, Murdoch will still have a monopoly. I don't like the papers, and if other people don't, instead of state intervention in the monopoly, they should not buy the paper, because if noone buys the paper, then Murdock won't have a newspaper to have a monopoly over.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#92)

by doctordunc on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:28:02 AM GMT

Well, if the Guardian became a co-operative, would it cease to have a line? It would just democratise the line, rather than leave it in the gift of autocratic editors and their paymasters.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#94)

by Glass House on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:10:45 PM GMT

Dunc - please don't tell me you're sympathetic to this "nationalise the media" stuff?


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#95)

by doctordunc on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:19:36 PM GMT

I don't think 'the media' should be 'nationalised' (whatever that would mean) - though I've no objections to those parts of the media that are in public hands remaining so. But neither have I any commitment to 'the media' remaining the preserve of wealthy capitalists. So I do support the common ownership of various media outlets. Some of that can be, as now, public owned/public service stuff; some of it can be community-based media, some of it can be co-operatives, etc. There can be private media outlets too. There you go: it's the choice agenda!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#104)

by JR on Sat May 26, 2007 at 12:30:01 AM GMT

True choice is allowing anybody to freely tell the news completely free of state interference or ownership and allowing everybody the right to watch/read/listen to that news or not watch/read/listen to that news.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#105)

by jkitleft on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:37:50 AM GMT

I support nationalisation of railways. I am against the privatisation of NATS. I oppose PFI. The list goes on. But I could never support the nationalisation of the media.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#14)

by grimupnorth on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:39:46 PM GMT

Write to Gordon.He never wanted a contest. And, my God, didn't he do well.....Not big or clever. And very sad for the Party.John McDonnell, Reid and Miliband should ALL have been on the ballot paper.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#20)

by Curlew on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:21:51 PM GMT

"I hope the new leadership sees many fewer Labour MPs breaking the whip."

..and a Heil Hitler to you too!

Perhaps if policies were in line with concensus there would be no need for whips. As with all rebellion - remove the grievance rather than crush the individual. If you are a true leader, that is.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#2)

by doctordunc on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:16:01 PM GMT

If you want to see that, we shall have to see fewer occasions when the whips ask MPs to vote against party policy. And I'm not holding my breath.


Re: Democracy denied (#4)

by David Boothroyd on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:38:14 PM GMT

The PLP Chief Whip is authorised to issue a whip which Labour MPs are expected to obey. John McDonnell ignores it, and not just when he can cite a conference resolution which he is following.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#7)

by doctordunc on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:02:52 PM GMT

Yes and the Chief Whip has priority over party democracy AND individual principle conscience in Brown's brave new world.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#19)

by grimupnorth on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:11:10 PM GMT

As you know, John votes with the Government 75 per cent of the time.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#3)

by doctordunc on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM GMT

Complain to your man Brown. He deliberately cut out any opposition, left or right. David's point is absurd - you might just as well complain to John Reid or David Miliband (who ended up nominating your man).


Re: Democracy denied (#25)

by jgc on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:15:19 AM GMT

The fault lies with John MacDonnell. As chair of the campaign group surely he should have facilitated support around a candidate who would have been able to secure a nomination. Instead he went on an ego trip and the result was that he did not even secure the support of all the campaign group let alone wider support which was needed to secure the nomination. Gordon Brown can not be expected to arrange a nomination for opponents. A contest would have been beneficial for the party but unfortunately no on the right had the courage of their convictions and the left dissolved into bickering worthy of Life of Brian


Re: Democracy denied (#26)

by doctordunc on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:36:11 AM GMT

It's ridiculous that this joke thread has been put on the front page.

Sad.


Re: Democracy denied (#31)

by LeftrightLeftright on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:41:23 PM GMT

Duncan, why is this a joke thread? I agree some of the comments have been silly, but the thread seems to sum up to me a good many of the accountabiltiy problems we face as a party.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#35)

by doctordunc on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:22:45 PM GMT

Well I'm assuming that BrownSupporter was making a jibe at left-wingers who have been expressing their disappointment/anger at this week's events. S/He could have done so by saying 'why blame Brown? Blame your own side!' on an existing thread. Fine, s/he can also do a 'comic' piss-take, but I don't see why it's a headline story. Unless I've misunderstood his/her intention.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#28)

by TrueLabour on Fri May 18, 2007 at 11:41:40 AM GMT

Brown decided to avoid a contest. That said there are a number of MPs that will have some explaining to do with their CLPs. These actions will not be forgotten.


Re: Democracy denied (#29)

by grimupnorth on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:09:51 PM GMT

And boy oh boy is he going to regret it.As the Chinese say, If you sit by the river long enough, you see the bodies of your enemies float by.I can't wait to see that big clunking fist bite the dust.And I reckon itmight be sooner than anyone thinks......


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#32)

by JR on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:48:43 PM GMT

Nice to know you're fully supportive of our new leader.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#34)

by edwardgrey on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:21:00 PM GMT

Have you come on board with big Gord now JR? Or still with your alter ego Glass House hoping for an Anybody-but-Gordon candidate? Anyhow I am glad McDonnell is not on the ballot, even though I agreed with him on Iraq and a couple of other issues. They way for the left (or what used to be the right) of the Labour party to get it's own way was not through having the most left-wing person in the PLP losing by a Brian Gould-esque margin.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#37)

by JR on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:03:31 PM GMT

I wanted a Blairite to stand but they didn't - and I got over it. You lot haven't. I don't moan about our party leader either - I'm supportive of them because I want us to win the next general election.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#39)

by edwardgrey on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:24:13 PM GMT

"I wanted a Blairite to stand but they didn't - and I got over it. You lot haven't." JR this doesn't make sense. I am well over the fact a Blairite isn't standing too. I guess the fact that I am glad the McDonnell is not on the ballot would indicate I am supportive of Gordon Brown. So who is "you lot"?


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#50)

by JR on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:36:51 PM GMT

I was referring to 'you lot' as the lefties who wanted McDonnell on the ballot.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#65)

by jkitleft on Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:54:24 AM GMT

would you moan about McDonnell?


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#75)

by JR on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:07:36 PM GMT

Already answered.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#38)

by Glass House on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:14:55 PM GMT

Hey! I'm my own alter-ego!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#40)

by Mikael on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:40:07 PM GMT

You can't really be your own "alter-ego" (unless, of course, your blogging in a state of, say, remarkable schizophrenia!)... look it up!

If you were implying that "Glass House" was your "alter-ego", then you're still wrong - it's just your pseudonym. You could only refer to "GH" as your "alter-ego" if you were blogging under another at the same time! I don't think you are though, are you?

This was a quick "aside" and totally off-topic, sorry about that!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#41)

by Glass House on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:42:27 PM GMT

lol.

I was just really pointing out that I'm not JR :)

But i think most people who have conversed with both of us know that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#42)

by Mikael on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:51:53 PM GMT

Oh yes, that is quite obvious! :-)


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#43)

by Mikael on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:19:30 PM GMT

By which I mean that, though I disagree with your positions just as much as with JR's, I do grant you the fact that have the brains to put them forward properly and to (at least try to)use a number of arguments to support them. Unlike JR, who claims to be a Blairite because "all the rest of them are Loony-Lefties/Posturing Nutters"/Footist/Scargillites"...


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#44)

by Mikael on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:21:04 PM GMT

What do you all have against Foot/Scargill anyhow? Foot was a rather decent leader and Scargill was a good comrade until he couldn't take anymore... he was wrong to leave if you ask me though!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#45)

by Mikael on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:35:38 PM GMT

Though Foot ended up betraying the Left, which is something I won't forgive him for! I really should have included this in one long post, shouldn't I?????


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#46)

by Glass House on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:08:40 PM GMT

I think Foot was a good and intelligent man. Scargill was a complete arse though.

I don't think it's that the right has more of a problem with those two above others, it's just that they represent the two problems (for us) with the party in the 80s - Ideological extremism (Foot's manifesto) and a counterproductive lack of realistic strategic thinking (Scargill's approach to the Miner's strike)

Although I'm sure you'll set me straight on both those points :-)


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#53)

by otware on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:03:09 PM GMT

Well I for one actually agree with you (to a certain extent)! Shock! Horror!! I think Foot was a fantastic parliamentarian, a great and principled MP. But he was not leader material. He was too eccentric to be PM. As for Scargill, he was and is fairly slimy. I don't trust him for a minute. If only the NUM had had another leader, one who didn't spend his early years sucking up to the Comintern.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#67)

by jkitleft on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:03:53 AM GMT

There is one statement that makes me despise Scargill, it is this, "When we do form the next Labour Government, the first and most important task, is, to bring the media into common ownership, so that they start reflecting the views of the public"


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#68)

by Mikael on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:06:21 AM GMT

Can't actually see what's wrong with that... Unless, of course, you're happy with the idea of the media putting forward only the view of Rupert Murdoch & co.????


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#69)

by Mikael on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:11:27 AM GMT

Having said that, it depends on how the media is brought into common ownership. It should, as far as I am concerned, be allowed total "editorial independence" and should be authorise to bring forward information critical of and produce, if it so wishes, statement antagonistic to the government/State. This does, however, not mean that there's anything wrong with the suggestion that the media should be brought into common ownership.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#70)

by doctordunc on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:15:33 AM GMT

As long as he didn't mean direct state control, I don't have a problem with that. The BBC and Channel 4 are hardly examples of authoritarian propagadandism in action are they? Whereas News International/Fox - as 'independent' media outlets are much more obviously so.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#76)

by JR on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:09:12 PM GMT

Media under state ownership? - I'm lost for words how you can ever support such a sick idea.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#66)

by jkitleft on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:00:43 AM GMT

I didn't agree with alot of the 1983 manifesto. Nationalising the 25 top industries? No. Leave the EEC and NATO? No. Abolishing the Lords? No. But I also don't agree with alot of the Blairite position. I think that's the problem at the moment within the Labour Party. You either have to be on the Campaign Group side or the New Labour side. I think we have swung from extreme to extreme.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#71)

by Mikael on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:16:04 AM GMT

I have never doubted Foot's skill and sincerity as a parliamentarian. However, he should have stood in solidarity with the Left - he remarkably failed to do so!

Scargill was, as far as I am concerned, a good comrade in terms of his policies; the miners' strike was conducted heroically by the way! . As you know I have very little to spare for personalities of any kind. Having said that - and this is a huge aside - yes, I would have preferred to have MicK McGahey as President of the NUM on account of his, arguably nicer, personal attitude, but manoeuvres of the right made it impossible for him to reach the position in question!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#51)

by JR on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:38:44 PM GMT

And you do your best to prove me right!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#36)

by e10rifles on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:25:30 PM GMT

An unelected leader has no right to expect loyalty from anyone.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#47)

by BrownSupporter on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:15:06 PM GMT

I did start this threat as a wind-up (although there's a perfectly serious point that the left can hardly blame everyone else when their candidate doesn't get enough support to even reach the starting line). And I genuinely was looking forward to an election so that Gordon could set out his stall to the party and the country. But if the comradely debate in this thread is anything to go by we're probably better off without it: floating bodies, disgusting careerists, betrayers everywhere... Remember guys it's the Tories who are supposed to be the nasty party. Oh, and for the record, John McDonnell got no nominations outside the PLP whereas Gordon got 11 CLPs, two unions, one affiliated organisation and most MEPs, and he hadn't even got going.


Re: Democracy denied (#48)

by doctordunc on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:27:27 PM GMT

Oh don't be ridiculous. ASLEF had already endorsed John, and dozens of CLPs have passed resolutions of support; there's absolutely no point making those sorts of comparisons now.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#49)

by Mikael on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:27:57 PM GMT

ASLEF nominated John - it didn't appear on the Labour Party Homepage though. They must have considered that there was no point in nominating officially seing as to the fact that spineless cowards who call themselves Labour MPs barrechim from the ballot and, thus, members from getting thir fair say on the matter! It was a mistake on ASLEF's part, but there you go!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#82)

by Curlew on Sat May 19, 2007 at 01:11:50 PM GMT

BrownSupporter - yes it was a wind up and it's a bit disingenous to sound surprised at the response you got - It was a pointless post and you obviously get some sort of vicarious pleasure out of such activity.

There are many CLP's in support of John - see the Guardian letter for a start and also many that who have already resolved FOR John- take a look at mPURL. The fact that the supporting nominations are not on the main leadership page is an interesting question.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#101)

by grimupnorth on Sun May 20, 2007 at 03:55:39 PM GMT

Rubbish .John had ASLEF and UNISON in Scotland.My CLP would most definitely have nominated him. We never, er, got the chance thanks to Uncle Gordon.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#52)

by David Boothroyd on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:42:21 PM GMT

Westminster North CLP's 'supportive nomination' of Gordon Brown was passed last night, after PLP nominations had closed. I can't say whether the CLP would have voted differently had John McDonnell made it onto to the ballot, but a resolution to support John McDonnell had been defeated the previous month.


Re: Democracy denied (#57)

by SamRussell on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:43:27 PM GMT

John McDonnell is a joke. He is perfectly happy to get elected as a Labour MP, under a Labour manifesto, but he votes against the party at any opportunity.


Re: Democracy denied (#59)

by JR on Fri May 18, 2007 at 07:54:04 PM GMT

Indeed - if McDonnell and his (rather small) bandwagon fundamentally don't agree with what the Labour party wants to do in government, then why sign up to the manifesto at election time? Oh wait, it's to ensure he always gets his seat in the Commons by tagging along to the Labour name.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#72)

by jkitleft on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:28:54 AM GMT

JR, 71 Labour MP's voted against the whip in 1971. They wanted the UK to join the EEC. Now are they considered bad for voting against the whip? Would you have voted against the whip in 1971? If so, please understand why 139 mp's didn't want the war to happen, or 95 mp's cannot support a nuclear deterrant.


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#61)

by Mikael on Sat May 19, 2007 at 08:14:10 AM GMT

Errr, He votes with the Party approximately 75%... come up with something better, will you!


[ Parent ]

Re: Democracy denied (#62)

by Mikael on Sat May 19, 2007 at 08:14:37 AM GMT

"75% of the time"


[ Parent ]

Democracy denied? | 106 comments (106 topical)