LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA

grimupnorth Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:10:22 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Call  me  cynical. But strangely a  letter   apparently   asking  my CLP to confirm  its leadership threshold  resolution   never, er, reached   our   CLP Secretary.



Just  as  well I was  on the case  and rest assured   our rule  change resolution will  be ON THE AGENDA at Manchester   Conference 2008.
If  passed,   the threshold wil  be reduced   from    the current  12.5  per cent (45 MPs)  to   7  per cent of the PLP (about 30) .  Can I ask CLPs  to   support this when they get there. I think we're all   agreed that Gordon Brown would  have benefitted from   a leadership  challenge. And that Labour  may well   pay the price for  not having   one at the  next General  Election.

tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA | 130 comments (130 topical)

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#1)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:14:51 PM GMT

Gordon Brown should have faced a leadership challenge, but I think the threshold should stay at 12.5%.

If you cannot even get an eighth of the Parliamentary Labour Party to support your nomination, then you probably don't deserve to stand.


Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#2)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:19:20 PM GMT

...and 7% of the PLP would be around 25 MP's, not 30. This is too low a threshold as far as I'm concerned.


Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#3)

by ChrisRoberts on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:23:29 PM GMT

I find it a bit rich some members of the PLP are obviously engaging in off the record mutterings about ditching Gordon as leader. He was THEIR choice as leader last summer NOT the memberships. They denied the membership a say in the decision then, so to get all wobbly on him now is a bit rich. They knew better than anyone what Gordon was like. Many predicted he would be a disaster but backed him anyway.  We need a sense of mission, vision or purpose and that is so badly lacking at the moment. If Gordon doesn't get his act together soon we are going to go down to heavy defeat and I for one have no sympathy for those MPs who lined up to select Gordon and deny the membership a say.


Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#4)

by swatantra on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:29:08 PM GMT

There was no leadership contest because there was no viable challenger. Don't blame Brown; nobody had the guts to put up. I'm sure Brown would have welcomed a fight against a heavy weight opponent. MacDonnell, was not a heavy weight opponent; the contest would have been meaningless. I think 25% would be a reasonable figure, otherwise we would be wasting our time. 


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#5)

by doctordunc on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:47:35 PM GMT

Why?  MPs get an inflated say in the college anyway.  Why should they also have a veto on a contest at all?  It isn't fair and should be changed.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#7)

by Peter Kenyon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:14:56 AM GMT

Dear doctordunc

The only barrier between us having a say is a particularly perverse HO interpretation of the Rule Book, and its refusal to send out nomination papers for Leader and Deputy Leader to all CLPs and affiliates every year since 1997.

If Gordon Brown had the political courage he would ensure that annual opportunity to test party opinion as to his Leadership performance was revived forthwith.

Another element to a campaign focussed on the next NEC meeting on 22 May to save the Labour Party?

Peter Kenyon
CLGA candidate - NEC constituency section election 2008
chair, Save the Labour Party
clerk, LabOUR Commission


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#11)

by grimupnorth on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:55:38 PM GMT

what utter rubbish. Brown did his damndest to stop a  contest and  is  now paying  price. If the best New Labour  can  put  up is  people   like Burnham and Flint  (God  help us Purnell????)  well, words  fail me. You just don't get it do you that this Party is NOT beholden to a small  clique  and that the Left   is as legitimate as  New Labour. We should  have  a voice and this threshold  will  aid that......


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#6)

by HenryG on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:59:47 PM GMT

Grim, why don't you put in the motion that the threshold should be precisely the same as the number of Socialist Campaign Group MPs! :-)


Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#8)

by treborc on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:06:45 PM GMT

Who are you going to pick as leader, Purnell is a good choice looks sounds like Blair, Hutton Blair, how about Blair, I bet a few will ask him to come back because we migh win. The fact is Labour is riddled with Blairites now and until a leader can stamp his own authority on this party, be it Brown or whom ever it will be a Blair party.


Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#9)

by swatantra on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:08:43 PM GMT

I'm afraid Blair is history. The Party really does need to move on now and the so-called Blairites brought to heel. Their back biting is seriously damaging the Party, and we have local elections in 3 weeks. As for the leadership, you might as well give it to Caroline Flint; at least shes come up with an original idea for Labour, to tie benefits and housing to being a good citizen and doing your bit, and not relying on the state to do everything for you.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#10)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:00:19 PM GMT

Erm...excuse me - can we tone down the language a bit here please?

Blairites need to be 'brought to heel' as though we're animals?

And their backbiting is seriously damaging the party? The Blairites have been as good as gold with regards to the party and Blair hasn't said a single bad word against Brown since he took over.

Any backbiting within Labour has either come from the Brownites in Number 10 starting little wars amongst their own factions or from those on the far left who cry 'betrayal' at every opportunity.

If you want Blairites to calm down the 'New Labour' mantra, then stop speaking about Blairites in such hostile terms.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#12)

by grimupnorth on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:57:25 PM GMT

Blairites don't need to ne nasty  about Brown. He is shooting himself  in  foot on regular basis.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#13)

by jkitleft on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:26:13 PM GMT

I am going to cause mild celebration for the left, then will have rocks thrown at my head.

10% threshhold, but then the contest should be 100% OMOV *ducks*


Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#14)

by doctordunc on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:52:49 PM GMT

If you include members of affiliates I'd have no problem with that.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#15)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:50:02 AM GMT

But surely shouldn't people make the effort to actually join Labour before being allowed to vote in our elections?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#16)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:30:35 AM GMT

Dear NorthernMonkey

Individual members of 'Affiliates' do have OMOV within their section of the electoral college for Leader/Deputy Leader. 

What's the beef?

 

 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#17)

by jkitleft on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:27:22 AM GMT

I wasn't referring to affiliates, just members *ducks again*


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#18)

by e10rifles on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM GMT

Erm, there already is OMOV for members.

Are you saying that affiliates shouldn't have a say?

In which case, I would love to know how you would replace the 80% of Labour's funding which comes from affiliates if they're not given a say in a leadership election.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#19)

by jkitleft on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:52:34 PM GMT

I am saying that there is a huge conflict of interests, if union members who belong to another party can (or as we saw last year, can't) vote in 2 leadership elections.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#20)

by e10rifles on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:17:46 PM GMT

If they choose to contribute to the political fund they are entitled to representation in elections, no?

And it's all very well saying what you're saying but if you would withdraw the vote from affiliates, can you suggest where the money is going to come from?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#21)

by alexhilton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:55:03 PM GMT

Or just give all affiliates a direct membership of the Labour Party?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#22)

by e10rifles on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:02:23 PM GMT

Wouldn't that be rather unfair on Labour Party members who currently pay money to be members while affiliates just have a small fraction of their union subs diverted to the Labour Party?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#23)

by alexhilton on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:14:42 PM GMT

from each according to his ability to pay and all that...


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#24)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:26:48 PM GMT

The beef is that roughly 30% of trade unionists are Tory supporters and many of them can vote in our leadership and internal elections. This is not fair as far as I'm concerned.

I'm intrigued by jkitleft's idea of a simple OMOV election providing only those who actually bother to join the Labour party should be allowed to vote. Where's the beef with that?

With regards to funding, I'd prefer to see optional state funding along the lines of what Nick Clegg has proposed. Each voter can choose to give £3 of state money to a political party each year or they can choose not to spend their allocated £3 at all. On top of this, members should be allowed to make small donations - maybe up to £500 a year. But most importantly, millionaires, businesses and unions shouldn't be allowed to make huge donations in order to buy influence.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#25)

by e10rifles on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:33:11 PM GMT

Are 30% of political levy-payers Tory voters? I suspect not.

The beef with that is that union levy-payers want a vote in exchange for their money, which currently makes up about 80% of Labour's money.

If you wish to abolish the Labour Party by definition, by all means implement your plan and watch the unions disaffiliate from Labour.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#26)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:44:02 PM GMT

I knew it wouldn't take long before someone threw accusations of destroying the Labour party! That argument doesn't wash anymore though.

If anything, I want to strengthen the Labour party by ensuring that 1) only Labour party members (whether they're trade unionists or not) should vote in Labour elections and 2) allow the members to have a greater say in leadership contests - not just a third of the vote as they have now.

I don't see what's wrong with this.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#27)

by e10rifles on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:50:35 PM GMT

It destroys the link between the trade unions and the party.

That link is what makes it the Labour Party - the party of organised labour, set up by and for the organs of organised labour.

Members already have a say. Affiliate members, who pay less, have less of a say.

If your ideas ever come to pass, you can say goodbye to 7million trade unionists and their money. Including me.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#28)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:47:53 PM GMT

And why would it reduce the link between Labour and the unions?

If optional state funding was introduced then trade unions would be barred from writing large cheques to any party, not just Labour. They couldn't just switch their donations to the SWP for example.

And even if the union leaders wanted to, the vast majority of trade union members would violently disagree with them. Most trade unionists support Labour because they agree with Labour's policies over the Tories or the LibDems - not because they nostagically place some great importance on trade unions holding one third of the vote in internal Labour elections.

You're confusing a dislike for trade unions effectively bribing the Labour party with a dislike of co-operation between Labour and the trade unions. I wholeheartedly support Labour working together with trade unions and support the vast bulk of the Warwick Agreement - but what I don't agree with is the principle that the unions effectively say to Labour 'right, if you agree to this, this and this then we'll keep writing the cheques'. This is bribery and is undemocratic. The same applies to when millionaires or business make large donations to political parties.

Money should NOT have any influence over a party's policies. We should work with the trade unions and sign agreements like Warwick because we want to - not because we're being paid to do it.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#29)

by grimupnorth on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:25:07 PM GMT

And  me........


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#30)

by jkitleft on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:35:21 PM GMT

What is wrong about saying 'look, if you're a member, you get one vote, and that's it'?

Nowhere in my proposal did I say, that union members shouldn't vote in a leadership elections, or that only non-union members should. It's a way of saying, if you're a union member and a Labour supporter, come join the party, so you can be part of the decision making process.

Clegg's funding policy is intriguing, and alluring. My objection to affiliates being able to vote is this: 1) I do not think someone should get more than one vote, that, by definition, is extremely un-democratic. So an electoral college in this form is already negating the idea of 'Democratic Socialism'. 2) You could get to vote in 2 parties leadership elections. Isn't that more of a threat to the Labour party, than saying, 'We welcome union members, and their affiliation, but to be part of the decision making process about how to run the party, they have to be members of the party'. Isn't saying someone should get twice or thrice the influence over another person, a complete rebuttal of what socialism sets out to do?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#31)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:41:32 PM GMT

Isn't that more of a threat to the Labour party, than saying, 'We welcome union members, and their affiliation, but to be part of the decision making process about how to run the party, they have to be members of the party'.

That's the fundamental point here.

Nobody's saying that trade unionists shouldn't be able to vote, but it's not unreasonable to ask them to join Labour first in order to do so. And if they don't join Labour, then I'd say they don't deserve a vote in our elections.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#33)

by Ernesto on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:48:15 AM GMT

To see the relationship between the party and the unions as purely financial is in my opinion way too simplistic, ignoring the potentially catastrophic damage it would do to the party's campaigning capabilities. I know that it irks some comrades on the right when we as trade unionists talk about the founding of the party and the ILP, but I would hope that even the most ardent enthusiast for dropping the link must concede the critical role played the unions, not only in the birth of the party, but also in the 80's to keep it alive. 
By casting the argument simply in terms of funding, it conveniently ignores the huge role unions play in providing physical support in campaigning, particularly during general elections, when hundreds of full time officers are seconded to the party to help co-ordinate campaigns. The ability to mobilise union members (many not party members) to support weaker party units to retain and/or win seats is vital to our ability to win elections. That would be lost. Do those who support severing the link believe that the party alone, with dwindling numbers and an ageing age profile, would have the physical resources to run a successful general election campaign without union support?       


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#35)

by jkitleft on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:56:40 PM GMT

Neither myself, nor NM, have talked about severing the union link. The union links are of course of the most structural importance to the party. My problem is this: the link with RMT was severed a couple of years ago. If 50% of their members were members of Labour, then those 50% should get to vote. If the union link wasn't there, then they should still get to vote. But why should Bob crow who has never been a member of the party, be able to vote in Labour internal elections? If they are affiliates, then I think they can donate money, but I'm personally in favour of very tight political funding. They can provide support on the ground. But the 7,000,000 trade union members aren't a homogenised grouping, solely supporting Labour. We need to encourage union members to be Labour members. Then they can vote in the elections.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#36)

by e10rifles on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:03:22 PM GMT

"But why should Bob crow who has never been a member of the party, be able to vote in Labour internal elections?"

Because he pays into the political fund of the union, which was largely given to the Labour Party.

I still don't understand why you have a problem with people paying less than individual members having a lesser vote in the party than individual members.

Plenty of people are happy to pay into the political fund to further the interests of them and their colleagues at work but don't want or can't afford to join the party individually.

That link is what makes us the Labour Party.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#37)

by jkitleft on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:53:59 PM GMT

Democracy means each and every person getting an equal say in how the country is run. While I am not suggesting opening up internal elections to the whole electorate, I do not consider it fair for one person to get more than one vote. If you really want to take the decision making process, of what the policies of the party should be, and end the MP's monopoly over these decisions, then to see what the mood of the party is, you need to give them all one vote.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#38)

by e10rifles on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:19:15 PM GMT

Who said anything about the MPs? BY all means take away MPs' special voting rights in the electoral colleges.

But if you remove the right of affiliated trade unionists to vote in internal elections, you will soon see a bankrupt Labour Party (unless you bring in the shockingly bad idea of state funding) and the disaffiliation of the trade unions. The result will be fewer trade unionists voting Labour and working for the Labour Party at elections, and a loss of many Labour Party members, including myself, who are members predominantly because of the financial and institutional link between the unions and Labour.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#39)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:00:31 PM GMT

I can't understand why you would leave Labour, completely regardless of what Labour's actual policies are, just because we would receive funding from the state and not the trade unions and because we wouldn't allow non-Labour trade unionists a vote in our elections. Is this not just cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Just to be clear, nobody is saying that Labour shouldn't work closely with trade unions - I'm just saying that I don't think trade unions, businesses and millionaires should be allowed to bribe political parties to adopt certain policies. And I don't believe that those trade unionists who haven't bothered to join Labour should have a vote in our internal elections. I don't see what's wrong with that.

And why do you describe state funding as a "shockingly bad idea"? Giving people an optional £3 of state money a year to give to a political party sounds like a very fair and principled way of doing this and it already has cross-party support. Surely it's better than the current situation where the likes of Lord Ashcroft are buying our democracy?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#40)

by e10rifles on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:13:54 PM GMT

Cross-party appeal, no doubt! But I and many other people object to funding any parties through our taxes.

Long and tough battles were fought to allow trade unions to create direct, theoretically accountable, political representation for themselves. Any legislation which removes their right to directly fund and influence a political party represents a massive step backwards for working-class people.

I'm not concerned that the Tories get lots of money from businesses. That's who the Tories are there to represent - bosses. Labour exists to represent workers or it has no point at all. I'm sure somebody will reply with some post-modern twaddle about "partnership", the "modern workforce" and the "middle ground" but I am unbothered by the Tories continuing to receive millions from wealthy backers as long as Labour can receive millions from trade unions cleanly, openly and accountably, in exchange for a say in Labour's policies.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#41)

by Ernesto on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:02:42 PM GMT

Forced disaffiliation is severing the link by any stretch of the imagination. Progressive politics in this country has been massively influenced and in my own opinion led by the Trade Union movement. I for one find more political debate in my union than in the party these days. Which is a sad fact. The fundamentals of the ILP havent changed. As a Party we have always been about protecting and advancing the interests of those who have never been represented by our political opponents. State funding would emasculate the strength of the party. And why shouldnt Bob Crow (no friend of mine) have a say in the party if he pays his political fund and that is given over to Labour? e10 is spot on. If funding is transparent then there is no problem.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#42)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:18:39 PM GMT

But the funding is not clean.

The unions tell Labour (as in the Warwick Agreement), 'you agree to the following measures and we'll keep writing the cheques'.

How is that any different to Bernie Ecclestone giving Labour £1million to exempt Formula 1 from tobacco advertising bans?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#43)

by e10rifles on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:54:57 PM GMT

The Ecclestone donation was perfectly clean as it was declared legally. An honest transaction: a businessman gives the party money with the explicit aim of benefiting his industry and personal fortune.

The difference between that and the union link money is not one of honesty or clarity in the donations, it's the morality of the policies in exchange for which the money is given.

And if you can't see the moral difference between a milionaire 'bribing' a government to leave him and his money alone and unions 'bribing' a government to legislate in the interests of the working class as a whole then there really isn't any point to prolonging this exchange.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#44)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:11:49 PM GMT

But you're only looking at it from a Labour perspective. A Conservative would argue that a union giving millions to the Labour party in order to get it to pursue pro-union policies is just as bad.

When we're talking about democracy, we should look at the issue in terms of fairness, not in terms of how it can benefit Labour most.

I would say that both cases - of the unions bribing our party for the Warwick Agreement to Ecclestone bribing our party concerning tobacco advertising are both just as bad. Cash donations should not be allowed to influence party policy. That is not how democracies should work.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#48)

by e10rifles on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:55:10 AM GMT

Can you give me a reason why not? Some woolly concept of politics as lots of people all acting altruistically?

I'm being perfectly even-handed. The Conservatives and Liberals are welcome to as much publicly-declared financial support from millionaires as they like as long as Labour gets the same from organised labour. Not sure what the problem is.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#52)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:20:08 PM GMT

I can't agree with that.

It harms our democracy when the likes of Lord Ashcroft can buy votes and the only way to make funding fair is to allow optional state funding.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#54)

by e10rifles on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:49:01 PM GMT

Fortunately, you seem to be in a minority there.

And you still haven't explained why it's bad for individuals or organisations to give money to a party in exchange for influence.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#55)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:51:41 PM GMT

What?!

I shouldn't need to explain why it's bad for individuals or organisations to buy political influence.

BECAUSE IT'S BRIBERY - is that a good enough reason?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#56)

by e10rifles on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:21:49 PM GMT

No. It's a nice scary word but you haven't explained why it's so bad.

In fact, you've described the whole history of the Labour Party, from the time when the unions got together with the SDF, ILP and Fabians and offered them money in exchange for policies, as BAD.

That puts you way outside the mainstream of both party and public opinion. Thank god. 


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#57)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:46:00 PM GMT

It certainly does not. The vast majority of people in this country would support the idea that money through donations should not buy political influence.

And it's wrong because it allows only those with a large amount of money to change party policy where as the ordinary man on the street is powerless - surely you as a Labour member can understand this?

Ecclestone bribed the government to prevent tobacco advertising even though the majority wanted it banned. This is grossly unethical, as is all bribery. If you cannot see this, I despair.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#58)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:47:26 PM GMT

* Sorry, Ecclestone bribed the govt to prevent tobacco advertising from being banned in F1.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#59)

by e10rifles on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:38:15 AM GMT

Yes, I already made the point about the ethical difference between Ecclestone's donation and union donations.

You might be right in saying that the majority of people don't want "bribery" in politics when you phrase it like that, but when you say that the alternative is state funding and breaking the union link you'll find yourself out on a limb.

The whole purpose of the Labour Party being set up and funded by the unions was to give a voice to the ordinary man in the street. The nature of the donations from our affiliates is what makes (or should make) Labour qualitatively different and more ethical than our rivals.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#73)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:38:27 AM GMT

I can't see how receiving donations from unions in return for policies can possibly make us any more ethical than any other party. No party should receive any donations from sources which want something in return. That's why the only fair way of funding parties is state funding with maybe very limited donations from party members.

State funding would not end the union link either. Unions would be banned from donating to any party, not just Labour so it's not as if they can turn to anyone else. Their members wouldn't allow them to anyway. And Labour would always help trade unions given that we're a centre-left party. So I don't see any threat to the link at all. It's just about making party funding fairer and more democratic.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#75)

by e10rifles on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:40:09 AM GMT

You still haven't stated why "No party should receive any donations from sources which want something in return." What is inherently wrong with that?

What makes us more ethical is that we are funded by organised labour and (in theory) pursue policies which are sympathetic to workers. The Tories and Liberals are funded by bosses and pursue policies which are sympathetic to bosses.

Is that clear? Or do you not think there is an inherent and fundamental ethical superiority in working in favour of the working class instead of the bosses?

As an aside, without the affiliation link, you would find unions funding candidates from various parties, including the Nationalists and smaller leftwing parties, on an ad hoc basis around the country, as certain smaller unions have done since leaving the Labour Party.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#92)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:58:35 PM GMT

You still haven't stated why "No party should receive any donations from sources which want something in return."

Yes I have stated that and I'm completely astonished that you even have to ask that. My answer was " it's wrong because it allows only those with a large amount of money to change party policy where as the ordinary man on the street is powerless - surely you as a Labour member can understand this?"

If you think bribery is a good thing then that's up to you - but YOU are in a minority here. I think all bribery is wrong, regardless of which 'class' it's trying to help.

Also, trade unions would be banned from donating to any party, not just Labour - so they wouldn't be able to donate to any other candidates.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#96)

by jljb2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:25:44 PM GMT

I cannot actually believe you said that! Are you absolutely mad?! It's not bribery, it's defending a sectional interest - there's all the difference in the world. The logical extension of your argument is that noone should have any influence over anything. Union funding is mostly tiny amounts from individuals - the ordinary man on the street. I hope to god that noone at the top of the Party has your views. The day union funding is stopped is the day I leave.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#102)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:45:13 PM GMT

You've got a cheek saying I'm mad and then you defend the status quo where trade unions offer us cash in return for policies!

It's not bribery, it's defending a sectional interest

And why on earth do you think the two are independent of each other? It is bribery. Agreements like the Warwick Agreement should be signed because we want to sign them, not because we're getting paid for the pleasure.

The trouble is, with both your viewpoint and that of e10rifles is that you claim to be in favour of democracy, but then if something is undemocratic but favours the left, you're quite happy to let it slip. I believe in fairness and democracy in ALL cases, regardless of whether it helps Labour or not.

And plenty of people at the top of our party want to remove the union funding - one day it will happen. If you want to leave the party then, then that's up to you. It's no sweat off my brow.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#98)

by Ernesto on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:16:03 PM GMT

Where your argument falls is that you seem not to accept that the Trade Unions and the Party are inextricably linked and the Party essentially came out of the Trade union movement, to give it and like minded socialist groups the ability to represent themselves politically. If the Trade unions were merely interested in "bribery" then they would surely have kept out of direct intervention in politics and "bribed" the Liberals. There is much much more to the link than a self interested businessman pumping money into the Tories to protect his business, capital, land and investements. I know its inconvenient to your argument to acknowledge this, as you continue to cast the relationship as purely financial, but there are huge numbers of trade unionists in the party who see the relationship as industrial and political wings of the labour movement. That is a totally different position to the funders of the Tories.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#103)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:52:36 PM GMT

I don't deny a strong relationship between Labour and the unions and that's the way I want it to stay. But that's not the same thing as allowing them to fund us in return for policies.

It's almost seems like you're accepting the fact that we only adopt certain policies from the unions because of the money they pay to us. If that's the case then this most certainly is bribery and is wrong.

And with respect, where your argument falls is that you are more interested in helping out the trade unions rather than doing what is fair and what is democratic. I can't have any sympathy for this argument and I guess we'll have to differ.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#107)

by Ernesto on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:27 AM GMT

it isnt a "strong relationship" its an umbilical one. If the party is to remain a party with a strong (i hesitate to say mass) membership then the union members inside the party are critical. You dont seem to articulate how you see that membership affecting the party on a day to day basis and the affect of cutting the link? That day to day affect has nothing to do with money, its about conviction to labour politics. The fact that we are also able to provide critical funding is not something that most union activists in the party have at the forefront of their minds when they are knocking on doors and delivering leaflets. We are and have always been part of the party.
We may need to agree to disagree.

I fear for the electoral future of progressive socialist politics if we throw away the bedrock of our party in the manner suggested by advocates of breaking the link. There is more equity in the way Trade Unions make policy than the Labour Party by the way. That is because we have policy debates and our conferences are the ultimate arbitors. I am ashamed at times in the way the members of the party are ignored when they make decisions at party conference.   


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#111)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:39:33 AM GMT

But I'm not saying that Labour shouldn't work with and support trade unions - I just don't think that link should revolve around donations.

But as a side issue, the constitutional link between Labour and the unions isn't 'umbilical' since it's been eroded several times since Kinnock became leader. It will probably still be eroded further. But a break down in the constitutional link, does not mean that the practical working relationship between Labour and the unions will breakdown too.

If unions are no longer allowed to donate to political parties then a) why do think unionists would stop supporting Labour when they cannot donate to ANY party, not just Labour and b) who would they turn to if they could, and why?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#109)

by bigpapi on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:28:02 PM GMT

What is inherently wrong is simple to all but the blinkered - we end up moving ever closer to the American system where who wins a General Election is not who has the most popular policies, but who can spend the most money on getting those policies across to people - have you not noticed the rise in BNP support has coincided with a rise in donations to them?

State funding, with a cap on annual and election expenditure, is the only way to clean up politics; and if the trade unions still want to be part of the Labour movement they should encourage their members to join the Party.  It is surely also not beyond the ability of those more educated than I to devise a system where the unions can remain affiliated to the Party but the Party is not reliant upon their financial contribution?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#110)

by doctordunc on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:11:19 PM GMT

State funding is not 'the only way'.  You don't get much more blinkered than suggesting it is!!  By all means put a tight cap on spending.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#112)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:51:02 AM GMT

Well state funding is the best way to ensure that those individuals and organisations with the most money don't hold all the power when it comes to policy-making.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#113)

by doctordunc on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:00:52 AM GMT

I don't imagine it means anything of the sort.  There will always be opportunities for the super-rich to purchase influence.

State-funding means either a) my taxes will go to Tories and fascists (I know there have been some suggested ways in which we might nominate the party our taxes go to, but I'm not at all sure of the practicalities of that, nor of not allowing people a 'none-of-the-above' option - nor, presumably, the option of funding very small, minority parties - would people be able to nominate the Sparticists, for example?) and b) people who are already very cynical and resentful of politics are likely to become more so.

A properly-funded political party system is very important to democracy, therefore I do think it's important enough for tax-payers to fund.  But I don't think it's neccessary for tax-payers to fund it.  There is far too much money in the system already (so let's put caps in place) with only a tiny amount of state-funding.  It's charging the people to compensate for the corruption of a few politicians and would (rightly) be hugely unpopular.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#120)

by Free Radical on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:42:52 PM GMT

Doctordunc is right of course. There is virtually no popular support for state funding - or I should say an extension of state funding, since we already have a fair degree of such funding. We are in a situation where the tail wishes to wag the dog... politicians looking to the state for funds to woo the electorate. It is a far too cosy arrangement and would be used by the establishment in the Labour Party to destroy the union link once and for all (this link being one of the reasons why it is still worth being in the party - as an affiliate member and / or an individual member).
In my opinion we certainly ought to restrict election spending, but as the experience in the US shows there are always many ways around such legislation. The really important thing about donations is that they should be transparent above a certain level.
I also fail to understand why affiliate members of the Labour Party ought to lose rights to vote in elections - another seeming attempt to finally dismember the federated structure of the party - which is still, in 2008, its greatest strength.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#121)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:41:48 PM GMT

Couldn't disagree more doctordunc.

The right to nominate which party your £3 a year goes to is perfectly practical. The ballot would be filled in each year at the same time as elections (eg. first Thursday in May). And there would be an option for 'None of the Above' - Nick Clegg already stated that in his proposals.

People are cynical and resentful of politicians because of parties schmoozing up to millionaires, businesses and trade unions in order to get cash out of them. This is governing in the interests of money, not in the interests of the people.

State funding certainly is popular among politicians - Brown, Cameron and Clegg all agree to it (albeit to different degrees). And people will get over it too if they realise it stops corruption through bribes.


It seems that those who protest the most about state funding being unfair and unpopular are those who have a vested interest in the continuation of the unions bribing of the Labour party. There's too much corruption in the system - so let's take away the dodgy donations and bribes and just have a simple optional state funding system set up.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#122)

by Free Radical on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:08:30 AM GMT

State funding is a way of producing a self-serving and self-perpetuating political oligarchy divorced from the real needs of people. It could hardly be further away from the idea of democracy. But fortunately the majority of the people understand this even if some politicians don't.
It all depends upon whether you take a view of politics being rooted organically in society, or whether you see it as something abstract or grafted onto society. The Labour Party arose out of the former view even if it has been partly captured by technocrats and opportunists who take the latter.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#123)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:16:20 AM GMT

State funding is a way of producing a self-serving and self-perpetuating political oligarchy divorced from the real needs of people. It could hardly be further away from the idea of democracy.

What a load of garbage. Could have been taken straight out of a Daily Telegraph leader.

I thought the idea of democracy is that all people - no matter how poor or unsuccessful - can have their voice heard and policies should be shaped for all of the public, not just some.

But instead, what you want is to maintain the status quo where those with the fattest wallets hold all the cards and yet you somehow try to dress it up as being 'organic' and 'democratic'.

I despair at the level of corruption and cynicism in British politics. You only have to look at the cross-bench support for not holding the BAE inquiry. There's very little that's democratic about this country and it's so sad to see Labour members carrying on with this tradition, hoping to make small gains for their own side of the divide, rather than doing what is right.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#124)

by Free Radical on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:56:14 PM GMT

Northern Monkey
Amused and bemused to be compared to the Daily Telegraph . And also, considering your own calls for moderate language, amused at your description of my views as a load of garbage.
Whatever.
I don't doubt your sincerity in believing that state funding would benefit politics, but when you say, further back "And people will get over it [their opposition to statefunding] too if they realise it stops corruption through bribes," I really have to question your judgement and grasp of the facts. Italy is a coutry with state funding enshrined in its constitution but hardly one lacking in political corruption and hardly an eviable democratic model.
The general public's suspicion of state funding is well founded - in fact it overturns the relationship of the citizen (or subject in our kingdom) and state. The politicians are there at our behest, to serve us. We are not there at their behest to vote for them and support them financially whether we wish to or not. Fortunately the public won't wear it.
The existing democratic system is far from perfect but the reforms we really need are full transparency of funding (above a sensible limit) and strict limits on election expenditure.
The other problem with state funding (and your views sadly exemplify this) is that there are plenty, even within our own ranks, who would use it to write the trade unions out of political influence.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#125)

by TonyHannon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:57:08 PM GMT

NM is (typically) poor on delivery of the argument but in this case happens to be absolutely right.

We need a seperate thread - but to put it briefly, the closer we get to a country with "OMOV" the better.

Private money should not buy public influence whether or not their aims are well intentioned (Unions) or selfish (Filtho Oil Inc.). That's the bottom line.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#126)

by Free Radical on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:55:44 PM GMT

It is a classic liberal argument to deny interest based policies. Public funding of Italy's political parties does nothing to counter Berlusconi's stranglehold over the media. And abolishing the affiliate structure of the Labour Party would complete it's transformation into (yet another) neo-liberal party. That's the bottom line (if the words haven't fallen off the edge...).


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#127)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:46:04 PM GMT

I never said state funding would end corruption full stop - I said it would end bribery corruption through political donations.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#128)

by TonyHannon on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:28:20 AM GMT

For about the 6th time - nobody is talking about abolishing the link with Unions.

Berlusconi's media stranglehold is probably more due to his massive media ownership than anything else.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#129)

by Group51 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:01:02 PM GMT

Alex etc.  You need to change the forum software.  This is ridiculous!


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#32)

by sgthowie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:28:53 PM GMT

I can't see why it cannot go back to 5% like it was before it went up to 12.5%.  Why should the leader of the party be simply the gift of the MP's?

Does this mean McDonnell is planning another crack at it in late 2008 or 2009?  Would make things interesting and would actually benefit Gordon Brown if he won (even though I'd vote for McDonnell).


Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#34)

by alexhilton on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:23:05 PM GMT

Grimupnorth

I entirely agree that the election of Leader should be more democratic and that the triggering process should be more open.

What I don't understand is why you have taken that principle and come up with a proposal that is all but unsupportable. Your bid for a trigger that is at a level that would mean the Campaign Group alone could trigger a leadership election sounds cynical and a recipe for disaster as they could trigger an election every year while rarely having a chance to win that election.

Why couldn't you have proposed something that could be supported by a broader swathe of the party? Maybe an annual affirmative ballot (didn't we used to have that at conference?) or even a rule that said the NEC has to hold a leadership election within a year after each general election (unless there's another general election). That would at least give the incumbent an advantage proportionate to the success of their electoral test.

The problem is that internal elections are treated with cynicism and suspicion. We need to embrace internal democracy as a way of bringing talent and accountability to the fore.


Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#45)

by grimupnorth on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:16:48 PM GMT

It's  not cynical. I think it was  pretty cynical of Gordon Brown to say he would  welcome a leadership   contest then   do his damndest to ensure John McDonnell   and  let's be honest   Reid and Clarke  would not be on the ballot paper. Are we seriously  saying Labour now is better for NOT having had that contest.  Frankly, I would have welcomed  a  proper contest with Clarke, Milliband and  McDonnell. That would have been  REALLY interesting.  The threshold is fair - it would ensure a broad church  contest from left,right and centre, Why not let  our members and  affiliates decide  instead of the North Korea   situation we ended up with a  year ago. I warned then, and have been proved right, it would be seriously  bad for Labour. Support the motion!!!!


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#46)

by alexhilton on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:01:24 AM GMT

Sorry Grim - I didn't mean that it was a cynical, only that it could be seen that way.

But you have gone on about last year. What about the previous 13 years where we didn't even get that far?

I find your motion unsupportable - the 12.5% threshold is reasonable enough. The problem is the distance between MPs and party members.

Your proposal would stimulate the leadership to find reasons to deselect everyone with any independence of thought they can get away with deselecting. And certainly to ensure they pay particular scrutiny to new selections more so than they do even now.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#47)

by Peter Kenyon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:53:49 AM GMT

Dear Alex

Why don't we just forget the bureaucracy and threshold debate (in which I tend to agree with your analysis) and run a write in campaign?

Perhaps you could set up a poll listing possible runners - a virtual primary, then encourage branches, CLPs and affiliates to debate whether or not a Leadership contest would be desirable, if so, to nominate and write in to HO accordingly.

Peter Kenyon
CLGA candidate for the NEC constituency section election 2008
 
 


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#50)

by grimupnorth on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:35:11 PM GMT

Just  like to  point  out that, according to the STLP  website, the Calder Valley resolution is being supported. I would certainly  have expected it to be  in the  interests of Party democracy. And  let's be clear. This is in the event of a vacancy occurring.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#49)

by doctordunc on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:03:20 AM GMT

Why is it unsupportable?  It used to be 5%.  7% seems a perfectly reasonable compromise.  Also, I haven't seen the motion in full, but is the proposal for it to be 7% both for when there's a vacancy and for when there's a challenge?  If not, then there seems to be no grounds for any concerns.

Even if that is the proposal, I don't see any evidence that would suggest MPs would 'over-use' the tool of initiating a leadership contest. 

Where I think Peter and others have a point is the question of whether other parts of the college should be able to initiate a contest too.  Why shouldn't a certain number of CLP or affiliate nominations also be considered a threshold?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#51)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:19:09 PM GMT

But why 7%? It seems a bit of a random figure. Why not 6% or 8%?

Or could it be that 7% is the exact percentage of MP's which you think McDonnell can get nominations from?!


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#53)

by e10rifles on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:46:56 PM GMT

Then why not put 6%?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#74)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:39:08 AM GMT

Or why not 13%?


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#83)

by doctordunc on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:35:43 PM GMT

Well an argument against 13% (or 12.5% - surely as arbitrary as they come!!!) is that it was a bad thing that a contest wasn't possible this time, so to make a contest less likely is not a sensible suggestion.

Would any of the figures you suggest be any less 'random' or 'arbitrary' than the one in the motion?  If the point is that any number would have very little rationale behind it, then... we're a bit stuck if that's a sticking point.  It has to be some number.  There seems to be quite a lot of consensus that 12.5% is too high.  People seem to think the old figure, 5% is too low.  So a new figure - however arbitrary it may seem - is required.

Any notion that the number has been chosen because it is similar to the number of nominations JMcD got last year is just playing silly politics.  The decision would be being taken about future parliaments, future PLP sizes, future contests, and very likely future candidates.  The decision has to be taken on the principle, not the specifics of an imagined forthcoming challenge (after all this figure does not have any bearing until there is vacancy).  I for one will be supporting the Calder Valley motion, which seems to be a very sensible and reasonable compromise.

As I've said elsewhere, I'd prefer to push for 5%, and for allowing a number of CLPs and affiliate branches to count as genuine nominations too, as I think the more candidates in our leadership elections the better (why couldn't we have had Brown, Miliband, Clarke, Meacher AND McDonnell?).  But that, I concede, would be unsupportable by some in the party.  I can't think of any reasonable reason why the Calder Valley proposal is unsupportable.  It is perfectly rational and modest.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#93)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:05:25 PM GMT

But 7% isn't a rational figure and it's just been plucked out of thin air to help particular candidates get elected.

12.5% isn't arbitrary as it's one eighth of the PLP - seems a reasonable enough fraction to use.

Maybe 10% would be better, but I wouldn't be keen to go any lower than that.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#95)

by doctordunc on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:23:32 PM GMT

a) 7% is no less rational than any other figure.  6.25% is an eighteenth of the PLP and this is rounded up (I probably would have rounded down, but Calder Valley CLP is obviously more pragmatic and compromising than me!)

b) 10% is barely any change at all.

c) How on earth would ANY number have anything to do with helping particular candidates get elected?  The intention is to allow a range of candidates to be NOMINATED in the event of a vacancy.  In other words, it should prevent a future incident of there being no contest.  It doesn't favour any particular wing of the party.  It has no impact on the current leader or on the prospect of a challenge against a sitting leader.  I honestly can't see what anybody should have against it!

If you think the situation we had last summer was something you want to see repeated, then fine, oppose the Calder Valley rule change.  But I read post after post last year saying how people would love to see a full range of candidates up for election, genuinely testing various degrees of opinion within the party.  Reducing the threshold would allow that without threatening anybody or anything.  Opposition to the proposal would appear to be entirely negative, unthinking and for reaction's sake.

You must embrace change, NorthernMonkey, and abandon the forces of conservativism!!


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#97)

by doctordunc on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:35:49 PM GMT

Sixteenth.

I don't do maths!


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#104)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:01:18 AM GMT

Okay, well I'll agree to your change when you agree to mine about having state funding instead of union funding!

a) So if you don't believe that certain figures are more rational than others, can we have 11.5732984359% as a rational threshold?

b) It's a 20% reduction, that's pretty substantial isn't it? And I don't want much change anyway - I'm happy with the current level!

I agree that leadership elections should be proper contests but I don't think it's unreasonable that candidates should be able to demonstrate at least some significant support in the Parliamentary Labour Party beforehand. If a candidate can't even get an eighth of the PLP on board for NOMINATIONS, let alone elections then they don't deserve a place in the final vote!


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#108)

by doctordunc on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:49:28 AM GMT

Well I could give a lot of arguments against state funding that aren't essentially just that "I'm happy" with the current situation (which I'm not especially - I just don't agree with your solution; please suggest other solutions to the leadership election problem and I won't accuse you of merely being against reform full-stop).

Of course a round figure is more sensible, the point is that this is the figure that has been proposed by a CLP and is up for debate at conference.  There is nothing wrong with the figure; it is not too low and it is not so high that I would oppose it.  What is not rational is a long debate about whether the proposed figures is a percentage point or so too high or low.

Your preferred option (leaving it more-or-less as it is) firstly encourages factionalism.  Following the nonsense of last year (when thousands of members - including brand new members - were all geared up for a leadership election only to have it denied them by the PLP) the obvious response of people surrounding those who might want to stand for the leadership next time (on all 'wings' of the party) is to have a seriously organised group with tight internal discipline.  Do we really want to see caucus meetings in the Campaign Group, Compass Group, 'Progress' group (new groups will doubtless emerge) of MPs, further disenfranchising and disempowering party members and activists?  For goodness sake, the PLP has such a dominant role in the process already that, were it ever the case that a leader was elected without substantial PLP support that would be a pretty important message to the PLP, wouldn't it?

Nominations are there to prevent EVERYBODY from standing, or to prevent some maverick with no support whatsoever standing and abusing the platform (i.e. to stop Clare Short from standing).  They shouldn't be there to prevent candidates who represent substantial parts of party opinion from standing just because of current trends in the PLP. 


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#114)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:04:30 AM GMT

But the answer isn't to just keep lowering the threshold more and more until certain candidates can meet it.

You can argue is that the solution is for people like John McDonnell to work harder in getting more and more of his PLP colleagues onside. The fact is, he couldn't muster up enough support - and that's really his fault, not the party's current set-up. He didn't even get some of the people who are most like him ideologically to support him.

You are right to say that nominations are there to prevent mavericks who have no support from getting on the ballot. But it can easily be argued that if you can't even get one eighth of the PLP to nominate you then perhaps you fit that description.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#116)

by doctordunc on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:25:08 AM GMT

In the 1976 leadership election, Tony Crosland got 17 votes (which equated to just over 5% of the PLP). Okay, we had a different system then, but I wouldn't describe Tony Crosland as a maverick with no support.  Denis Healey got about 9% of the PLP in the first round of the same election. 

Of course, in that election nobody got enormous percentages (even Callaghan only got 20 odd per cent in the first round) because there were 6 candidates.  But that seems much healthier - if only it had been possible for party members and trade unionists to vote then too. 


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#60)

by treborc on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:45:39 AM GMT

Ok we get rid of Brown and his sickening smile, who is going to take over, lets see Purnell seems to be the bright new Labour type, a Blairite of the top order, Hutton, lets see one of the others Milliband, phew thats hard Cruddas who's not sure if he is Left right or what ever.

The biggest problem right now is the fact New Labour has really attacked the base of our MP's with people who normally be Tory.

I can see a few who might be so called Labour, but right now I see nobody who is lets say better, and a few who might be worse. Perhaps Labour needs a Lady leader, lets see nope cannot think of anyone.


Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#61)

by jljb2 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:53:20 PM GMT

Frankly, regardless of the threshold, I can't see anyone at the minute who I'd want as leader. My own preferred candidate Clare Short is no longer in the party; John McD is sound but a little boring. Angela Eagle or Peter Kilfoyle would be good, but couldn't win - same for Diane Abbott who'd be great and should at least be in cabinet. Cruddas is good but gutless. Of the ministers, Balls would also be ok, but there's no obvious left candidate - how's Katy Clarke doing? Karen Buck? Actually, screw that, I want Gwyneth Dunwoody...


Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#62)

by e10rifles on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:05:50 PM GMT

In person, McDonnell is the least boring Labour MP I have heard speak.

Love the thought of Diane Abbott in the cabinet though.

What's Moonbat Meacher up to these days? Could be Minister for Flying Saucers.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#63)

by jljb2 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:45:25 PM GMT

In content, yes, but he looks rather bland...Meacher's got as much chance of winning as me. Bring back Clare Short, that's what I say. Also, how about Oona King for the next Mayor of London - she'd be great.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#65)

by grimupnorth on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:42:25 PM GMT

Or Minister for Multiple Homes......


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#64)

by grimupnorth on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:41:42 PM GMT

How can gutless be good? And there  is no-one  more boring than   our present  Leader Gordon Brown.........


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#66)

by jljb2 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:19:20 PM GMT

Believe me, I'd've supported him if he'd got in, but he's not exactly striking to look at/listen to, and he just feels a bit same old same old...we need a woman. No one does charismatic, feisty women like the Labour Party! Cruddas is a good speaker, with good ideas, but didn't back JM, so obviously doesn't care that much about change.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#67)

by grimupnorth on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:33:00 PM GMT

"Charismatic, feisty women."?????  Er, Hazel Blears, Tessa Jowell, Jacqui Smith. Ruth Kelly. Not exactly  in the Barbara Castle league, are they ???????
Mo Mowlam   actually  had it but is alas  no  longer with us.  Clare Short always  a  loose cannon......Gender isn't the issue. Policy is.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#68)

by jljb2 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:10:05 PM GMT

Oh come on, you can't say Hazel Blears isn't feisty! Or Margaret Beckett for that matter. And I won't hear a word against Clare Short. But I agree, policy is more important; the trouble is, image is also important, and a grey-haired late-50s man with a boring voice is not that exciting an image...I never understood why it had to be JM from the left - why not Simpson, Abbott, Riordan, Cryer, Lynne Jones, Austin Mitchell etc? He's just not special enough...


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#70)

by grimupnorth on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:31:01 AM GMT

Oh please . Hazel Blears, cheerleader of the Blairites. Beckett, betrayer of the left. Integrity , after all the crap we have had from New Labour, is all.Whoever stands in the next few years.......


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#71)

by jljb2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:56:38 AM GMT

For pity's sake...when you can't even be civil to people on your own side, do you wonder why we struggle to gain support? It's only lighthearted chitchat...relax my love!


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#72)

by jljb2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:57:45 AM GMT

Sorry if that sounded patronising....I can only plead that I'm from Somerset. We do that kind of thing.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#76)

by grimupnorth on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:22:03 AM GMT

Actually,  it  was  quite clear you were just trying to wind  me up .


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#77)

by jljb2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:11:06 AM GMT

Don't be ridiculous - I just happen to disagree that John McDonnell is the best left candidate for the leadership. I prefer my politicians female and passionate - is that such a bad thing? Old men in suits just don't do it for me. However, in the event of a future Miliband v McDonnell contest, I would of course support JM wholeheartedly. But I would certainly support Hazel Blears in the (please god no!) event of it being her versus, say, John Hutton, whose reasons for belonging to the Labour Party are utterly mystifying to me.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#78)

by grimupnorth on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:43:28 PM GMT

The  point  of this  post  was that we  need to ensure there is a  leadership  challenge next time and a candidate of the left   as well as centre and right. The current  rules  make that   very  difficult. Who can say who would be the candidate   and I did  not    really want to  go down the personality road. However I find  your  support for Blears  bizarre  as she was  by far the most right-wing   candidate for Deputy leadership. If you want someone  "female and  passionate " and you would vote for   JM  over Miliband  then  surely it would  have to be Katy Clark.....On the cult  of youth,  doesn't seem to be doing the Lib Dems  much  good. They would  have been  better  off with Vince Cable.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#79)

by jljb2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:52:01 PM GMT

I did mention Katy Clarke earlier, and I very much hope she or Diane Abbott would run - both would be preferable to JM, but I've not heard anyone proposing them - it's probably too early for Clarke anyway. I'm not convinced Blears is that right-wing, I think she'd just confused: she thinks the interests of working and middle class people are mutually exlusive, and favours the latter, when in fact there are so many areas where we can please both groups, and more still where it's morally right to favour the former. But she's undeniably a Labour person, far more than most New Labour types; she just doesn't understand that you don't need to agree with everything the govt does, and that not all Southerners are greedy individualists. I agree about age; I just find female politicians appeal to me far more in their manner, style and approach to politics, whereas male politicians generally do nothing for me.  


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#80)

by swatantra on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:15:03 PM GMT

Female and passionate, and one step removed from Hazel, why, it has to be Carloine Flint!


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#82)

by jljb2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:22:03 PM GMT

If that ever happens, I'm leaving!
That woman is poisonous - not a Labour bone in her body.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE ON AGENDA (#85)

by grimupnorth on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:08:29 PM GMT

Dianne Abbott  would be  an absolutely appalling Leader. She's too busy spouting rubbish with Portillo to go  in for serious  politics.


[ Parent ]

Re: LEADERSHIP CHA