| Is anyone else concerned by this? 15:31 - Jul 26 with 13618 views | Darth_Koont |
We’ve just had the Forde Report corroborating one of the worst political scandals in modern times, certainly the most detailed and widespread. And yet our media couldn’t be less interested – bar the fact that many of them immediately copied the Labour spokesman who spun it as a problem with Corbynism that is now over.
But the key findings of the report remain:
– An unelected bureaucracy in one of the two parties that can effectively form a national government worked against their elected leader and the democratic mandate from members of the party.
– These senior staff, whose job and purpose is to support the leader and members the party represents, secretly and as Forde points out wrongfully diverted over 100K of electoral funds to the seats of anti-Corbyn MPs. It wasn’t their money nor had they the election nor democratic brief to do so. They allege it was to protect seats but these weren’t the seats at most risk. This is also in the 2017 election where a hung parliament was on a knife edge and May barely squeaked in with the support of the DUP. So beyond the utter moral failure and democratic abuse here, these efforts may have had repercussions for the whole country and its future. I’m not saying it definitely did or would have but this is why democratic abuse like this can’t be ignored.
– Antisemitism was being weaponised by the Labour right. And, as Forde also points out, the premise for the big debate in the media and beyond (including the Panorama hatchet job) was wrong and “evidence” that Corbyn had got involved a) unbidden by the HQ staff themselves and b) to block investigations and expulsions was entirely misleading. Forde didn’t use the words “attempts to frame Corbyn that overall succeeded” but he’s a lawyer and much more careful. But I’ll certainly put that out there as a question that those involved need to answer.
– The Labour HQ staff were leaking information and briefing “friendly” journalists at every step. So, in the fight against Corbynism (a fight against social democracy and change if we’re being honest), the unelected staff decided early on to take sides against the leader and the wishes of the members. In this way, they mirrored the PLP and prominently vocal MPs who also decided to act against the party’s own internal democracy.
– The culture within the Labour Party is toxic, not just with the unprofessional and undemocratic behaviour of far too many senior staff but also with sexism and racism. Forde received many, many complaints during the evidence gathering and submission phase (plus a few legal warnings from those who knew that the Labour leaks document was true and damning). Forde, coming through loud and clear despite his lawyerly and careful language, is evidently disgusted by a lot of these internal messages and communications. And he points to an organisation that is deeply flawed and toxic.
As I say, most of these issues have been relatively common knowledge and certainly discussed but were dismissed by factional MPs and their media lackeys as allegations. Yet the Forde report absolutely corroborates them and shows that the accepted narrative of the Corbyn years was just that – a narrative people accepted.
Now, that it’s out and independently corroborated where is the media response? How can we trust a media that painted a picture that it either knew was false or that it didn’t bother to investigate?
That’s serious and worrying enough. But what do we also say about a democratic party (the opposition and only alternative, as people are always keen to remind me) that’s been hijacked by genuine rightwingers who will monster and sabotage anyone elected by members to push the case for more equality, justice and a better life for the most vulnerable and ignored in society. What gives these people the right but also the conviction that they’re there to serve other unelected interests??!
For anyone who says this is over now so no use lamenting the past, think again. The Labour Right has total control of the party now – the internal and the political organisation. It’s amended the rules and taken power from the membership to avoid a repeat of someone from the left getting elected. It’s carried on the same purge that Forde describes when staff went around “trot hunting” (instead of dealing with antisemitism cases by the way) and where a “trot” was described as “anyone left of Gordon Brown”. It’s stood by and clapped along to the most dishonest leadership campaign in UK history where Starmer has misrepresented his values and views (as pledges FFS) to then backtrack on the whole programme and the social democratic platform he himself was committed to before and after the 2019 election if you believe his frequent speeches and statements.
If Boris and his government was a democratic scandal and a sign of dysfunctional party politics (it certainly was) then this saga is the same.
So why can I only see a lack of concern in the limited coverage and almost non-existent responses? Do people really think this doesn’t matter?
[Post edited 26 Jul 2022 15:35]
|  |
| |  |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:06 - Oct 10 with 841 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 11:35 - Oct 10 by itfcjoe |
"but Labour are still to the right of the population on most social and economic issues."
You think my views are broadly right wing, but everyone I speak to about politics is miles to the right of me, I'm seen as some rabid leftie by most I speak to about it whilst I'm very aware of fact I'm a centrist Dad.
I just don't think the population is close to where you think it is, economically especially. |
When polled on policies, the majority of the population support social democratic policies as opposed to the free-market and/or managerial tinkering of the right and centre-right. Which are presented by the two main parties and almost the entirety of the media as the only realistic options.
This was from November 2019. Since then support for the more marginal issues like nationalising the utilities have gone up further.
These and others are popular policies AND they’re right too. As we’ve had confirmed ever since. This collective pretence that the main parties and the media are speaking for the electorate needs to be knocked on the head before it gets even worse for the people of the UK. | |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:14 - Oct 10 with 810 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:01 - Oct 10 by thebooks |
Hard to tell, and probably quite volatile what the public thinks.
Generally, though, on stuff like nationalisation the public's pretty clear, and has been for a while. Johnson was smart enough to recognise this and ditched a lot of the swivel-eyed Truss approach.
With Truss there's probably an opportunity for Starmer to make some hay by taking on a few of the Corbyn manifesto promises. He'd bring the left back back on board a bit more as well. I fear he's just too defensive, though; still living in 1994. |
Also, and I think this is ignored way too often, the Labour right want to play at government and get their chance to get paid just like those across the aisle.
As this thread shows, they are deeply dishonest, undemocratic, valueless and self-interested people because that is what the game of politics rewards. They’re not going to change in power, rather become even more corrupt and lawless. | |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:30 - Oct 10 with 790 views | giant_stow |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:06 - Oct 10 by Darth_Koont |
When polled on policies, the majority of the population support social democratic policies as opposed to the free-market and/or managerial tinkering of the right and centre-right. Which are presented by the two main parties and almost the entirety of the media as the only realistic options.
This was from November 2019. Since then support for the more marginal issues like nationalising the utilities have gone up further.
These and others are popular policies AND they’re right too. As we’ve had confirmed ever since. This collective pretence that the main parties and the media are speaking for the electorate needs to be knocked on the head before it gets even worse for the people of the UK. |
Those polls beg the question of why GEs don't result in non stop social democratic parties pushing those policies? Or why when Corbyn's Labour failed so badly? |  |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:39 - Oct 10 with 775 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:30 - Oct 10 by giant_stow |
Those polls beg the question of why GEs don't result in non stop social democratic parties pushing those policies? Or why when Corbyn's Labour failed so badly? |
I would guess the answers are largely around tabloid propaganda and the personal unpopularity of Corbyn.
I voted for Starmer in the leadership election in the hope that he would carry on Corbyn's social/economic policies (some of my family members voted Labour for the first time ever in 2017 as they were supporters of the renationalisation proposals), but have more of a mainstream foreign policy view (which is really where Corbyn was out of step with most people). Not sure I've ever regretted a vote quite as much as I do that one. [Post edited 10 Oct 2022 12:40]
|  | | |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:48 - Oct 10 with 764 views | itfcjoe |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:01 - Oct 10 by thebooks |
Hard to tell, and probably quite volatile what the public thinks.
Generally, though, on stuff like nationalisation the public's pretty clear, and has been for a while. Johnson was smart enough to recognise this and ditched a lot of the swivel-eyed Truss approach.
With Truss there's probably an opportunity for Starmer to make some hay by taking on a few of the Corbyn manifesto promises. He'd bring the left back back on board a bit more as well. I fear he's just too defensive, though; still living in 1994. |
I think it was Blair who gave a good example of whether public on baord and it is to with when it is a straight yes or no or when the policy has been fleshed out to understand the pros and cons of it.
Are you in favour in total renationalisation of gas and electric? What about if it means income tax goes up 3%? and so on.
Now feels like the first time in forever where people aren't fussed about personal tax cuts, that they want public services to improve more than they want an extra penny in the pound in their pocket
But if you asked people straight up do they want income tax to be lower they'd still say yes |  |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:49 - Oct 10 with 761 views | WD19 |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:30 - Oct 10 by giant_stow |
Those polls beg the question of why GEs don't result in non stop social democratic parties pushing those policies? Or why when Corbyn's Labour failed so badly? |
Because, one would hope, people stop and think about the implications of some of these policies a little more before they vote than they do when completing a throwaway online survey in return for cash. |  | | |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:53 - Oct 10 with 744 views | giant_stow |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:39 - Oct 10 by Clapham_Junction |
I would guess the answers are largely around tabloid propaganda and the personal unpopularity of Corbyn.
I voted for Starmer in the leadership election in the hope that he would carry on Corbyn's social/economic policies (some of my family members voted Labour for the first time ever in 2017 as they were supporters of the renationalisation proposals), but have more of a mainstream foreign policy view (which is really where Corbyn was out of step with most people). Not sure I've ever regretted a vote quite as much as I do that one. [Post edited 10 Oct 2022 12:40]
|
I can see why you'd feel that way, given what you say. Could they won you back? | |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:56 - Oct 10 with 739 views | lowhouseblue |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:06 - Oct 10 by Darth_Koont |
When polled on policies, the majority of the population support social democratic policies as opposed to the free-market and/or managerial tinkering of the right and centre-right. Which are presented by the two main parties and almost the entirety of the media as the only realistic options.
This was from November 2019. Since then support for the more marginal issues like nationalising the utilities have gone up further.
These and others are popular policies AND they’re right too. As we’ve had confirmed ever since. This collective pretence that the main parties and the media are speaking for the electorate needs to be knocked on the head before it gets even worse for the people of the UK. |
yes, and as you well know people assess, and vote for, the complete package on offer. you pick out bits which are popular in opinion polls, but people will only vote for you if they also trust you on everything else, defence, foreign policy, overall fiscal and tax stance, migration, economic competence, policing etc. individual policies may be popular in isolation but if you don't tick all those other boxes you won't win. selectively hearing what people want only when it coincides with your minority agenda won't work - and even you might have grasped that by now. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:00 - Oct 10 with 734 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:30 - Oct 10 by giant_stow |
Those polls beg the question of why GEs don't result in non stop social democratic parties pushing those policies? Or why when Corbyn's Labour failed so badly? |
Because they’re branded as unrealistic and/or hard-left by the people who are against them because they’re not in their self-interest, indeed against their self-interest.
Which is effectively the entire political and media class.
Corbyn’s Labour of course did surprisingly well when addressed more on its own merits in 2017. And better than previous elections under Milliband, Brown and even Blair in 2005.
In 2019 what scuppered Labour and took that platform off the media agenda was “Get Brexit Done” (that simultaneously unleashed the worst Remainers to hamstring Labour’s position on Brexit) and smear campaigns and briefings against Corbyn of which the antisemitism weaponisation was the worst.
That narrative suckered more than enough people. More than anything else so that progressive and much-needed policies were barely even part of the discussion in 2019. Beyond things like the “Broadband communism” and “What’s next? Are you going to nationalise sausages?” silliness ... and that was the BBC!
Of course, that type of politics and political coverage does a great disservice to the electorate and means that underlying issues are never fixed and we lurch from one crisis to the next. With sub-optimal responses even then.
Let’s get real here for once and stop ducking the issues. Most notably, the issue of what a supposedly modern and civilised democracy in the 21st century should be talking about and doing for its people. | |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:00 - Oct 10 with 731 views | thebooks |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:48 - Oct 10 by itfcjoe |
I think it was Blair who gave a good example of whether public on baord and it is to with when it is a straight yes or no or when the policy has been fleshed out to understand the pros and cons of it.
Are you in favour in total renationalisation of gas and electric? What about if it means income tax goes up 3%? and so on.
Now feels like the first time in forever where people aren't fussed about personal tax cuts, that they want public services to improve more than they want an extra penny in the pound in their pocket
But if you asked people straight up do they want income tax to be lower they'd still say yes |
Of course there’s lots of stuff around what people really want, how questions are phrased etc., but as you say the general direction is towards, if not socialism, something resembling social democracy (which is all Corbyn was really offering anyway).
That’s why I think it’s an opportunity for Starmer, but (ironically enough) he’s too much of an idealogue to take it. Johnson was smart enough to interpret that change through Brexit.
Besides, you wouldn’t have to present it as a raise in income tax for everyone: tax on energy profits, wealth tax etc. etc. – take your populist pick. We’re now through the idea that any improvement/investment is simply impossible without raising general income tax, and even the idea of borrowing is back (even though it is now, again ironically enough, far more expensive than when we could have done it easily). |  | | |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:01 - Oct 10 with 730 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:53 - Oct 10 by giant_stow |
I can see why you'd feel that way, given what you say. Could they won you back? |
If he goes back to his pledges and commits to PR, possibly, but the way the party is being run at the moment is horrendous.
If there was a GE tomorrow I would vote for the Greens (although I have the luxury of living in a safe Labour seat so I can happily cast a protest vote against the party). | | | |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:04 - Oct 10 with 718 views | XYZ |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:30 - Oct 10 by giant_stow |
Those polls beg the question of why GEs don't result in non stop social democratic parties pushing those policies? Or why when Corbyn's Labour failed so badly? |
Have you seen what the papers say?
Guess who owns the papers. |  | | |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:07 - Oct 10 with 706 views | thebooks |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:39 - Oct 10 by Clapham_Junction |
I would guess the answers are largely around tabloid propaganda and the personal unpopularity of Corbyn.
I voted for Starmer in the leadership election in the hope that he would carry on Corbyn's social/economic policies (some of my family members voted Labour for the first time ever in 2017 as they were supporters of the renationalisation proposals), but have more of a mainstream foreign policy view (which is really where Corbyn was out of step with most people). Not sure I've ever regretted a vote quite as much as I do that one. [Post edited 10 Oct 2022 12:40]
|
Well, Starmer’s pitch was “capable” leadership but with with the same policies. It’s easy to see why he won after the 2019 results.
Looking back, he was forgiven rather a lot from 2019, not least Labour’s disasterous Brexit policy. (Then again, hard to see anyone negotiating Labour’s position then.)
I can’t imagine anyone having a fairer set of conditions, yet he’s still fighting 1994’s battles. | | | |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:11 - Oct 10 with 696 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:56 - Oct 10 by lowhouseblue |
yes, and as you well know people assess, and vote for, the complete package on offer. you pick out bits which are popular in opinion polls, but people will only vote for you if they also trust you on everything else, defence, foreign policy, overall fiscal and tax stance, migration, economic competence, policing etc. individual policies may be popular in isolation but if you don't tick all those other boxes you won't win. selectively hearing what people want only when it coincides with your minority agenda won't work - and even you might have grasped that by now. |
So what were the policies that meant the overall package wasn’t trusted?
I think you’re just saying that narrative is everything. But with the monoculture around our two-party system and political media that narrative of trust (or lack of it) was decided and shaped for the electorate.
Never mind the right-wing press, the evidence speaks for itself that this was a false and weaponised narrative that was even shaped and encouraged by Labour HQ, the PLP and other right-wingers around Labour like yourself. | |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:21 - Oct 10 with 673 views | itfcjoe |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:07 - Oct 10 by thebooks |
Well, Starmer’s pitch was “capable” leadership but with with the same policies. It’s easy to see why he won after the 2019 results.
Looking back, he was forgiven rather a lot from 2019, not least Labour’s disasterous Brexit policy. (Then again, hard to see anyone negotiating Labour’s position then.)
I can’t imagine anyone having a fairer set of conditions, yet he’s still fighting 1994’s battles. |
I do think there is an issue that Labour have to be 5x as good as the Tories just to get in, so they have to be safe because there is an inherent distrust of the party, and the way they manage finances, or 'give too much to the poor' and hammer the rich etc - driven by the 4th Estate.
The Labour party doesn't get a fair hearing and some of the things the Tories have done in recent years would have seen them absolutely crucified, and they either have to lean in to that and be safe and then go left when elected - or go the other way and probably lose another election | |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:26 - Oct 10 with 648 views | lowhouseblue |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:11 - Oct 10 by Darth_Koont |
So what were the policies that meant the overall package wasn’t trusted?
I think you’re just saying that narrative is everything. But with the monoculture around our two-party system and political media that narrative of trust (or lack of it) was decided and shaped for the electorate.
Never mind the right-wing press, the evidence speaks for itself that this was a false and weaponised narrative that was even shaped and encouraged by Labour HQ, the PLP and other right-wingers around Labour like yourself. |
the leader wasn't trusted
they weren't trusted on fiscal policy and tax
they weren't trusted on defence
they weren't trusted on foreign policy
they weren't trusted on europe
they weren't trusted on immigration
they failed the public sniff test on anything to do with competence or trust.
surely you know this? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:27 - Oct 10 with 649 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 12:49 - Oct 10 by WD19 |
Because, one would hope, people stop and think about the implications of some of these policies a little more before they vote than they do when completing a throwaway online survey in return for cash. |
What are the real implications of those policies though?
And what are the implications of QE policies that funnels £600 billion to the top tier of society that increases their stranglehold on the assets and services the rest of the population need? We have no tax mechanism to get that back so we basically create inflation and poorer outcomes for everyone else.
I agree we should be looking at issues and the evidence-based pros and cons of various solutions. But who is doing that and where?
We have politicians and a political media who repeatedly say that their hands are tied – by the “electorate’s wishes” or by the limits of government spending. But that’s an excuse to maintain positions of influence for those who pay much more than an MP’s salary to have their interests defended and promoted. | |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:37 - Oct 10 with 631 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:26 - Oct 10 by lowhouseblue |
the leader wasn't trusted
they weren't trusted on fiscal policy and tax
they weren't trusted on defence
they weren't trusted on foreign policy
they weren't trusted on europe
they weren't trusted on immigration
they failed the public sniff test on anything to do with competence or trust.
surely you know this? |
Of course. But you’re just repeating the narrative. That doesn’t make it based in reality but in the perceptions and characterisations that are fostered by you and others.
By way of illustration, Starmer is demonstrably dishonest and valueless. So that’s him cooked, right? ‘Course not. He’s a responsible and honourable grown-up according to the much repeated narrative.
The great lie was that Corbyn was dangerous but we can clearly see that the danger is from those doing all they can to convince us of that and defend the establishment politics which have been and continue to be appallingly bad for the country. | |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:41 - Oct 10 with 624 views | thebooks |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:21 - Oct 10 by itfcjoe |
I do think there is an issue that Labour have to be 5x as good as the Tories just to get in, so they have to be safe because there is an inherent distrust of the party, and the way they manage finances, or 'give too much to the poor' and hammer the rich etc - driven by the 4th Estate.
The Labour party doesn't get a fair hearing and some of the things the Tories have done in recent years would have seen them absolutely crucified, and they either have to lean in to that and be safe and then go left when elected - or go the other way and probably lose another election |
Yes, that's definitely true, but more an argument for costing things scrupulously rather than refusing to move on from TINA. tbf to Corbyn and McDonnell, I don't think they lost because of failing to cost all their proposals - they were quite strict on that. Having said that, I think you could argue there were just too many things in the 2019 election to seem realistic.
Can you imagine if Corbyn had broken the economy as much as Truss? | | | |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:41 - Oct 10 with 623 views | noggin |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:26 - Oct 10 by lowhouseblue |
the leader wasn't trusted
they weren't trusted on fiscal policy and tax
they weren't trusted on defence
they weren't trusted on foreign policy
they weren't trusted on europe
they weren't trusted on immigration
they failed the public sniff test on anything to do with competence or trust.
surely you know this? |
Said The Mail, The Sun, The Express, The Telegraph etc etc.. |  |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:45 - Oct 10 with 619 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:37 - Oct 10 by Darth_Koont |
Of course. But you’re just repeating the narrative. That doesn’t make it based in reality but in the perceptions and characterisations that are fostered by you and others.
By way of illustration, Starmer is demonstrably dishonest and valueless. So that’s him cooked, right? ‘Course not. He’s a responsible and honourable grown-up according to the much repeated narrative.
The great lie was that Corbyn was dangerous but we can clearly see that the danger is from those doing all they can to convince us of that and defend the establishment politics which have been and continue to be appallingly bad for the country. |
“ The great lie was that Corbyn was dangerous”
He was so utterly incompetent, and has such a naive worldview that Tories were signing up to vote him in as Labour leader.
Decent manifesto, comedy leader. | | | |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:52 - Oct 10 with 610 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:45 - Oct 10 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“ The great lie was that Corbyn was dangerous”
He was so utterly incompetent, and has such a naive worldview that Tories were signing up to vote him in as Labour leader.
Decent manifesto, comedy leader. |
I think you’re the naive one.
In what world is tinkering around the edges of the many long-term issues in the UK (from low productivity and a shonky unbalanced economy to housing shortages and food insecurity for millions of men, women and children) going to help?
“At least we got the Tories out for a bit, pity about the UK” is a pitiful hill to defend let alone die on. [Post edited 10 Oct 2022 13:52]
| |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 14:05 - Oct 10 with 554 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:45 - Oct 10 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“ The great lie was that Corbyn was dangerous”
He was so utterly incompetent, and has such a naive worldview that Tories were signing up to vote him in as Labour leader.
Decent manifesto, comedy leader. |
And the “incompetence” charge is a particularly rich one.
Compared to whom? Johnson who he was up against? Please ... A Labour Party that had lost its way and lost millions of voters even when the Tories was rolling out a punitive austerity programme? A radical take ... Or Starmer who apparently doesn’t know what he believes one day to the next? Laughable.
It’s also rich on a thread that describes in detail how much Corbyn’s leadership office was sabotaged and briefed against from within Labour HQ and the PLP. Corbyn was even smearily accused of not doing enough about antisemitism due to these people themselves NOT DOING ENOUGH ABOUT ANTISEMITISM.
It’s unevidenced narrative BS. And I think you know it too. | |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 14:11 - Oct 10 with 547 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 10:03 - Oct 10 by itfcjoe |
Should party membership be listened to though? Speaking as someone who is a member - are these people the right people to choose leaders etc?
We've seen the Labour membership choose Corbyn and seen them absolutely wiped out in a General Election
We've seen the Tory membership choose Liz Truss and they are now polling 30 points behind Labour
The membership of major political parties are nowhere near representative of the general person in the electorate, and whilst they may have ideas and a platform for them, it's up to those in the party management roles to work out what they need to do to be elected. |
Valid comment. Both Labour, and now Conservative, party members have voted differently than their MPs when it comes to selecting a new party leader.
Suspect the answer is to give both the parliamentary party, and party members, equal standing when it comes to electing a new leader.
Corbyn only just managed to get enough parliamentary support to go on the ballot paper. Truss, presumably, wouldn’t have beaten Sunak in a head to head if it was down to MPs.
Perhaps a law is needed covering such elections. I’m sure a vast majority of MPs would be agreement. This should of course be after the next election for which, as things stand, Truss will be as damaging to the Conservative chances, as Corbyn was to Labour. |  |
| |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 14:12 - Oct 10 with 544 views | XYZ |
| Is anyone else concerned by this? on 13:45 - Oct 10 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“ The great lie was that Corbyn was dangerous”
He was so utterly incompetent, and has such a naive worldview that Tories were signing up to vote him in as Labour leader.
Decent manifesto, comedy leader. |
I'm not sure that a country that has had May, Johnson and Truss as Prime Ministers can make an incompetence charge against Corbyn stick.
You need to look past the Murdoch & Co. cartoons. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
