By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Sadly, they will end up being the left cheek of the same arse that shares Reform as the right cheek.
Which is a shame because we need gree policies at the forefront of British politics. But for some reason in this country all the cranks and wonks tend to migrate towards the Green Party.
I can only speak for the members of the Green Party where I live but the last thing I would describe them as is cranks and wonks.
They are all very decent people, and at the hustings at the last two elections the Green Party candidate was head and shoulders above Tom Tugendhat (as well as the Labour candidate) in terms of her coherence and performance.
All of which means this is shaping up to be a curious campaign. Both parties say the other poses a risk to the economy, yet both are committed to the same, nonsensical, fiscal rule, which says that debt as a share of national income must be falling within five years.
By sticking to the fiction that they will stick to ultra-tight spending plans after the election, both main parties say there is no need for them to raise serious amounts of extra money by raising tax. Both say they have a plan for the economy, but it amounts to the same plan: the hope that a growing economy will allow them to avoid unpopular tax and spending decisions. Raising the economy’s growth rate is a lot more difficult than politicians are prepared to admit.
Labour is miles ahead in the polls and playing it safe. The “don’t drop the Ming vase” approach involves posing as both the pro-business and pro-worker party. It wants to be seen as the fiscally responsible choice that brings calm after the chaos, to be pro-change and pro-continuity. By contrast, Sunak wants to break things. The prime minister has been coming up with a headline-grabbing policy initiative a day. It smacks of damage limitation, even desperation.
There are two risks for Starmer and Reeves here. The lesser risk is that voters – many of whom dislike the Tories more than they like Labour – change their minds during the campaign. The greater risk is that Labour wins an Attlee-style landslide but then doesn’t know what to do with it. Growth might come to the rescue, but it might not. The danger for Starmer and Reeves is that they lock the economy into a new era of austerity that makes absolutely zero economic sense and for which there is absolutely zero political appetite.
cancelled my membership earlier this year over the party stance on Palestine but was willing to hold my nose and vote at the G.E. not now, utter utter contempt for anything even hinting at being left of centre. atrocious treatment of abbot, russel-moyle, and shaheen and to stick the boot in war crime denier islamophobe Luke Akehurst gets handed a plum seat in Durham. morally vacuous factional gangsters. first time in my life i shan't be voting for them, i even spent 4 years volunteering at my local party on my days off until covid put a stop to it. what a waste.
"It’s ultimately a decision for the national executive committee on all candidates. There will be a decision in due course, but they haven’t taken that decision, though."
And if you think Dianne Abbott will end up as the Labour candidate (especially given members of the NEC waiting in the wings for winnable seats), I've got a bridge in London to sell you.
But more seriously, my concerns about the way Labour are behaving, which has all the hallmarks of the disgraceful way Johnson got rid of MPs before the 2019 election, is this.
EDIT: I posted this (from the Guardian) elsewhere, just in case you missed it.
Members of the party’s ruling national executive committee (NEC), who have been instrumental in transforming its rules after Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, are also tipped for seats. They include Luke Akehurst, Gurinder Singh Josan, Abdi Duale and the NEC chair, James Asser.
The move will trigger controversy from critics who argue that Labour candidates – particularly those in plum seats – should be selected with local input from grassroots members and not simply handed to allies of the leadership.
In February 2020, while he was campaigning for the Labour leadership, Starmer said selections for Labour candidates needed to be “more democratic and we should end NEC impositions of candidates. Local party members should select their candidates for every election.”
He added then that “there should be no power without accountability, and true accountability requires transparency”.
[Post edited 29 May 2024 14:05]
If Abbott decided to stand as an independent in Stoke Newington then it's likely she would get a decent amount of support, she would certainly take some votes away from Labour and whomever they might parachute in.
She's been the MP here for nearly 40 years and has a massive majority. It depends how many were voting just for Labour and how many were voting for her as a constituency MP. Her stance on Gaza might also get her some votes.
I heard that Berger and Umunna are making a nice life for themselves, shilling for the oil and gas industry, greenwashing and extolling the virtues of a country freed from its EU shackles.
These are the 'serious leftists' we were supposed to take seriously.
And yet lowhouse seeks to take the piss out of a long-serving constituency MP in Abbott, because he's all about that 'realpolitik' or something.
Lowehouse is so keen on the phrase 'very real concerns' he moved to Stockholm.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
All of which means this is shaping up to be a curious campaign. Both parties say the other poses a risk to the economy, yet both are committed to the same, nonsensical, fiscal rule, which says that debt as a share of national income must be falling within five years.
By sticking to the fiction that they will stick to ultra-tight spending plans after the election, both main parties say there is no need for them to raise serious amounts of extra money by raising tax. Both say they have a plan for the economy, but it amounts to the same plan: the hope that a growing economy will allow them to avoid unpopular tax and spending decisions. Raising the economy’s growth rate is a lot more difficult than politicians are prepared to admit.
Labour is miles ahead in the polls and playing it safe. The “don’t drop the Ming vase” approach involves posing as both the pro-business and pro-worker party. It wants to be seen as the fiscally responsible choice that brings calm after the chaos, to be pro-change and pro-continuity. By contrast, Sunak wants to break things. The prime minister has been coming up with a headline-grabbing policy initiative a day. It smacks of damage limitation, even desperation.
There are two risks for Starmer and Reeves here. The lesser risk is that voters – many of whom dislike the Tories more than they like Labour – change their minds during the campaign. The greater risk is that Labour wins an Attlee-style landslide but then doesn’t know what to do with it. Growth might come to the rescue, but it might not. The danger for Starmer and Reeves is that they lock the economy into a new era of austerity that makes absolutely zero economic sense and for which there is absolutely zero political appetite.
The risk for Labour is that they've stuck their finger up at the majority of their members, and therefore those who do the bulk of the campaigning. It seems to me they've arrogantly mistaken leading in the poles for popularity. If that pole lead narrows, who will be out there campaigning with enthusiasm? And what exactly will they be campaigning for?
I can only speak for the members of the Green Party where I live but the last thing I would describe them as is cranks and wonks.
They are all very decent people, and at the hustings at the last two elections the Green Party candidate was head and shoulders above Tom Tugendhat (as well as the Labour candidate) in terms of her coherence and performance.
[Post edited 30 May 2024 10:36]
Indeed.
Worked for the Greens many years ago and they were all great people, committed to helping out in the community. It's also nice to see they were making decent gains throughout Suffolk and beyond at the local elections.
To label them as 'cranks' etc is ridiculous. Especially when they're the only party taking the climate emergency and future of the planet seriously. Small things, I know, but we all have our little pet projects.
Dear old footers KC - Private Counsel to Big Farmer - Liberator of Vichy TWTD
Worked for the Greens many years ago and they were all great people, committed to helping out in the community. It's also nice to see they were making decent gains throughout Suffolk and beyond at the local elections.
To label them as 'cranks' etc is ridiculous. Especially when they're the only party taking the climate emergency and future of the planet seriously. Small things, I know, but we all have our little pet projects.
Sadly, much of political discourse these days amounts to insults and the like.
It neatly avoids the issues, and shuts down debate.
Worked for the Greens many years ago and they were all great people, committed to helping out in the community. It's also nice to see they were making decent gains throughout Suffolk and beyond at the local elections.
To label them as 'cranks' etc is ridiculous. Especially when they're the only party taking the climate emergency and future of the planet seriously. Small things, I know, but we all have our little pet projects.
If you spend your time reading Guido Fawkes, Telegraph, Times, Daily Mail and Spectator then climate scientists are going to come across as cranks.
We had some Green Party members at an event we held on climate tipping elements and they all seemed very clued up on the severity of climate emergency and the dramatic changes required to deal with it.
I'm not sure why, but the Chingford candidate getting the push has really got to me - seems so unnecessary. She's so popular locally.
Nah she's a crank, a twonk, a Corbynista, an antisemite, a terrorist sympathiser, a Trot, a Tankie, a Red under the bed, a threat to democracy, a student politico, the crazy world of Arthur Brown, etc etc etc.
Nah she's a crank, a twonk, a Corbynista, an antisemite, a terrorist sympathiser, a Trot, a Tankie, a Red under the bed, a threat to democracy, a student politico, the crazy world of Arthur Brown, etc etc etc.
I think I'm gonna stay away from the news for a while - it's all getting too much.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Nah she's a crank, a twonk, a Corbynista, an antisemite, a terrorist sympathiser, a Trot, a Tankie, a Red under the bed, a threat to democracy, a student politico, the crazy world of Arthur Brown, etc etc etc.
Small bean regarder, Bunty man etc
Dear old footers KC - Private Counsel to Big Farmer - Liberator of Vichy TWTD
cancelled my membership earlier this year over the party stance on Palestine but was willing to hold my nose and vote at the G.E. not now, utter utter contempt for anything even hinting at being left of centre. atrocious treatment of abbot, russel-moyle, and shaheen and to stick the boot in war crime denier islamophobe Luke Akehurst gets handed a plum seat in Durham. morally vacuous factional gangsters. first time in my life i shan't be voting for them, i even spent 4 years volunteering at my local party on my days off until covid put a stop to it. what a waste.
Maybe it's just me but I think there's something corrupt about the NEC (in charge of candidate selections) appointing its own members to plum seats.
Maybe it's just me but I think there's something corrupt about the NEC (in charge of candidate selections) appointing its own members to plum seats.
Has it not always been the way, but everything is highlighted more now you can see an overview of everyone's seats - back in the day you'd only know or care when one parachuted into your local seat?
Maybe it's just me but I think there's something corrupt about the NEC (in charge of candidate selections) appointing its own members to plum seats.
call a spade a spade.
not just NEC bodies either but coming straight from the leaders office; Josh Simons of Labour First (blue labour think tank) getting parachuted in to a seat plus the Camden Council leader (starmer's patch) get given the maida vale selection.
im sure i recall someone in the labour party making a very good point on this undemocratic and wrong process not so long ago.....
I can only speak for the members of the Green Party where I live but the last thing I would describe them as is cranks and wonks.
They are all very decent people, and at the hustings at the last two elections the Green Party candidate was head and shoulders above Tom Tugendhat (as well as the Labour candidate) in terms of her coherence and performance.
[Post edited 30 May 2024 10:36]
What a shame they are now being infiltrated by the deplorables.
Has it not always been the way, but everything is highlighted more now you can see an overview of everyone's seats - back in the day you'd only know or care when one parachuted into your local seat?
My experience (as a one-time CLP Secretary) is of the local members having the ultimate say, with a local candidate being one of the options.
And certainly, even under Blair, there was not the central control that now exists.
And as regards it being corrupt, don't just take my word for it. This is Michael Crick's view.
And here's something from a Labour List article from a year or so ago.
Labour’s parliamentary selection process is under major scrutiny – and for good reason. Across the country, local left-wing candidates are being blocked from standing after ‘due diligence’ interviews with Labour Right national executive committee (NEC) members and factional staffers. These interviews are supposedly about ‘quality control’, but the disproportionate numbers of candidates on the left blocked from standing – while candidates on the right with questionable records breeze through the process – tells a different story.
In an op-ed for LabourList last week, Labour to Win NEC member Luke Akehurst defended the process, saying that the blockings are about ensuring “all candidates reach a minimum level we are happy to have in front of the public”. Luke’s claims are completely undermined by LOTO’s own briefings to the press that they are indeed purging the left from selections, with an ‘heir and a spare’ for each seat. Nonetheless, it is worth going through Luke’s arguments in detail to expose just how tenuous his claims are.
First off is the question of ‘quality control’. Luke argues that to – stop the selection of candidates with “skeletons in their cupboards” who will likely be exposed by the press, thus causing reputational damage to the party – candidates must be screened prior to being put to the members. If they are found to fall short of the standards set, the thinking goes, the candidates will be blocked from the longlist.
One would think that it might apply to Darren Rodwell, a white candidate on the Labour right who said, at a Black History Month event, that he has “the worst tan possible for a Black man”. He continued: “But I have the passion and the rhythm of the African and the Caribbean.” Cue a hail of negative press stories for Labour. But, despite Rodwell’s racially insensitive language, the Labour to Win NEC member on the panel repeatedly let his candidacy through.
Meanwhile, across the country, left-wing candidates – including council leaders and deputy leaders like Doina Cornell and Maya Evans, ex-MPs like Emma Dent Coad and anti-racist activists like Maurice Mcleod – are blocked. The reasons cited are banal verging on inane: once liking a Caroline Lucas tweet; liking a tweet calling on Labour to be bolder in its economic policy; and giving a quote supporting a green new deal are just some of the examples given by the party.
Take Lauren Townsend. She entered politics through launching a union drive at her workplace TGI Fridays. From there she got involved in the Labour Party, eventually becoming a councillor in her hometown of Milton Keynes. She decided to run to be Labour’s next MP for Milton Keynes North with the backing of the leader of the council and six affiliated unions, including UNISON and Unite. A working-class socialist, who cut her teeth in the trade union movement before making change in local government. Is there a better description of the kind of candidate Labour needs?
She was at least owed a chance to put her candidacy to the membership, not least given the now freely-disregarded rule guaranteeing trade union-backed candidates a place on the longlist – but Townsend was blocked by the party machine. Apparently ‘liking’ an innocuous Nicola Sturgeon tweet is reason to stop someone being longlisted. This isn’t ‘quality control’ – it’s a purge. With senior Labour officials like Morgan McSweeney and Gurinder Singh Josan committed to using their positions to destroy the left within the party, it’s sadly predictable.
It’s not just Momentum-backed candidates at risk. This week there was controversy in Bolsover as local members raised the alarm over the Labour regional executive allegedly favouring one candidate, while in Boris Johnson’s seat yet another local selections committee was dissolved by the out-of-control London Labour regional executive, with the Co-op Party-backed candidate’s overwhelming victory in branch nominations declared “null and void”. Even after publication of the Forde report, Labour’s bureaucracy is clearly engaged in political attacks on its own membership. Michael Crick, a journalist following selections battles, termed the process “verging on corrupt“.
It is no surprise, then, that members aren’t particularly “enthused” by Luke’s approach to selections – despite his claims otherwise. In Wakefield, Sedgefield, Camberwell and Peckham, Stroud and Kensington, local candidates being blocked has led to resignations and demoralisation amongst party activists, the very people we need knocking doors come election time.
Rather than promote working-class candidates, trade unionists, local candidates with their ear to the ground, the blocking process shows the Labour right are intent on reviving a discredited professional political class. As Michael Crick remarked, just one of the first 40 candidates selected can be termed working-class. Meanwhile, the Labour machine undemocratically clears the way for pollsters and housing developers from London as their chosen ‘heirs’ for seats.
My experience (as a one-time CLP Secretary) is of the local members having the ultimate say, with a local candidate being one of the options.
And certainly, even under Blair, there was not the central control that now exists.
And as regards it being corrupt, don't just take my word for it. This is Michael Crick's view.
And here's something from a Labour List article from a year or so ago.
Labour’s parliamentary selection process is under major scrutiny – and for good reason. Across the country, local left-wing candidates are being blocked from standing after ‘due diligence’ interviews with Labour Right national executive committee (NEC) members and factional staffers. These interviews are supposedly about ‘quality control’, but the disproportionate numbers of candidates on the left blocked from standing – while candidates on the right with questionable records breeze through the process – tells a different story.
In an op-ed for LabourList last week, Labour to Win NEC member Luke Akehurst defended the process, saying that the blockings are about ensuring “all candidates reach a minimum level we are happy to have in front of the public”. Luke’s claims are completely undermined by LOTO’s own briefings to the press that they are indeed purging the left from selections, with an ‘heir and a spare’ for each seat. Nonetheless, it is worth going through Luke’s arguments in detail to expose just how tenuous his claims are.
First off is the question of ‘quality control’. Luke argues that to – stop the selection of candidates with “skeletons in their cupboards” who will likely be exposed by the press, thus causing reputational damage to the party – candidates must be screened prior to being put to the members. If they are found to fall short of the standards set, the thinking goes, the candidates will be blocked from the longlist.
One would think that it might apply to Darren Rodwell, a white candidate on the Labour right who said, at a Black History Month event, that he has “the worst tan possible for a Black man”. He continued: “But I have the passion and the rhythm of the African and the Caribbean.” Cue a hail of negative press stories for Labour. But, despite Rodwell’s racially insensitive language, the Labour to Win NEC member on the panel repeatedly let his candidacy through.
Meanwhile, across the country, left-wing candidates – including council leaders and deputy leaders like Doina Cornell and Maya Evans, ex-MPs like Emma Dent Coad and anti-racist activists like Maurice Mcleod – are blocked. The reasons cited are banal verging on inane: once liking a Caroline Lucas tweet; liking a tweet calling on Labour to be bolder in its economic policy; and giving a quote supporting a green new deal are just some of the examples given by the party.
Take Lauren Townsend. She entered politics through launching a union drive at her workplace TGI Fridays. From there she got involved in the Labour Party, eventually becoming a councillor in her hometown of Milton Keynes. She decided to run to be Labour’s next MP for Milton Keynes North with the backing of the leader of the council and six affiliated unions, including UNISON and Unite. A working-class socialist, who cut her teeth in the trade union movement before making change in local government. Is there a better description of the kind of candidate Labour needs?
She was at least owed a chance to put her candidacy to the membership, not least given the now freely-disregarded rule guaranteeing trade union-backed candidates a place on the longlist – but Townsend was blocked by the party machine. Apparently ‘liking’ an innocuous Nicola Sturgeon tweet is reason to stop someone being longlisted. This isn’t ‘quality control’ – it’s a purge. With senior Labour officials like Morgan McSweeney and Gurinder Singh Josan committed to using their positions to destroy the left within the party, it’s sadly predictable.
It’s not just Momentum-backed candidates at risk. This week there was controversy in Bolsover as local members raised the alarm over the Labour regional executive allegedly favouring one candidate, while in Boris Johnson’s seat yet another local selections committee was dissolved by the out-of-control London Labour regional executive, with the Co-op Party-backed candidate’s overwhelming victory in branch nominations declared “null and void”. Even after publication of the Forde report, Labour’s bureaucracy is clearly engaged in political attacks on its own membership. Michael Crick, a journalist following selections battles, termed the process “verging on corrupt“.
It is no surprise, then, that members aren’t particularly “enthused” by Luke’s approach to selections – despite his claims otherwise. In Wakefield, Sedgefield, Camberwell and Peckham, Stroud and Kensington, local candidates being blocked has led to resignations and demoralisation amongst party activists, the very people we need knocking doors come election time.
Rather than promote working-class candidates, trade unionists, local candidates with their ear to the ground, the blocking process shows the Labour right are intent on reviving a discredited professional political class. As Michael Crick remarked, just one of the first 40 candidates selected can be termed working-class. Meanwhile, the Labour machine undemocratically clears the way for pollsters and housing developers from London as their chosen ‘heirs’ for seats.
[Post edited 30 May 2024 11:52]
much better not to screen candidates and have what happened in rochdale? after the corbyn years there are lot of skeletons in cupboards. an election in which the final weeks aren't spent dealing with daily mail stories about what candidates said when a blind eye was turned to such things would be very good.
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
much better not to screen candidates and have what happened in rochdale? after the corbyn years there are lot of skeletons in cupboards. an election in which the final weeks aren't spent dealing with daily mail stories about what candidates said when a blind eye was turned to such things would be very good.
Isn't the point that only certain candidates are having their skeletons looked for?
Isn't the point that only certain candidates are having their skeletons looked for?
As a follow up to my response to your earlier question, I also came across this, reported today.
'Daily Mirror associate editor Jason Beattie said a “ruthless re-alignment of Labour is taking place under Starmer that is more far-reaching than anything attempted by Tony Blair”, adding: “While Blair accommodated the left, Starmer is purging them in his quest to establish a party permanently camped on the centre ground.”'
Of course, if you're from the centre ground that's great but it's not great for anyone even vaguely left-wing, and it quashes any notion that Labour, when in power, will change into anything remotely approaching Atlee's government.
Isn't the point that only certain candidates are having their skeletons looked for?
that would probably be illegal. more likely that the skeletons aren't evenly distributed.
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
As a follow up to my response to your earlier question, I also came across this, reported today.
'Daily Mirror associate editor Jason Beattie said a “ruthless re-alignment of Labour is taking place under Starmer that is more far-reaching than anything attempted by Tony Blair”, adding: “While Blair accommodated the left, Starmer is purging them in his quest to establish a party permanently camped on the centre ground.”'
Of course, if you're from the centre ground that's great but it's not great for anyone even vaguely left-wing, and it quashes any notion that Labour, when in power, will change into anything remotely approaching Atlee's government.
[Post edited 30 May 2024 13:10]
It always felt that a group like the Socialist Campaign Group could get themselves into a nice position by being a group larger than any Labour majority and some power in that regard, but just doesn't feel possible if the purge as been as strong as you are saying.
I do understand the need for total discipline etc, but there does need to be a bit of variety at some level in the party as I am still hoping that it is a centrist party that leans left - and people may think that is naive but is still what I believe will happen.
It always felt that a group like the Socialist Campaign Group could get themselves into a nice position by being a group larger than any Labour majority and some power in that regard, but just doesn't feel possible if the purge as been as strong as you are saying.
I do understand the need for total discipline etc, but there does need to be a bit of variety at some level in the party as I am still hoping that it is a centrist party that leans left - and people may think that is naive but is still what I believe will happen.
having labour members in parliament who vote against the labour whip 428 times seems pretty pointless to me.
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
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
