|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 26, 2023 7:30:18 GMT
If your party hadn't taken donations in the millions from Lord Sainsbury unril he dwfected back to Labohr in the past few weeks, I might have taken that a bit more seriously. If Labour hadn't made him a peer and then a Minister with resposibility for GM Foods despite a massive comflict of interest with the family business then your comments might have carried some weight. GM Foods. I remember when they were going to destroy the world.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Feb 26, 2023 7:32:04 GMT
Sadly I have to partially agree with Daft Ha'porth that the Liberal Democrats are a party of the establishment (although I'm not convinced that the electorate, or 80% of them anyway, are looking for something different). In my 56 years in the Party there has usually been a conflict between the leadership and the membership, with the leadership clearly embracing the establishment. There was a long period from the late 60s into the 90s when the activist membership wrested control of the direction of the Party away from the leadership (credit to Tony Greaves), but ironically the election of Paddy Ashdown as leader (because he was seen as one of 'us' - the activist membership, and his subsequent schmoozing of Tony Blair was the start of the blunting of the radicalism of the Party. It briefly revived as a consequence of our opposition to the Iraq war, and declined further when Clegg became leader, only to be snuffed out by the Coalition and the departure/retirement of a high proportion of the radical activists.
Of course there are still individuals and local council groups who are challenging the established way of doing things, but there is not that momentum within the Party as a whole. Of course we had to campaign against Brexit, but when we lost we should have been reaching out to those who had voted for it (and although racism was a part of it that wasn't the most important element) and listening to the reasons why they felt marginalised and powerless rather than doubling down on our opposition to the result, culminating in the ridiculous and undemocratic 'Revoke' campaign in 2019. Were we a radical party we would have long ago looked at the consequences of globalisation and recognised that the ways in which capitalism was developing meant that our traditional commitment to free trade was no longer appropriate and that resilience was more important than allowing our country to become dependent on potentially hostile powers for our basic necessities. The Conservatives, and to a lesser extent Labour when in power, have allowed our country's infrastructure to be bought up and controlled by people and countries which do not have our interests at heart, and by off-shoring our manufacturing base we have lost the skills that go along with that. No machine tool builders and operators, no ship builders, no miners, no steelworkers, no paper-makers (I'm aware this is a slight exaggeration, but it is the direction of travel). Thatcher's vision of a service economy has come to pass, but it is an economy built on sand. The Liberal Democrats should have spent the last 30 years recognising this and shouting it from the roof-tops, but they were too tied up with pointing at potholes to look at the bigger picture.
I wish Tony Greaves was here to tell me that I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 26, 2023 7:36:42 GMT
Sadly I have to partially agree with Daft Ha'porth that the Liberal Democrats are a party of the establishment (although I'm not convinced that the electorate, or 80% of them anyway, are looking for something different). In my 56 years in the Party there has usually been a conflict between the leadership and the membership, with the leadership clearly embracing the establishment. There was a long period from the late 60s into the 90s when the activist membership wrested control of the direction of the Party away from the leadership (credit to Tony Greaves), but ironically the election of Paddy Ashdown as leader (because he was seen as one of 'us' - the activist membership, and his subsequent schmoozing of Tony Blair was the start of the blunting of the radicalism of the Party. It briefly revived as a consequence of our opposition to the Iraq war, and declined further when Clegg became leader, only to be snuffed out by the Coalition and the departure/retirement of a high proportion of the radical activists. Of course there are still individuals and local council groups who are challenging the established way of doing things, but there is not that momentum within the Party as a whole. Of course we had to campaign against Brexit, but when we lost we should have been reaching out to those who had voted for it (and although racism was a part of it that wasn't the most important element) and listening to the reasons why they felt marginalised and powerless rather than doubling down on our opposition to the result, culminating in the ridiculous and undemocratic 'Revoke' campaign in 2019. Were we a radical party we would have long ago looked at the consequences of globalisation and recognised that the ways in which capitalism was developing meant that our traditional commitment to free trade was no longer appropriate and that resilience was more important than allowing our country to become dependent on potentially hostile powers for our basic necessities. The Conservatives, and to a lesser extent Labour when in power, have allowed our country's infrastructure to be bought up and controlled by people and countries which do not have our interests at heart, and by off-shoring our manufacturing base we have lost the skills that go along with that. No machine tool builders and operators, no ship builders, no miners, no steelworkers, no paper-makers (I'm aware this is a slight exaggeration, but it is the direction of travel). Thatcher's vision of a service economy has come to pass, but it is an economy built on sand. The Liberal Democrats should have spent the last 30 years recognising this and shouting it from the roof-tops, but they were too tied up with pointing at potholes to look at the bigger picture. I wish Tony Greaves was here to tell me that I'm wrong. A very interesting post tony.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,591
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 26, 2023 9:59:06 GMT
I wonder if any of the other eight Labour/ChangeUK MPs will be rejoining shortly. Its easy to see the gain for Starmer from Berger feeling able to rejoin the party. (she was the one defector many mainstream Labour people felt some sympathy with for a reason) Less so with Angela "funny tinge" Smith or Gavin Shuker. As for the likes of L*s*i* or U*m*n* - don't get me started. Having said that, I do expect Mike Gapes to apply to rejoin on the very day his five years are finally up.
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Feb 26, 2023 10:09:09 GMT
I wonder if any of the other eight Labour/ChangeUK MPs will be rejoining shortly. Its easy to see the gain for Starmer from Berger feeling able to rejoin the party. (she was the one defector many mainstream Labour people felt some sympathy with for a reason) Less so with Angela "funny tinge" Smith or Gavin Shuker. As for the likes of L*s*i* or U*m*n* - don't get me started. Having said that, I do expect Mike Gapes to apply to rejoin on the very day his five years are finally up. Should be noted that Gapes, Leslie, and Shuker never joined the Lib Dems.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,591
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 26, 2023 10:10:34 GMT
In two of those cases, the strong suspicion is that the LibDems turned them down.
(as did Change UK with the utterly execrable Ian Austin)
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Feb 26, 2023 10:13:39 GMT
In two of those cases, the strong suspicion is that the LibDems turned them down. (as did Change UK with the utterly execrable Ian Austin) Shuker and Leslie?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 26, 2023 10:52:05 GMT
I very much doubt Ian Austin ever tried to join Change UK. They may have put about that they turned him down but ...
I suspect that if Mike Gapes was given a personally targeted invitation to rejoin he's likely to do so. Last week he tweeted "Labour is now a party worth voting for once again".
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Feb 26, 2023 10:59:32 GMT
I wonder if any of the other eight Labour/ChangeUK MPs will be rejoining shortly. Its easy to see the gain for Starmer from Berger feeling able to rejoin the party. (she was the one defector many mainstream Labour people felt some sympathy with for a reason) Less so with Angela "funny tinge" Smith or Gavin Shuker. As for the likes of L*s*i* or U*m*n* - don't get me started. Having said that, I do expect Mike Gapes to apply to rejoin on the very day his five years are finally up. Agree on the Gapes point. He was obviously upset about his departure. The others are no great loss. I’d assume that they have left politics?
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Feb 26, 2023 11:08:02 GMT
Having said that, I do expect Mike Gapes to apply to rejoin on the very day his five years are finally up. Why does Mike Gapes have to wait five years to rejoin and not Berger?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,591
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 26, 2023 11:11:56 GMT
Having said that, I do expect Mike Gapes to apply to rejoin on the very day his five years are finally up. Why does Mike Gapes have to wait five years to rejoin and not Berger? Well, its possible he won't but 5 years is the "default" time as you must know. Surely shouldn't be necessary to explain why Berger is such a symbolically important figure either. The sort of person you might be willing to bend the rules for.
|
|
|
Post by jakegb on Feb 26, 2023 11:27:53 GMT
I very much doubt Ian Austin ever tried to join Change UK. They may have put about that they turned him down but ... I suspect that if Mike Gapes was given a personally targeted invitation to rejoin he's likely to do so. Last week he tweeted "Labour is now a party worth voting for once again". Austin supported May's Brexit Deal in the 2019 Meaningful Vote. His Brexit position ran contrary to the Change UK squad. Similar story for the likes of Frank Field.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 26, 2023 11:37:56 GMT
Why does Mike Gapes have to wait five years to rejoin and not Berger? Well, its possible he won't but 5 years is the "default" time as you must know. Surely shouldn't be necessary to explain why Berger is such a symbolically important figure either. The sort of person you might be willing to bend the rules for. So the question should be the other way round: why does Berger get back in early, when Gapes (and others, according to the normal rules) have to wait 5 years? There is no big rush. Keir Starmer and Luciana Berger could easily have waited another year, easily in time for the general election. Or they could change the general rule to make it 4 or 3 years instead of 5.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,591
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 26, 2023 11:44:16 GMT
Well, its possible he won't but 5 years is the "default" time as you must know. Surely shouldn't be necessary to explain why Berger is such a symbolically important figure either. The sort of person you might be willing to bend the rules for. So the question should be the other way round: why does Berger get back in early, when Gapes (and others, according to the normal rules) have to wait 5 years? There is no big rush. Keir Starmer and Luciana Berger could easily have waited another year, easily in time for the general election. Or they could change the general rule to make it 4 or 3 years instead of 5.This might have something to recommend it, but probably not feasible in the short term given all the Corbynista cranks who might try to benefit from such a change.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Feb 26, 2023 11:48:52 GMT
Well, its possible he won't but 5 years is the "default" time as you must know. Surely shouldn't be necessary to explain why Berger is such a symbolically important figure either. The sort of person you might be willing to bend the rules for. So the question should be the other way round: why does Berger get back in early, when Gapes (and others, according to the normal rules) have to wait 5 years? There is no big rush. Keir Starmer and Luciana Berger could easily have waited another year, easily in time for the general election. Or they could change the general rule to make it 4 or 3 years instead of 5. Are you concerned Gapes will sue?
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,304
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 26, 2023 12:16:12 GMT
What happened to Berger was effectively equivalent to a case of constructive dismissal, which does change things significantly.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Feb 26, 2023 12:35:25 GMT
What happened to Berger was effectively equivalent to a case of constructive dismissal, which does change things significantly. If she had just resigned from the Labour Party and sat as an independent, I could understand that. However she didn't have to start a new party, or join the Liberal Democrats, or run against an official Labour candidate.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 26, 2023 14:11:45 GMT
So the question should be the other way round: why does Berger get back in early, when Gapes (and others, according to the normal rules) have to wait 5 years? There is no big rush. Keir Starmer and Luciana Berger could easily have waited another year, easily in time for the general election. Or they could change the general rule to make it 4 or 3 years instead of 5. Are you concerned Gapes will sue? Of core snot. What difference would it make to me if he did or didn't?
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,991
|
Post by maxque on Feb 26, 2023 14:27:42 GMT
Its easy to see the gain for Starmer from Berger feeling able to rejoin the party. (she was the one defector many mainstream Labour people felt some sympathy with for a reason) Less so with Angela "funny tinge" Smith or Gavin Shuker. As for the likes of L*s*i* or U*m*n* - don't get me started. Having said that, I do expect Mike Gapes to apply to rejoin on the very day his five years are finally up. Agree on the Gapes point. He was obviously upset about his departure. The others are no great loss. I’d assume that they have left politics? Shuker is now leading a fintech and in involved in pushing the idea of "open banking". He said he is definitively done in politics. Leslie is now the chief executive of the Credit Services Association. He is still rambling on Twitter about party members having too much power and "David Lammy foistering Corbyn upon us", so probably not a return to politics. Smith is now a comapny director, is fully back on the pro-Labour train and seems to be based in Cornwall now. Umunna is now an investment banker at JP Morgan Chase.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 26, 2023 14:51:48 GMT
Having said that, I do expect Mike Gapes to apply to rejoin on the very day his five years are finally up. Why does Mike Gapes have to wait five years to rejoin and not Berger? 'Reasons'!!
|
|