|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 21, 2020 12:19:08 GMT
We all know that suspensions from political parties are just a ruse to reduce the number of people attending meetings so that the political parties meet social distancing requirements at all times, not anything to do with political infighting and or inappropriate misbehaviours.
Please note on this new thread when political parties help us with epic cool helpful lovely social distancing by suspending people, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 21, 2020 12:38:28 GMT
We all know that suspensions from political parties are just a ruse to reduce the number of people attending meetings so that the political parties meet social distancing requirements at all times, not anything to do with political infighting and or inappropriate misbehaviours. Please note on this new thread when political parties help us with epic cool helpful lovely social distancing by suspending people, thanks.
I think some senior Labour Party figures (who I'd never heard of) have been suspended - possibly around half a dozen of them. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jun 22, 2020 17:42:58 GMT
Carl Ollerhead, executive member for finance, Manchester CC. Suspended following an allegation on Twitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 16, 2020 9:03:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 29, 2020 17:27:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 29, 2020 17:32:21 GMT
I'm sure they are all lovely girls. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2021 6:25:30 GMT
Is the expulsion of Ken Loach from Labour for this thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 15, 2021 9:20:58 GMT
He hasn't been expelled (under Chapter 1, Clause VII.3.A.iii.e, and Chapter 1, Clause IX.2.d.v).
He has been automatically excluded (under Chapter 2, Clause I.4.B amd Clause I.8).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2021 9:41:24 GMT
He hasn't been expelled (under Chapter 1, Clause VII.3.A.iii.e, and Chapter 1, Clause IX.2.d.v). He has been automatically excluded (under Chapter 2, Clause I.4.B amd Clause I.8). It's the deadpan delivery that sells it for me. Thank you David. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Aug 15, 2021 10:07:24 GMT
It's a bit like when you hear of the death of an ancient actor who you had assumed had been dead for 20 years, most people probably assumed Ken Loach had left Labour years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 15, 2021 10:09:34 GMT
It's a bit like when you hear of the death of an ancient actor who you had assumed had been dead for 20 years, most people probably assumed Ken Loach had left Labour years ago.Well he did.
It's just that he went back in again under Corbyn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 15, 2021 10:11:08 GMT
Apparently he tried to resign when Blair was elected leader, but the party checked and found he wasn't a member.
(Loach launched a party opposing Labour as recently as March 2015 so the decision to accept him into the party later that same year is inexplicable)
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,908
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 15, 2021 10:13:26 GMT
Oh its perfectly "explicable", wouldn't expect you to agree with it though  (and a reminder that said party was called Left Unity - something that has never failed to amuse) |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 15, 2021 10:21:36 GMT
Oh its perfectly "explicable", wouldn't expect you to agree with it though (and a reminder that said party was called Left Unity - something that has never failed to amuse) It's all part of the Chesterfield Conference* "let people who actively oppose the Labour party into the Labour party" tradition. See also affiliation attempts by the Communist party in the 1930s.
Agree with the hilarious name. Almost as good as Socialist Appeal open brackets (we haven't got any) close brackets.
* First one was in 1987 I think, and chaired by a certain Ralph Milliband.
|
|
froome
Green
Posts: 4,549
Member is Online
|
Post by froome on Aug 15, 2021 10:25:49 GMT
Oh its perfectly "explicable", wouldn't expect you to agree with it though (and a reminder that said party was called Left Unity - something that has never failed to amuse) It's all part of the Chesterfield Conference* "let people who actively oppose the Labour party into the Labour party" tradition. See also affiliation attempts by the Communist party in the 1930s.
Agree with the hilarious name. Almost as good as Socialist Appeal open brackets (we haven't got any) close brackets.
* First one was in 1987 I think, and chaired by a certain Ralph Milliband.
Was the Chesterfield conference a special one for armchair critics?  |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 15, 2021 10:28:04 GMT
It's all part of the Chesterfield Conference* "let people who actively oppose the Labour party into the Labour party" tradition. See also affiliation attempts by the Communist party in the 1930s.
Agree with the hilarious name. Almost as good as Socialist Appeal open brackets (we haven't got any) close brackets.
* First one was in 1987 I think, and chaired by a certain Ralph Milliband.
Was the Chesterfield conference a special one for armchair critics? "Socialism - Sofa so good?"
was the first conference slogan I think.
Very much influenced by the French Chaise Lounge school of Marxist theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 15, 2021 10:28:08 GMT
Oh its perfectly "explicable", wouldn't expect you to agree with it though (and a reminder that said party was called Left Unity - something that has never failed to amuse) It's all part of the Chesterfield Conference* "let people who actively oppose the Labour party into the Labour party" tradition. See also affiliation attempts by the Communist party in the 1930s. Michael Crick's book on Militant made the point that Labour Party people with the "no enemies on the left" approach are typically very naive and do not realise (until too late) that the groups they let in will not be allies in the fight with the Labour right, but will purge them from their positions just as happily. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,301 
|
Post by maxque on Aug 15, 2021 16:24:37 GMT
It's all part of the Chesterfield Conference* "let people who actively oppose the Labour party into the Labour party" tradition. See also affiliation attempts by the Communist party in the 1930s. Michael Crick's book on Militant made the point that Labour Party people with the "no enemies on the left" approach are typically very naive and do not realise (until too late) that the groups they let in will not be allies in the fight with the Labour right, but will purge them from their positions just as happily. And "Labour" right preference to wage war on the Labour Left instead of Conservatives means yet another 20 year period out of power for them. They did not learn in the 80's, they are not learning now. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 15, 2021 16:56:33 GMT
Is not the lesson to learn from Labour in the 1980s and early 1990s that it not only needs to exclude the ultra left, but then needs a progressive policy approach that reflects modern Britain and rejects the dogmas of the past?
You talk of not learning from the 1980s. The idea that the 1980s tells Labour anything other than that associating with the far left is electoral poison is nuts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2021 17:35:02 GMT
Is not the lesson to learn from Labour in the 1980s and early 1990s that it not only needs to exclude the ultra left, but then needs a progressive policy approach that reflects modern Britain and rejects the dogmas of the past? You talk of not learning from the 1980s. The idea that the 1980s tells Labour anything other than that associating with the far left is electoral poison is nuts. The problem is the definition of "ultra-left"; some people will tell you it doesn't exist, others will include anyone who was vaguely critical of Thatcher once |
|
