|
|
Post by rivers10 on Mar 19, 2021 15:47:46 GMT
Frankly I think it's far more "nutty" to endorse someone selected entirely undemocratically who holds opposite views to the majority of the electorate on the most important issue of the last election. I don't know what is likely to happen but I very much hope Labour lose. Such cyncism and manipulation does not deserve reward Are by-election candidates often selected democratically? Genuine question Under Corbyn every single by election candidate was selected in a fair contest so much so only one of the candidates was a Corbynista |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Mar 19, 2021 15:48:15 GMT
Interesting historical snippet...the parties engaged children (aged 12-15) to act as tellers in the West Hartlepool county borough elections. The going daily rate in 1964 was 12 shillings and sixpence. (L.J. Sharpe, Voting in Cities, 1967).
|
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Mar 19, 2021 15:58:05 GMT
But it is far from clear - though this by election may provide good evidence - how far the conditions of late 2019 still prevail. Polling has Labour 4% or 5% higher now even in the context of a Tory vaccination boost. Were a GE being held now , quite a few of the 2019 losses would likely be reversed. What Labour have done (and in depth analysis backs this up) is hoover up the never Corbyn progressive liberal vote by sheer virtue of getting rid of Corbyn We've made little to no inroads into the Tory vote amd every day that passes the public think less of Starmer Come the next election Labour will probably offer pallid nonsense which won't win over many Tory voters while equally losing us support on the left to apathy and smaller parties on the left, the Tory vote will be shored up by the usual media drivel and the rest is history Net result is no real change may gain a few seats may lose a few, the idea is meant to be that you betray your principles for power not betray them to stand still!!! The current direction is a road to nowhere and even a lot of more moderate members can see it now, if soft left twitter is indicative of anything then Starmer has lost the backbone of his support base in the past month or so. If you can't even win over your own side you have no hope with the public at large But party politics has been very much in abeyance over the last year on account of the Pandemic. The Opposition has been frozen out with the public at large not at all interested in other issues - including Brexit! Until conditions settle down post- pandemic , we don't really have a clear idea as to where the land now lies. That said, polling 36% - 38% is not that bad - particularly when allowance is made for the collapse in Scotland having knocked circa 2% from Labour's GB vote share. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,311 
|
Post by maxque on Mar 19, 2021 16:07:15 GMT
Yeah she quit the Labour Party about 8 months ago, has been very critical of Starmer's leadership and the current direction of the party One of many examples the moderates should take note of, it isn't just the cranks quitting Labour, Thelma had been a party member for decades, was very well respected in the CLP and apparently Lucy Powell of all people tried to intervene to get Thelma to stay in the party but to no avail When your hemorrhaging support on your entire left flank something has gone horribly wrong It seems odd that she would leave over Starmer when she was prepared to tolerate Blair! At least, Blair had a spine. Starmer is nothing but a puppet controlled by high-level staffers, like the dreadful Baroness Chapman (who used said puppet to get appointed to a lifetime position). |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Mar 19, 2021 16:28:59 GMT
It seems odd that she would leave over Starmer when she was prepared to tolerate Blair! At least, Blair had a spine. Starmer is nothing but a puppet controlled by high-level staffers, like the dreadful Baroness Chapman (who used said puppet to get appointed to a lifetime position). Starmer's treatment of Corbyn generated plaudits from many to the effect that he did have a spine - though I have misgivings re- bowing to some of his critics such as Margaret Hodge et al. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 19, 2021 16:32:36 GMT
In Labour's case, not very, but this one takes the biscuit! Why? I think everyone is taking this a bit out of proportion. I would obviously have preferred someone closer to my own views, but Paul Williams gained a neighbouring seat from the Tories in 2017 and is a local GP which can hardly be to his detriment. Obviously his views on Brexit will be an albatross but I can't imagine it'll be the defining issue of the campaign. Because even the limited amount of choice wasn't applied here. There was no genuine application process. It was a classic example of a stitch up. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 19, 2021 16:36:29 GMT
What Labour have done (and in depth analysis backs this up) is hoover up the never Corbyn progressive liberal vote by sheer virtue of getting rid of Corbyn We've made little to no inroads into the Tory vote amd every day that passes the public think less of Starmer Come the next election Labour will probably offer pallid nonsense which won't win over many Tory voters while equally losing us support on the left to apathy and smaller parties on the left, the Tory vote will be shored up by the usual media drivel and the rest is history Net result is no real change may gain a few seats may lose a few, the idea is meant to be that you betray your principles for power not betray them to stand still!!! The current direction is a road to nowhere and even a lot of more moderate members can see it now, if soft left twitter is indicative of anything then Starmer has lost the backbone of his support base in the past month or so. If you can't even win over your own side you have no hope with the public at large But party politics has been very much in abeyance over the last year on account of the Pandemic. The Opposition has been frozen out with the public at large not at all interested in other issues - including Brexit! Until conditions settle down post- pandemic , we don't really have a clear idea as to where the land now lies. That said, polling 36% - 38% is not that bad - particularly when allowance is made for the collapse in Scotland having knocked circa 2% from Labour's GB vote share. This is an excuse. Labour have in any case chosen to slavishly follow the Government line because they think it is popular and currently aren't in the business of trying to change anyone's mind on anything. So what we will get us a vacuous non campaign based on sentimentalising bilge about Our NHS and how the Wicked Tories are going to abolish it. Perhaps it's just me but I've simply grown out of that sort of simplistic stuff. It isn't credible and does not deserve reward. |
|
|
|
Post by ClevelandYorks on Mar 19, 2021 16:41:34 GMT
Why? I think everyone is taking this a bit out of proportion. I would obviously have preferred someone closer to my own views, but Paul Williams gained a neighbouring seat from the Tories in 2017 and is a local GP which can hardly be to his detriment. Obviously his views on Brexit will be an albatross but I can't imagine it'll be the defining issue of the campaign. Because even the limited amount of choice wasn't applied here. There was no genuine application process. It was a classic example of a stitch up. Oh I see, we disagree fundamentally then. I can't say I'm particularly bothered about party 'democracy' – I would much rather the leadership put in place candidates more likely to chime with the general electorate (admittedly this is a bad example) than a limited selectorate of unrepresentative members. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 19, 2021 16:44:09 GMT
Because even the limited amount of choice wasn't applied here. There was no genuine application process. It was a classic example of a stitch up. Oh I see, we disagree fundamentally then. I can't say I'm particularly bothered about party 'democracy' – I would much rather the leadership put in place candidates more likely to chime with the general electorate (admittedly this is a bad example) than a limited selectorate of unrepresentative members. If I wanted democratic centralism and leadership diktat at least let's have some decent policies to go with it. Labour have precisely nothing to offer at the moment and I really hope they lose this by election |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2021 17:18:41 GMT
What Labour have done (and in depth analysis backs this up) is hoover up the never Corbyn progressive liberal vote by sheer virtue of getting rid of Corbyn We've made little to no inroads into the Tory vote amd every day that passes the public think less of Starmer Come the next election Labour will probably offer pallid nonsense which won't win over many Tory voters while equally losing us support on the left to apathy and smaller parties on the left, the Tory vote will be shored up by the usual media drivel and the rest is history Net result is no real change may gain a few seats may lose a few, the idea is meant to be that you betray your principles for power not betray them to stand still!!! The current direction is a road to nowhere and even a lot of more moderate members can see it now, if soft left twitter is indicative of anything then Starmer has lost the backbone of his support base in the past month or so. If you can't even win over your own side you have no hope with the public at large But party politics has been very much in abeyance over the last year on account of the Pandemic. The Opposition has been frozen out with the public at large not at all interested in other issues - including Brexit! Until conditions settle down post- pandemic , we don't really have a clear idea as to where the land now lies. That said, polling 36% - 38% is not that bad - particularly when allowance is made for the collapse in Scotland having knocked circa 2% from Labour's GB vote share. This is especially true in the international context of opposition/minor coalition parties getting destroyed: NZ Labour government re-elected with over 50% of the vote for the first time in several decades Australian Liberals crushed while in opposition in Western Australia, Northern Territories and the ACT, all while showing reasonably good polling nationally Canadian Liberals in BC crushed by the NDP in opposition Worst ever result for the CDU in Rheinland Pfalz and Baden-Württemberg Almost complete destruction of the Dutch left Even if we're losing on current polling the fact that it would still be an improvement on the last election is still better than any other opposition (or minor coalition party) except the NT Liberals or the US Democrats (the latter of which had.....special circumstances) |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 19, 2021 17:31:11 GMT
Because even the limited amount of choice wasn't applied here. There was no genuine application process. It was a classic example of a stitch up. Oh I see, we disagree fundamentally then. I can't say I'm particularly bothered about party 'democracy' – I would much rather the leadership put in place candidates more likely to chime with the general electorate (admittedly this is a bad example) than a limited selectorate of unrepresentative members. People were complaining about the selection being particularly undemocratic. It does. after all, seem utterly implausible for a party with as many members as Labour to have so few people interested in contesting a winnable by-election that the "longlist" consisted of a single candidate. You chimed in saying that you think this is all out of proportion, and you're backing this up by suggesting that giving the local party a say is a bad thing.
There are, however, two big problems with your point of view. Firstly is that imposing a candidate the local party don't want means that they will be reluctant to campaign (even imposing a candidate they don't have a problem with can sometimes produce this effect). And since this by-election looks to be happening on the same day as two years' worth of local elections whilst many covid restrictions are in place, bussing in activists from elsewhere is going to be exceedingly difficult. Secondly is that party members who live and work in a constituency are more likely to know what factors their friends, neighbours, and colleagues take into account than a few national party staffers/NEC members who have little or no connection to the area. In a party like Labour where the national party plays an active role in selection having the local members have the final say is supposed to act as a check against unsuitable candidates being parachuted in. That isn't to say that the system always does what it is supposed to, but not giving the locals any say at all is a very bad precedent to set.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,311
|
Post by maxque on Mar 19, 2021 17:36:48 GMT
Because even the limited amount of choice wasn't applied here. There was no genuine application process. It was a classic example of a stitch up. Oh I see, we disagree fundamentally then. I can't say I'm particularly bothered about party 'democracy' – I would much rather the leadership put in place candidates more likely to chime with the general electorate (admittedly this is a bad example) than a limited selectorate of unrepresentative members. Ah, poster blueUKIP strikes again with his disdain of democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Mar 19, 2021 17:52:19 GMT
Paul Williams is going to go into some sort of Vote UK Hall of Fame for selections that bring out violent agreement across party lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Mar 19, 2021 17:54:43 GMT
I have a suspicion we've not heard the last about Williams's Twitter account: (In case he deletes this one here's a link to a screenshot:  )
Helen Whately. I mean, what an unprofessional thing for a candidate to say. Terrible. etc.
Kate Griffiths (her husband must have been mad...). I completely agree. I'm appalled! |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Mar 19, 2021 17:57:18 GMT
Tories 1/2 on, Labour 13/8. That feels the wrong way round to me; no Tory history here, few Councillors, historically weak. Unless the bookies know that Laura Pidcock will be the Labour candidate in which case the Tory price is generous... Labour's chance of shooting themselves in the foot with the voters is not so much Pidcock, but Dr Paul Williams OBE. Cough. I never knew I was so influential in the Labour Party. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Mar 19, 2021 19:06:49 GMT
... the fact this is heartland Labour Durham held by the party for most of the past 100-years, etc. Don't disagree with the general premise, but I was surprised to see Hartlepool(s) has only been a Labour seat since 1964 and was a Tory seat before 1945 and from '59-64. Does anyone know why this was as AFAIK it was an industrial steel-making town not dissimilar to Redcar at this time? The successful Tory candidate in 1959 was Commander Kerans of Amethyst fame. He did not stand again in 1964. |
|
|
|
Post by ClevelandYorks on Mar 19, 2021 19:11:06 GMT
Oh I see, we disagree fundamentally then. I can't say I'm particularly bothered about party 'democracy' – I would much rather the leadership put in place candidates more likely to chime with the general electorate (admittedly this is a bad example) than a limited selectorate of unrepresentative members. People were complaining about the selection being particularly undemocratic. It does. after all, seem utterly implausible for a party with as many members as Labour to have so few people interested in contesting a winnable by-election that the "longlist" consisted of a single candidate. You chimed in saying that you think this is all out of proportion, and you're backing this up by suggesting that giving the local party a say is a bad thing.
There are, however, two big problems with your point of view. Firstly is that imposing a candidate the local party don't want means that they will be reluctant to campaign (even imposing a candidate they don't have a problem with can sometimes produce this effect). And since this by-election looks to be happening on the same day as two years' worth of local elections whilst many covid restrictions are in place, bussing in activists from elsewhere is going to be exceedingly difficult. Secondly is that party members who live and work in a constituency are more likely to know what factors their friends, neighbours, and colleagues take into account than a few national party staffers/NEC members who have little or no connection to the area. In a party like Labour where the national party plays an active role in selection having the local members have the final say is supposed to act as a check against unsuitable candidates being parachuted in. That isn't to say that the system always does what it is supposed to, but not giving the locals any say at all is a very bad precedent to set.
I will backtrack and admit I was being a bit flippant in the post above due to my irritation with the OTT faux outrage over Williams' selection. In general I agree that local parties should be left to choose their own candidates without interference (this includes getting rid of all-woman shortlists and 'gender zipping'). However, this is purely for instrumental reasons in that it tends to deliver better electoral results (as you have detailed above) rather than any notion of 'party democracy' for its own sake, which I do not believe enhances democracy in general. My point was that I don't think Williams is an awful candidate nor do I think it is particularly morally reprehensible that the party would impose a candidate for a must win by-election with a tight timetable. Yes, it probably would've looked better to leave it to the local party, but the reaction on the left has been disproportionate and I think it mainly stems from the patronising notion that people in Hartlepool won't elect someone with a posh accent born down South despite him being a figure in the local community. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 19, 2021 19:21:51 GMT
People were complaining about the selection being particularly undemocratic. It does. after all, seem utterly implausible for a party with as many members as Labour to have so few people interested in contesting a winnable by-election that the "longlist" consisted of a single candidate. You chimed in saying that you think this is all out of proportion, and you're backing this up by suggesting that giving the local party a say is a bad thing. There are, however, two big problems with your point of view. Firstly is that imposing a candidate the local party don't want means that they will be reluctant to campaign (even imposing a candidate they don't have a problem with can sometimes produce this effect). And since this by-election looks to be happening on the same day as two years' worth of local elections whilst many covid restrictions are in place, bussing in activists from elsewhere is going to be exceedingly difficult. Secondly is that party members who live and work in a constituency are more likely to know what factors their friends, neighbours, and colleagues take into account than a few national party staffers/NEC members who have little or no connection to the area. In a party like Labour where the national party plays an active role in selection having the local members have the final say is supposed to act as a check against unsuitable candidates being parachuted in. That isn't to say that the system always does what it is supposed to, but not giving the locals any say at all is a very bad precedent to set.
I will backtrack and admit I was being a bit flippant in the post above due to my irritation with the OTT faux outrage over Williams' selection. In general I agree that local parties should be left to choose their own candidates without interference (this includes getting rid of all-woman shortlists and 'gender zipping'). However, this is purely for instrumental reasons in that it tends to deliver better electoral results (as you have detailed above) rather than any notion of 'party democracy' for its own sake, which I do not believe enhances democracy in general. My point was that I don't think Williams is an awful candidate nor do I think it is particularly morally reprehensible that the party would impose a candidate for a must win by-election with a tight timetable. Yes, it probably would've looked better to leave it to the local party, but the reaction on the left has been disproportionate and I think it mainly stems from the patronising notion that people in Hartlepool won't elect someone with a posh accent born down South despite him being a figure in the local community. Eh? It's purely down to the lack of democracy and the party selected the timetable. I hope the Tories win. It's the only thing which will cause Starmer and Labour sufficient harm. |
|
|
|
Post by ClevelandYorks on Mar 19, 2021 19:29:04 GMT
I will backtrack and admit I was being a bit flippant in the post above due to my irritation with the OTT faux outrage over Williams' selection. In general I agree that local parties should be left to choose their own candidates without interference (this includes getting rid of all-woman shortlists and 'gender zipping'). However, this is purely for instrumental reasons in that it tends to deliver better electoral results (as you have detailed above) rather than any notion of 'party democracy' for its own sake, which I do not believe enhances democracy in general. My point was that I don't think Williams is an awful candidate nor do I think it is particularly morally reprehensible that the party would impose a candidate for a must win by-election with a tight timetable. Yes, it probably would've looked better to leave it to the local party, but the reaction on the left has been disproportionate and I think it mainly stems from the patronising notion that people in Hartlepool won't elect someone with a posh accent born down South despite him being a figure in the local community. Eh? It's purely down to the lack of democracy and the party selected the timetable. I hope the Tories win. It's the only thing which will cause Starmer and Labour sufficient harm. Corbyn stayed on after Copeland! |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Mar 19, 2021 19:31:35 GMT
As I said this outfit is a magnet for hard left loons. It mostly seems like a Twitter based, Zoomer echo chamber, but could cause a problem for Labour if they take a significant chunk of left-Labour (and Rad Fem) support The Rad Fem vote in Hartlepool . Discuss. |
|
