|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 19, 2015 9:00:52 GMT
I would also argue that Labour branches tend to have more people with voting rights- Conservative associations in particular are stuffed with members who only pay a fiver so they can join the Con Club and don't have any voting rights. Therefore, deselections are less common because there are fewer people with voting rights, and therefore a smaller number of people control the selection. That's not a bad thing, but that tends to be the case. There are loads of Conservative affiliates, but very few have real power. Can you imagine if membership of the Primrose League,Monday Club, Tory Reform Group or having a subscription to Right Now! allowed you an extra vote? Chaos. PS: Bring back the Primrose League. Dearie me, the three of you are having fun here aren't you? however, and in the spirit of discussion only.  Labour branches tend to have more people with voting rights... er, no they don't . To vote in a ward councillor selection you have to be an individual member of the party and that's it. It's perfectly true that in certain areas there may be a lot of people who are members of a union or the Fabian Society etc but it doesn't entitle them to an extra vote. You're right that the Tory party used to pad out its membership figures with people who joined the Con club, but I suspect it is equally true that in certain areas there are lots of members who are farmers or members of the Adam Smith institute etc. It's not really that different at all. Everyone sees other people's "vested interests" and never their own. I should have a bit clearer, I was making two points and conflating them! My first point was meant to be more that Labour branches tend to have more real activists. The second point was more to do with leadership elections etc. You'd be amazed at how many Conservative members, when pushed, refused to accept voting rights because it would cost them more money. And maybe less surprised to know that, until recently at least, the "lady associate" category still existed. |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 19, 2015 9:03:06 GMT
Dearie me, the three of you are having fun here aren't you? however, and in the spirit of discussion only. How's it work in Labour - are approvals controlled at a CLP, branch or regional level (with then selections at a branch level, presumably)? In my local party, approvals are at a local party level and selections at branch. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,427
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 19, 2015 10:21:55 GMT
Dearie me, the three of you are having fun here aren't you? however, and in the spirit of discussion only. How's it work in Labour - are approvals controlled at a CLP, branch or regional level (with then selections at a branch level, presumably)? In my local party, approvals are at a local party level and selections at branch. Local Labour parties can operate either via all-member meetings or branches. Each has an executive and some additional functional officers. At local level, a panel is established for each council area of candidates accepted - there are representatives from the borough and from a neighbouring borough who do the vetting and accepting under the watch of the regional office. The panel names are then passed down to the CLP's who organise local selections - either according to branch organisation, or by assembling those able to vote for each candidate ie those who live in each council ward. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 19, 2015 11:55:08 GMT
It's also commonly the case that where you can't get a quorate meeting of ward members, members of the CLP exec also have a vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 19, 2015 19:52:58 GMT
I think in Labour's case, the very nature of their party's setup mean there are many more obvious vested interests to keep happy (all the affiliates etc.) which just isn't the case in other parties. The sheer level of deselection in Labour never fails to astound me (though interestingly it's far far rarer at parliamentary level which does point to me that double standards do come into play to the detriment of Labour councillors). Labour is also incredibly tribal, as Andy mentions above. Any sniff of disloyalty presumably earns you a lifetime of opprobrium (as an example, look at how many of them maintain a folk memory of Ramsay Macdonald). I served on a school governing body with both Labour and Conservative nominees. When we met elsewhere we would, quite reasonably, chat. Labour nominees told me subsequently that "words had been said" about their fraternising with me. No such issue emerged from the Conservatives. Just saying. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785 
|
Post by john07 on Feb 19, 2015 20:09:29 GMT
I think in Labour's case, the very nature of their party's setup mean there are many more obvious vested interests to keep happy (all the affiliates etc.) which just isn't the case in other parties. The sheer level of deselection in Labour never fails to astound me (though interestingly it's far far rarer at parliamentary level which does point to me that double standards do come into play to the detriment of Labour councillors). I would also argue that Labour branches tend to have more people with voting rights- Conservative associations in particular are stuffed with members who only pay a fiver so they can join the Con Club and don't have any voting rights. Therefore, deselections are less common because there are fewer people with voting rights, and therefore a smaller number of people control the selection. That's not a bad thing, but that tends to be the case. There are loads of Conservative affiliates, but very few have real power. Can you imagine if membership of the Primrose League,Monday Club, Tory Reform Group or having a subscription to Right Now! allowed you an extra vote? Chaos. PS: Bring back the Primrose League. The issue of members with voting rights was an issue when I was in Cheadle CLP. Those who joined the Labour Club had the option to pay full party fees on top of their club subscription and have full voting rights or pay half subscription and become 'social members' with no voting rights. Then out of the blue at a club AGM this distinction was abolished and all club members had to pay full party subs. I think the the motion was proposed and voted through by those under the impression that they were removing the party subs completely. It had the effect of doubling the membership overnight! Back in my day my father was a member of the Conservative Party because he played snooker at Cheadle Hulme Conservative Club and he never voted for them in his life. There were few less 'political' organisations than Conservative Clubs back in the 1950s. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by john07 on Feb 19, 2015 20:18:44 GMT
I would agree with others about affiliates having zero input at Branch or Ward level. That was always where local election candidates were selected or deselected.
Affiliates, particularly the largess unions might have significant influence at Constituency level or District Party level. They certainly did in Coventry, largely supporting the right against the left.
At ward level I do recall the kid brother of one of my pals turning up at Cheadle CLP as delegate from the (then) afflicted Fire Brigades Union. He was encouraged by his union branch to attend ward meetings as well. Other than that there was little or no influence from the Unions.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 20, 2015 8:07:54 GMT
I would agree with others about affiliates having zero input at Branch or Ward level. That was always where local election candidates were selected or deselected. Affiliates, particularly the largess unions might have significant influence at Constituency level or District Party level. They certainly did in Coventry, largely supporting the right against the left. At ward level I do recall the kid brother of one of my pals turning up at Cheadle CLP as delegate from the (then) afflicted Fire Brigades Union. He was encouraged by his union branch to attend ward meetings as well. Other than that there was little or no influence from the Unions. Freudian slip or typo? |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Feb 20, 2015 8:20:32 GMT
Labour nominees told me subsequently that "words had been said" about their fraternising with me. No such issue emerged from the Conservatives. Just saying. Probably just that particular labour branch. Other ones don't behave like this (fortunately). Pretty pathetic, nonetheless. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by john07 on Feb 20, 2015 23:22:52 GMT
I would agree with others about affiliates having zero input at Branch or Ward level. That was always where local election candidates were selected or deselected. Affiliates, particularly the largess unions might have significant influence at Constituency level or District Party level. They certainly did in Coventry, largely supporting the right against the left. At ward level I do recall the kid brother of one of my pals turning up at Cheadle CLP as delegate from the (then) afflicted Fire Brigades Union. He was encouraged by his union branch to attend ward meetings as well. Other than that there was little or no influence from the Unions. Freudian slip or typo? Probably both. I was typing on an East Coast train from London. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,011
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 21, 2015 4:43:49 GMT
Labour nominees told me subsequently that "words had been said" about their fraternising with me. No such issue emerged from the Conservatives. Just saying. Probably just that particular labour branch. Other ones don't behave like this (fortunately). Pretty pathetic, nonetheless. A Labour councillor in Liverpool was hauled over the coals by Big Joe a couple of years ago for having one of my fellow Lib Dems on Portsmouth City Council as a friend on Facebook. This was only because he is a Lib Dem. They're still Facebook friends... |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,427
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 21, 2015 16:50:07 GMT
Probably just that particular labour branch. Other ones don't behave like this (fortunately). Pretty pathetic, nonetheless. A Labour councillor in Liverpool was hauled over the coals by Big Joe a couple of years ago for having one of my fellow Lib Dems on Portsmouth City Council as a friend on Facebook. This was only because he is a Lib Dem. They're still Facebook friends... Seriously? Would be intrigued to know who... |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,011
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 21, 2015 18:10:01 GMT
A Labour councillor in Liverpool was hauled over the coals by Big Joe a couple of years ago for having one of my fellow Lib Dems on Portsmouth City Council as a friend on Facebook. This was only because he is a Lib Dem. They're still Facebook friends... Seriously? Would be intrigued to know who... Yep. They were at a young councillors event myself and my colleague were at too. I'm not sure which one it was, there were a few from Liverpool there. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,427
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 21, 2015 21:32:08 GMT
Could have been Jake Morrison who fell out with the Blairite hierarchy and went independent.
|
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Feb 21, 2015 22:27:11 GMT
Probably just that particular labour branch. Other ones don't behave like this (fortunately). Pretty pathetic, nonetheless. A Labour councillor in Liverpool was hauled over the coals by Big Joe a couple of years ago for having one of my fellow Lib Dems on Portsmouth City Council as a friend on Facebook. This was only because he is a Lib Dem. They're still Facebook friends... Well it's liverpool labour. Doesn't need any further explanation. Should have perhaps said 'Some others' or 'Most others' don't behave like that. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,011
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 22, 2015 2:30:47 GMT
Could have been Jake Morrison who fell out with the Blairite hierarchy and went independent. No, it definitely wasn't him. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,427
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 22, 2015 15:59:12 GMT
Could have been Jake Morrison who fell out with the Blairite hierarchy and went independent. No, it definitely wasn't him. James Roberts? |
|
