|
Post by stb12 on Jul 8, 2022 19:33:30 GMT
Yes what I’m getting at is I’m not just trying to be contrary with it I genuinely don’t see why the membership having a vote on the national leader really matters that much, it seems to me to be a club fee for a few access perks and a vote on local candidates not anything that significant. I’m not making out MPs are anything special or more intelligent but they’re the ones that ultimately need to work with the leader daily and them choosing makes sense I get the nomination process is meant to mitigate any huge variances but it didn’t stop Boris and Corbyn getting in when so much of the parliamentary parties clearly disliked them I can't see any point in being a member if you can't even have any input into choosing the party leader But it was that way for a long time, Labour introduced a membership vote earlier than the Tories but it was only in the 80s I think? Anyway like me you’re no longer interested in parties!
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 8, 2022 19:38:20 GMT
If that’s the case it makes me feel even more certain in my opinion that party members should not be involved in electing a leader (Tories and Labour I mean) Choosing the next PM or possible next PM should really be a responsibility taken seriously Why isn't letting the membership decide "taking it seriously". I think the Conservative party membership will tend to pick the candidate most likely to win the election. We have a Parliamentary system, which means essentially it is wholly in the power of any party with a majority to pick the leader by any means they deem suitable. I think ours is a good system that gives members power whilst preventing a Corbyn type situation. As it turned out, choosing Johnson created a Corbyn type situation.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 8, 2022 19:42:20 GMT
I can't see any point in being a member if you can't even have any input into choosing the party leader But it was that way for a long time, Labour introduced a membership vote earlier than the Tories but it was only in the 80s I think? Anyway like me you’re no longer interested in parties! party membership is only a recent thing though. For a long time there wasn't a central membership list and people didn't pay subs to enjoy perks like to vote for candidates, etc. Membership was through affiliates and labour clubs. It's actually hard to track membership levels back that far. It's thought that millions were members of both parties mainly because of people's membership of conservative and labour clubs.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 8, 2022 19:46:46 GMT
a large number of people aren't a member of any party and assume not affiliated. They still think members should pick Yes what I’m getting at is I’m not just trying to be contrary with it I genuinely don’t see why the membership having a vote on the national leader really matters that much, it seems to me to be a club fee for a few access perks and a vote on local candidates not anything that significant. I’m not making out MPs are anything special or more intelligent but they’re the ones that ultimately need to work with the leader daily and them choosing makes sense I get the nomination process is meant to mitigate any huge variances but it didn’t stop Boris and Corbyn getting in when so much of the parliamentary parties clearly disliked them the irony is that the nomination threshold was supposed to be higher but was lowered by the right of the party for fear it'd prevent their candidates. Which tbf was a legitimate fear, the new threshold would have prevented Liz Kendall and Jess Phillips from getting through the MPs nomination process
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jul 8, 2022 19:51:58 GMT
Yes what I’m getting at is I’m not just trying to be contrary with it I genuinely don’t see why the membership having a vote on the national leader really matters that much, it seems to me to be a club fee for a few access perks and a vote on local candidates not anything that significant. I’m not making out MPs are anything special or more intelligent but they’re the ones that ultimately need to work with the leader daily and them choosing makes sense I get the nomination process is meant to mitigate any huge variances but it didn’t stop Boris and Corbyn getting in when so much of the parliamentary parties clearly disliked them the irony is that the nomination threshold was supposed to be higher but was lowered by the right of the party for fear it'd prevent their candidates. Which tbf was a legitimate fear, the new threshold would have prevented Liz Kendall and Jess Phillips from getting through the MPs nomination process A weakness of the Labour system was probably the whole 2016 challenge as much as anything, the fact that Corbyn could stand in another leadership election with 0 nominations made it impossible for MPs to express their no-confidence and have it mean anything. The Tories have at least been able to get rid of Boris despite all his resistance
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Jul 8, 2022 20:02:05 GMT
Why isn't letting the membership decide "taking it seriously". I think the Conservative party membership will tend to pick the candidate most likely to win the election. We have a Parliamentary system, which means essentially it is wholly in the power of any party with a majority to pick the leader by any means they deem suitable. I think ours is a good system that gives members power whilst preventing a Corbyn type situation. As it turned out, choosing Johnson created a Corbyn type situation. Apart from the merciful fact we managed to get rid of him whereas labour didn't then lost 2 general elections in a row.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 8, 2022 20:04:32 GMT
the irony is that the nomination threshold was supposed to be higher but was lowered by the right of the party for fear it'd prevent their candidates. Which tbf was a legitimate fear, the new threshold would have prevented Liz Kendall and Jess Phillips from getting through the MPs nomination process A weakness of the Labour system was probably the whole 2016 challenge as much as anything, the fact that Corbyn could stand in another leadership election with 0 nominations made it impossible for MPs to express their no-confidence and have it mean anything. The Tories have at least been able to get rid of Boris despite all his resistance I mean there was literally a court case to decide this. People tried to stop Corbyn from standing by taking him to court and arguing he should not be allowed to stand for this very reason. They did not win that argument
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 8, 2022 20:05:08 GMT
As it turned out, choosing Johnson created a Corbyn type situation. Apart from the merciful fact we managed to get rid of him whereas labour didn't then lost 2 general elections in a row. tbf you'd probably have won the next election with Boris
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 8, 2022 20:05:43 GMT
As it turned out, choosing Johnson created a Corbyn type situation. Apart from the merciful fact we managed to get rid of him whereas labour didn't then lost 2 general elections in a row. .....but now, even if Labour are the biggest party, is there really any point in voting for them given they have so little to offer?
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jul 8, 2022 20:07:43 GMT
A weakness of the Labour system was probably the whole 2016 challenge as much as anything, the fact that Corbyn could stand in another leadership election with 0 nominations made it impossible for MPs to express their no-confidence and have it mean anything. The Tories have at least been able to get rid of Boris despite all his resistance I mean there was literally a court case to decide this. People tried to stop Corbyn from standing by taking him to court and arguing he should not be allowed to stand for this very reason. They did not win that argument Yes I remember, the rules should have clearly allowed for that situation
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 8, 2022 20:13:38 GMT
As it turned out, choosing Johnson created a Corbyn type situation. Apart from the merciful fact we managed to get rid of him whereas labour didn't then lost 2 general elections in a row. You haven't quite managed it though , have you. The scope for damage in the next couple of months is immense. I don't have to answer for Labour, fortunately
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 8, 2022 20:20:26 GMT
a large number of people aren't a member of any party and assume not affiliated. They still think members should pick Yes what I’m getting at is I’m not just trying to be contrary with it I genuinely don’t see why the membership having a vote on the national leader really matters that much, it seems to me to be a club fee for a few access perks and a vote on local candidates not anything that significant. I’m not making out MPs are anything special or more intelligent but they’re the ones that ultimately need to work with the leader daily and them choosing makes sense Most membership organisations allow the members to elect the person or committee that leads the organisation. I don't see why a political party would be any different in that respect. In my experience most active grassroots party members - across parties - take the view that the party belongs to its members rather than its leaders (though the sentiment seems to be weaker in the Conservatives), and would vehemently object to rule changes that denied them any part in the selection of a party leader.
It's also worth noting that the majority of parties which are currently represented in Parliament have leaders who are not MPs. Yes, in parties with large numbers of MPs it makes sense for them to have an oversized influence on who the leader is. But a party will have serious problems if the party leader is somebody who is disliked by the grassroots members (and particularly if they are disliked by the grassroots activists). Having a members' vote as part of the leadership process makes it extremely difficult to select a leader who will cause the activists to refuse to campaign at election time.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,244
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 8, 2022 20:37:41 GMT
Sorry to disrupt the discussion, but has anybody defected to somebody?
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,841
|
Post by jamie on Jul 8, 2022 20:39:54 GMT
Sorry to disrupt the discussion, but has anybody defected to somebody? This is the Forum Defections thread, of course we’re not discussing the defection of a fellow poster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2022 0:48:15 GMT
Why isn't letting the membership decide "taking it seriously". I think the Conservative party membership will tend to pick the candidate most likely to win the election. We have a Parliamentary system, which means essentially it is wholly in the power of any party with a majority to pick the leader by any means they deem suitable. I think ours is a good system that gives members power whilst preventing a Corbyn type situation. I get what you’re meaning and the Conservative’s system is more limited but I do wonder how many MPs nominated Boris because the party membership would have been furious at him being denied the final two? It’s clear that there’s always been a great uncertainty about him from all wings of the parliamentary party and him getting in was a mixture of desperation over Brexit and grassroots pressure Voting for IDS over Ken Clarke in the 2001 contest seems like clearly a bad decision the Tory membership made as well I think long term the membership went for the right choice; for the party and by extension for the country. The membership did not want Ken Clarke. If he had become leader the party would probably have split and (from my perspective) that would've been a bad thing for the country, as we need an overarching centre right party that is electorally viable. The choice of the final two was not good, but that's down to the MPs. It meant we had a torrid couple of years but it was overcome. The fallout from a Clarke leadership could have been terminal. I think the wider party membership is guided by certain policy priorities but is willing to be pragmatic, and Cameron's victory was putting electability first. Boris, as it turned out, was a good decision for electoral prospects and overcoming the deadlock in Parliament which the country as a whole was thoroughly sick of. Although I didn't vote for him myself he lead the party out the other side of that mess, when a good few commentators were saying the party was dooming itself. I'm not sure anyone else could have done that. Of course some of the above is luck rather than foresight and grand strategy, but the party lives to fight another day, and from the position of being in government. That means it's been successful.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 9, 2022 10:09:01 GMT
I had a friend who was a Tory wet. He voted for IDS over Ken because he believed Ken's support for the EU would be too europhalic for the British public at large
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jul 9, 2022 10:13:04 GMT
I get what you’re meaning and the Conservative’s system is more limited but I do wonder how many MPs nominated Boris because the party membership would have been furious at him being denied the final two? It’s clear that there’s always been a great uncertainty about him from all wings of the parliamentary party and him getting in was a mixture of desperation over Brexit and grassroots pressure Voting for IDS over Ken Clarke in the 2001 contest seems like clearly a bad decision the Tory membership made as well I think long term the membership went for the right choice; for the party and by extension for the country. The membership did not want Ken Clarke. If he had become leader the party would probably have split and (from my perspective) that would've been a bad thing for the country, as we need an overarching centre right party that is electorally viable. The choice of the final two was not good, but that's down to the MPs. It meant we had a torrid couple of years but it was overcome. The fallout from a Clarke leadership could have been terminal. I think the wider party membership is guided by certain policy priorities but is willing to be pragmatic, and Cameron's victory was putting electability first. Boris, as it turned out, was a good decision for electoral prospects and overcoming the deadlock in Parliament which the country as a whole was thoroughly sick of. Although I didn't vote for him myself he lead the party out the other side of that mess, when a good few commentators were saying the party was dooming itself. I'm not sure anyone else could have done that. Of course some of the above is luck rather than foresight and grand strategy, but the party lives to fight another day, and from the position of being in government. That means it's been successful. If the EU issue really was that big for the party even then then fair enough but would you at least admit in an overall sense Clarke would have been a more competent leader?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,531
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 9, 2022 10:34:45 GMT
Yes but this is a simplistic analysis, Clarke was simply not right for the Tories *at the time*. In retrospect, of course, they should probably have picked Portillo. But that's another story again
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2022 11:08:30 GMT
Clarke would have been a more competent leader, yes. But that doesn’t really matter if the majority of the party can’t put up with one of your defining political tenets.
Portillo was the better candidate in that sense. He had some of the potential leadership qualities that Clarke had, but was Eurosceptic like IDS.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 9, 2022 11:25:08 GMT
Yes but this is a simplistic analysis, Clarke was simply not right for the Tories *at the time*. In retrospect, of course, they should probably have picked Portillo. But that's another story again
|
|