|
|
Post by lennon on Jun 10, 2016 16:41:16 GMT
Oh yeah he was (is) Progress through and through and all that, but also seemed to have some political nous plus a genuine interest in co-operative ideas. Indeed. However much we like to think that everything is down to external or internal ideology , personalities play a huge part. Reed could probably get everyone onside which restrained the worst excesses of both. Now the lid is off.... Not helped by the influx of Corbyn-voting / Momentum newcomers - which means that the Progress dominated Councillor body have become more inward looking in reaction... |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312 
|
Post by maxque on Jun 10, 2016 18:53:28 GMT
If you want to argue that a far left Labour administration would mean a better-run council, my advice is not to try it in Lambeth of all places. I think Lambeth just need a non dogmatic administration. Not Progress, not Militant, not Momentum, just an united and diverse Labour Party, like it happens in most of the country. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,036
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jun 10, 2016 18:55:09 GMT
That would certainly make a pleasant change. There must be something wrong with the water supply in the borough.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidfrederickson on Jun 11, 2016 17:01:57 GMT
Presumably this is all down to libraries going by what a friend of mine put on Facebook earlier who lives in Gipsy Hill. Seems like Lambeth Labour are returning to type... There was also various allegations that Progress stacked the shortlist, forced a very short election period and said to the branch (which was unwilling to pick any of the shortlisted) that a candidate would be imposed if not. Suspect a big part of the left-wing of the party voted Green in protest (and they can hardly be blamed, if the allegations are true). In other words, stripped of the partisan spin, the faction that lost out in the candidate selection process retaliated by voting against the party. Understandable to some, perhaps, but incomprehensible to old-school activists, and not a happy sign for Labour. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 12, 2016 9:33:38 GMT
Except that if the candidate was effectively imposed on the local party as reported, that does make subsequent events more explainable.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Jun 12, 2016 21:53:13 GMT
Except that if the candidate was effectively imposed on the local party as reported, that does make subsequent events more explainable. The allegation isn't that the candidate was imposed, it's that they were forced to choose between 4 Progress members. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 12, 2016 21:58:39 GMT
If that's who the branch shortlisted, that's who the selection is going to be between.
This isn't the first time Lambeth Momentum have shown themselves to be more a Trot infestation than a Labour faction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 12, 2016 22:05:53 GMT
But if there were only Progress right wingers on the panel to select from....but it does show the quaint tribalism of old style party politics is dying. People just don't feel obliged to vote for someone bearing a party label any more.
I think many people on the left of the Labour party might well have more in common with a Green than a Progress supporter. I dont think a Progress suppirter would share many views with a Corbynite
This is why the old style catch all parties are past their sell by
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 12, 2016 22:17:30 GMT
There isn't a panel for a byelection. It's just self-nomination, (interview if needed), shortlisting and selection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 12, 2016 22:26:24 GMT
That makes their action even more stupid then.....still it's nothing new.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Jun 12, 2016 22:31:19 GMT
If that's who the branch shortlisted, that's who the selection is going to be between. This isn't the first time Lambeth Momentum have shown themselves to be more a Trot infestation than a Labour faction. The allegation is that the "Lambeth Campaign Forum" (which is the part of the CLP dedicated to elect councillors) refused to authorize the non-Progress candidates, due to them giving bad answers to a question about party discipline on the LCF candidate form. Whether that makes sense or not, I'll let that to people knowing Labour workings better than me. In any case, let's remember everyone 70% of the Cabinet are Progress members. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Jun 12, 2016 22:39:12 GMT
This is why the old style catch all parties are past their sell by You've mentioned this on multiple threads now. What I presume you are objecting to is large parties which contain people with quite a number of political, possibly ideological differences within the same party. I would contend that this will still happen (albeit the difference will be narrower) with a load of smaller parties. Even if you were to split the labour party into three, numerous differences would still occur within those groupings. The right of the labour party as it is now is not of one view on civil liberties issues, for example, yet they would still be likely to become a group. The conservatives within each group would also have political differences even if split. I would probably fall under a smaller 'one-nation' style conservative party, and that would be primarily down to economics. Yet there are many in the same party who have completely different view to me on, for instance, health policy as I am very much a libertarian (anti-nanny state) in this area and a lot of this group would be for more paternalistic state intervention. We are never going to get to a situation where everyone will slot comfortably into a party. It just isn't possible, as 60 million people are likely to have almost the same number of unique political viewpoints (if you cover all political issues). Many old-style traditional labour voters who believe in left-wing economics also have very conservative attitudes towards immigration and certain social policies. A number of conservatives on the right of the party economically have very liberal social attitudes and don't like social conservatism. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 12, 2016 22:40:13 GMT
If that's who the branch shortlisted, that's who the selection is going to be between. This isn't the first time Lambeth Momentum have shown themselves to be more a Trot infestation than a Labour faction. The allegation is that the "Lambeth Campaign Forum" (which is the part of the CLP dedicated to elect councillors) refused to authorize the non-Progress candidates, due to them giving bad answers to a question about party discipline on the LCF candidate form. Whether that makes sense or not, I'll let that to people knowing Labour workings better than me. In any case, let's remember everyone 70% of the Cabinet are Progress members. As long as I've been around you always have to answer a question as to whether you will abide by the group whip. Pretty basic stuff really. "Campaign Forums" are the new phrase for the old Local Government Committees and frankly we should go back to the old way. |
|
|
|
Post by froome on Jun 13, 2016 7:19:15 GMT
This is why the old style catch all parties are past their sell by You've mentioned this on multiple threads now. What I presume you are objecting to is large parties which contain people with quite a number of political, possibly ideological differences within the same party. I would contend that this will still happen (albeit the difference will be narrower) with a load of smaller parties. Even if you were to split the labour party into three, numerous differences would still occur within those groupings. The right of the labour party as it is now is not of one view on civil liberties issues, for example, yet they would still be likely to become a group. The conservatives within each group would also have political differences even if split. I would probably fall under a smaller 'one-nation' style conservative party, and that would be primarily down to economics. Yet there are many in the same party who have completely different view to me on, for instance, health policy as I am very much a libertarian (anti-nanny state) in this area and a lot of this group would be for more paternalistic state intervention. We are never going to get to a situation where everyone will slot comfortably into a party. It just isn't possible, as 60 million people are likely to have almost the same number of unique political viewpoints (if you cover all political issues). Many old-style traditional labour voters who believe in left-wing economics also have very conservative attitudes towards immigration and certain social policies. A number of conservatives on the right of the party economically have very liberal social attitudes and don't like social conservatism. While what thirdchill says is undoubtedly true, i.e. that everybody has their own political view and you can't have 60 million parties to represent each one, it is equally true to state that two party politics obviously does not represent the wide range of views in any meaningful way, and that a plethora of parties would be more representative. And the only way to find out what sort of number of parties would do this best is to have a voting system that encouraged it to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 13, 2016 10:13:36 GMT
You shouldn't be failing the party discipline question on the panel, whatever happens. But equally it should be clear that a willingness to express dissent does not constitute failing the question. If you have concerns, it's legitimate to express them internally and to say that you'd seek permission to abstain if it was a particularly ward-critical issue. The answers given to panel questions have to be recorded, so if there are allegations of malpractice it would hardly be complicated to ask the regional office to take a look at it.
That said, I don't think any skulduggery will have had a big impact on the result. Most people are not Labour Party activists. The problem isn't factional infighting, it's Lambeth Labour Group's unwillingness to alter their course when it starts annoying the electorate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 13, 2016 12:24:12 GMT
This is why the old style catch all parties are past their sell by You've mentioned this on multiple threads now. What I presume you are objecting to is large parties which contain people with quite a number of political, possibly ideological differences within the same party. I would contend that this will still happen (albeit the difference will be narrower) with a load of smaller parties. Even if you were to split the labour party into three, numerous differences would still occur within those groupings. The right of the labour party as it is now is not of one view on civil liberties issues, for example, yet they would still be likely to become a group. The conservatives within each group would also have political differences even if split. I would probably fall under a smaller 'one-nation' style conservative party, and that would be primarily down to economics. Yet there are many in the same party who have completely different view to me on, for instance, health policy as I am very much a libertarian (anti-nanny state) in this area and a lot of this group would be for more paternalistic state intervention. We are never going to get to a situation where everyone will slot comfortably into a party. It just isn't possible, as 60 million people are likely to have almost the same number of unique political viewpoints (if you cover all political issues). Many old-style traditional labour voters who believe in left-wing economics also have very conservative attitudes towards immigration and certain social policies. A number of conservatives on the right of the party economically have very liberal social attitudes and don't like social conservatism. But I think the ability of the different wings to live with each other has declined considerably. As has the willingness of people to vote loyally for one of the two blocs. I think more choice would be preferable though I agree that you are unlikely to end up with total agreement. But there would be more than there is now. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 13, 2016 18:31:10 GMT
The allegation is that the "Lambeth Campaign Forum" (which is the part of the CLP dedicated to elect councillors) refused to authorize the non-Progress candidates, due to them giving bad answers to a question about party discipline on the LCF candidate form. Whether that makes sense or not, I'll let that to people knowing Labour workings better than me. In any case, let's remember everyone 70% of the Cabinet are Progress members. As long as I've been around you always have to answer a question as to whether you will abide by the group whip. Pretty basic stuff really. "Campaign Forums" are the new phrase for the old Local Government Committees and frankly we should go back to the old way. In other words I was right and the non Progress candidates weren't approved. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 13, 2016 19:14:48 GMT
As long as I've been around you always have to answer a question as to whether you will abide by the group whip. Pretty basic stuff really. "Campaign Forums" are the new phrase for the old Local Government Committees and frankly we should go back to the old way. In other words I was right and the non Progress candidates weren't approved. But the question is why they weren't approved. If it was because they refused to abide by the whip, that's exactly what should have happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 13, 2016 20:06:21 GMT
This is where I start to think how old fashioned the party is and how if the Labour group are doing what is suggested they really aren't worth voting for.
|
|
