steve
Member
Posts: 12,682
|
Post by steve on May 13, 2022 14:35:20 GMT
When asked if Johnson would be apologising to Zaghari-Ratcliffe ( following his stupid and irresponsible off the cuff remarks that have the Iranian regime the excuse to detain her for an extra four years), a spokesperson for the prime minister said:
"I think it is important to remember that it was the Iranian government who were responsible for her unfair detention, and the decision to release her was always in their gift. However, I would point back to the prime minister’s words, his answers to questions on this before and he has previously apologised for his comments in 2017."
So that would be a no then Spaffer has in reality never apologised for his failures in any venture provided its other people that suffered.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on May 13, 2022 15:00:37 GMT
As I understand it, the vote to determine the Labour candidate for Wakefield will go ahead on Sunday and the winner will be determined by the votes of all Wakefield CLP members. From a shortlist of two where Labour rules for by elections state 3 local representatives on the vetting panel, one NEC and one Regional. So Labour broke standing rules by only having one local representative and 3 from national NEC. This also comes after Starmer had tweeted (I think around the time of the leadership election) that he would put back the power for choosing candidates into the hands of local parties and stop NEC imposed shortlists. /photo/1 Will the voters of Wakefield car? Probably not but it does mean that Labour go into the election having to defend not picking a "local" candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on May 13, 2022 15:05:03 GMT
shevii Labour constituency parties particularly those dominated by the left always appeared to have a knack when forming circular firing squads. ... and Croydon dominated by the Labour "right"? |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 13, 2022 15:52:35 GMT
As I understand it, the vote to determine the Labour candidate for Wakefield will go ahead on Sunday and the winner will be determined by the votes of all Wakefield CLP members. From a shortlist of two where Labour rules for by elections state 3 local representatives on the vetting panel, one NEC and one Regional. So Labour broke standing rules by only having one local representative and 3 from national NEC. This also comes after Starmer had tweeted (I think around the time of the leadership election) that he would put back the power for choosing candidates into the hands of local parties and stop NEC imposed shortlists. /photo/1 Will the voters of Wakefield car? Probably not but it does mean that Labour go into the election having to defend not picking a "local" candidate. If the rules have not been complied with , might there not be a basis for a legal challenge here? This is not good news - and rather adds to the sense that Starmer lacks a political brain. There has to be a serious risk that Wakefield turns out to be the third by election he has messed up - following Hartlepool and Batley & Spen last year.There is more than a whiff of political corruption here, and it would be entirely understandable were local activists to wash their hands of the Labour campaign - or even quietly support other candidates such as a Green or Labour Independent of some kind.Perhaps - after all - the interests of the party would be well served by Starmer receiving a FPN.
|
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on May 13, 2022 15:56:13 GMT
pjw, my theory on YG is that they have more respondents who just go with the temporary zeitgest. So FPNs issued and they say Labour then Beergate in the news last weekend and they switch, Starmer says he would resign and they move back etc. Typically imo these are non voters who feel obliged to respond for their vouchers. The recent YG might just be regular moe though. I'm only 4 polls away from YG vouchers but I can't remember the last time they asked me a question about my polling intentions. It must be at least 6 months ago. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by domjg on May 13, 2022 16:56:05 GMT
From a shortlist of two where Labour rules for by elections state 3 local representatives on the vetting panel, one NEC and one Regional. So Labour broke standing rules by only having one local representative and 3 from national NEC. This also comes after Starmer had tweeted (I think around the time of the leadership election) that he would put back the power for choosing candidates into the hands of local parties and stop NEC imposed shortlists. /photo/1 Will the voters of Wakefield car? Probably not but it does mean that Labour go into the election having to defend not picking a "local" candidate. If the rules have not been complied with , might there not be a basis for a legal challenge here? This is not good news - and rather adds to the sense that Starmer lacks a political brain. There has to be a serious risk that Wakefield turns out to be the third by election he has messed up - following Hartlepool and Batley & Spen last year.There is more than a whiff of political corruption here, and it would be entirely understandable were local activists to wash their hands of the Labour campaign - or even quietly support other candidates such as a Green or Labour Independent of some kind.Perhaps - after all - the interests of the party would be well served by Starmer receiving a FPN.
If any local activists were to 'wash their hands' of anything and support other candidates in reality there's only one candidate they're supporting and that's the Tory. Do you actually have any interest in Labour winning elections or are you just happy for it to be a playground for the power dramas of some to the detriment of the rest of us? |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 13, 2022 16:58:46 GMT
If the rules have not been complied with , might there not be a basis for a legal challenge here? This is not good news - and rather adds to the sense that Starmer lacks a political brain. There has to be a serious risk that Wakefield turns out to be the third by election he has messed up - following Hartlepool and Batley & Spen last year.There is more than a whiff of political corruption here, and it would be entirely understandable were local activists to wash their hands of the Labour campaign - or even quietly support other candidates such as a Green or Labour Independent of some kind.Perhaps - after all - the interests of the party would be well served by Starmer receiving a FPN.
If any local activists were to 'wash their hands' of anything and support other candidates in reality there's only one candidate they're supporting and that's the Tory. Do you actually have any interest in Labour winning elections or are you just happy for it to be a playground for the power dramas of some to the detriment of the rest of us? I suggest that is a question to be addressed to those seeking to stitch up the selection process. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on May 13, 2022 17:05:45 GMT
Graham, the same procedure has been applied in the recent 3 By-Elections since conference and no-one said anything as the rule change has not been executed yet and does not apply.
NB) Simon Lightwood is from and lives in Wakefield and worked for Mary Creagh. He lives in Wakefield but just outside the constituency.
Wakefield is too big to have a single seat covering the whole of the city.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,590
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 13, 2022 17:16:02 GMT
I know it's meaningless, but for the record the Conservatives lost seats in both LG by-elections held yesterday:
Peacehaven West (Lewes) council by-election result:
LAB: 54.2% (+54.2)
CON: 40.4% (+14.3)
GRN: 2.7% (-14.9)
No Ind (-21.4) and UKIP (-18.4) as prev.
Votes cast: 1,182
Chgs. w/ 2019.
Labour GAIN from Conservative
Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford (Waverley) council by-election result:
IND: 42.1% (+42.1)
CON: 30.3% (-19.8)
GRN: 27.6% (-5.6)
No Lab (-16.7) as prev.
Votes cast: 1,169
Chgs. w/ 2019
Independent GAIN from Conservative.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 13, 2022 17:45:18 GMT
I know it's meaningless, but for the record the Conservatives lost seats in both LG by-elections held yesterday: Peacehaven West (Lewes) council by-election result: LAB: 54.2% (+54.2) CON: 40.4% (+14.3) GRN: 2.7% (-14.9) No Ind (-21.4) and UKIP (-18.4) as prev. Votes cast: 1,182 Chgs. w/ 2019. Labour GAIN from Conservative Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford (Waverley) council by-election result: IND: 42.1% (+42.1) CON: 30.3% (-19.8) GRN: 27.6% (-5.6) No Lab (-16.7) as prev. Votes cast: 1,169 Chgs. w/ 2019 Independent GAIN from Conservative. Of course, these are exactly the sort of local council by-election results that I think have both real credibility and long term implications for national politics. 😉😁👍 |
|
|
|
Post by jib on May 13, 2022 18:04:20 GMT
If any local activists were to 'wash their hands' of anything and support other candidates in reality there's only one candidate they're supporting and that's the Tory. Do you actually have any interest in Labour winning elections or are you just happy for it to be a playground for the power dramas of some to the detriment of the rest of us? I suggest that is a question to be addressed to those seeking to stitch up the selection process. The last stand of the Momentum left? The sooner Labour ejects these parasites into the toilet bowl the better. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 13, 2022 18:29:17 GMT
I suggest that is a question to be addressed to those seeking to stitch up the selection process. The last stand of the Momentum left? The sooner Labour ejects these parasites into the toilet bowl the better. You put it more luridly than I would, but I understand the sentiment. In fairness to a lot of the posters on this forum who regularly criticise Starmer's leadership, they are people who either don't vote or, if I understand them correctly, sometimes support parties who fight Labour in elections. That's a reasonable and honourable position to take, although quite why they are so obsessed with a party that they clearly don't support or help to get elected is somewhat of a mystery. But why someone who has Labour's best interests at heart and who might even be a member of the party would want to undermine its electoral prospects, is inexplicable. Starmer was elected by a clear majority of members and appears to be gaining traction for both his party and his potential premiership in the polls. Most members are behind him and he's reclaiming some lost support for the party. He's sort of doing OK and might well rid us of the Tories in time. He's not a Messiah nor an irresistible political personality but he's assembled a reasonable team who might well surprise with the radical policies that they put before the electorate come general election time. They've got to be better than the current government, haven't they?? I don't get the Owen Jones bile, I really don't, nor some of this Momentum unfriendly fire. One can only conclude that they don't want Starmer to win. Question though, in our binary electoral system. If Starmer and Labour don't win, who does? Well, yes, exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on May 13, 2022 18:34:17 GMT
If any local activists were to 'wash their hands' of anything and support other candidates in reality there's only one candidate they're supporting and that's the Tory. Do you actually have any interest in Labour winning elections or are you just happy for it to be a playground for the power dramas of some to the detriment of the rest of us? I've got respect for someone who has voted Labour under every leader be it Foot, Blair, Corbyn or Starmer (I'd have to as that would be my wife!) but I don't think this simplistic "letting the Tories in" is a particularly valid point. It's down to any leader to appeal to a range of political views and get some broad coalition of voters on their side. Starmer was voted in specifically on a party unity ticket to bridge the gap between left and right. He should have been the man who appealed enough to both "sides" of the Labour political spectrum with a combination of the popular bits of Corbyn (ditching the unpopular or confusing) and the reality of needing soft Tory votes. Instead he's done the complete opposite with the purges and interference in selected constituencies with very clear evidence this has been done on a factional basis. Has everyone had their twitter accounts trawled through or just the left wing ones? If you want the so called "Corbynista" vote then you don't suspend him against natural justice. If you want the Amnesty International or Stop the War votes then you show a bit of nuance in your positioning, take a more even stance on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and so on. He needs to make some sort of offer to left voters rather than just the offer of "get the Tories out" and people don't tend to think you're on their side if you are purging and taking every opportunity to trash every aspect of the former leader. I(t's down to Starmer if left wing voters don't vote for him despite the current Tory government. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 13, 2022 18:48:50 GMT
Hi shevii I've only ever voted Labour (Blair/Brown/Miliband/Corbyn and will vote for the Party with Starmer as leader in the GE), campaigned for Labour until I had children and agree with what you write. KS is in danger of pushing natural Labour voters away - or not mobilising them. As I and other's have commented before he needs to get the balance correct between appealing to the left and the centre. However, I think some are in danger of overblowing what just happened in Wakefield. All parties and leaders have issues such as this from time to time.
|
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on May 13, 2022 19:16:46 GMT
A successful party leader's prime objective has to be to do whatever is needed to get his party elected, so that they can actually get to do whatever they've promised.
Recent past Labour leaders self evidently failed and many voters who are needed to support a winning party were disaffected by previous incumbents. Whether that was fair or not is beside the point.
Starmer has to position the party where it is attractive to the most voters in the relevant constituencies where the gains necessary will be achieved.
If you think about it a lot of ex-Labour voters from previous elections voted Tory in 2019 and part of their reasoning may have been that they felt Labour were too left wing, whether that was incorrect, again, is beside the point. In order to pull some of those voters back into the Labour fold it has to be seen as trashing the previous leadership and offering something less radical. In essence it may mean going further to the right in order to gain those swing seats.
Left wingers may find that unpalatable but it's probably the only way we'll rid the country of a Tory government. In some ways I almost wish Nicola would tell her supporters to vote Labour at the GE in order to give us all a better chance of getting rid of the Tories.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnC on May 13, 2022 19:33:10 GMT
Also here in The Guardian: www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/13/wakefield-labour-executive-resigns-accusing-keir-starmer-byelection-stich-up"Starmer’s predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, also faced accusations of stitching up local selections in order to place favoured candidates in winnable seats." It looks like nothing ever changes in the Labour party. I suspect that if people dug back in history we could find the same accusations levelled against Blair and Kinnock. I seem to remember that the late Jack Dromey was parachuted into a seat that was supposed to have an all-woman shortlist. Just out of interest, if someone socially transitions from man to woman, can they be included on an all-woman shortlist? |
|
patrickbrian
Member
These things seem small and undistinguishable, like far off mountains turned into clouds
Posts: 316
|
Post by patrickbrian on May 13, 2022 19:33:41 GMT
I think I'm marginally more likely to vote labour post- Wakefield. Haven't a clue how the Wakefield voters will think about it though. Some loss and some gain I expect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2022 19:37:33 GMT
I've never understood the logic that dictates a political party should represent the views of people who didn't vote for it, and ignore the people who did.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by domjg on May 13, 2022 19:56:51 GMT
I've never understood the logic that dictates a political party should represent the views of people who didn't vote for it, and ignore the people who did.
Strangely this rule only ever seems to apply to the Labour Party
If a party needs more support then obviously it has to make itself appeal to those who didn't vote for it last time. It's only on getting into power via that extra support that it will actually be in a position to 'represent' those who always voted for it anyway. Politics, especially with our dysfunctional system, is compromise all the way. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnC on May 13, 2022 20:03:51 GMT
I've never understood the logic that dictates a political party should represent the views of people who didn't vote for it, and ignore the people who did.
Surely a political party has to appeal to both those who habitually vote for it as well as those who don't to be successful? Was that not a lesson of the 2019 election? |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 13, 2022 20:11:19 GMT
I've never understood the logic that dictates a political party should represent the views of people who didn't vote for it, and ignore the people who did.
Strangely this rule only ever seems to apply to the Labour Party
If a party needs more support then obviously it has to make itself appeal to those who didn't vote for it last time. It's only on getting into power via that extra support that it will actually be in a position to 'represent' those who always voted for it anyway. Politics, especially with our dysfunctional system, is compromise all the way. That rather assumes that the voters remain in the same place though. I have always believed that Labour would have won the 1997 election with a reprise of its 1992 manifesto. In the intervening years the electorate had moved away from the Tories and the acceptance of the Thatcherite settlement - and were ready for a more radical change than Blair was inclined to give them. The landslide majority would not have happened , but much of the later disillusionment might well have been avoided. I would not suggest that Labour fight the 2023/24 GE on a 2019 style programme - but it needs to be to the left of what Milliband was offering in 2015. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2022 20:40:56 GMT
crossbat11“ He's not a Messiah” No, he’s not. He is, as Graham explained to you, a very naughty boy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2022 20:41:44 GMT
Also here in The Guardian: www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/13/wakefield-labour-executive-resigns-accusing-keir-starmer-byelection-stich-up"Starmer’s predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, also faced accusations of stitching up local selections in order to place favoured candidates in winnable seats." It looks like nothing ever changes in the Labour party. I suspect that if people dug back in history we could find the same accusations levelled against Blair and Kinnock. I seem to remember that the late Jack Dromey was parachuted into a seat that was supposed to have an all-woman shortlist. Just out of interest, if someone socially transitions from man to woman, can they be included on an all-woman shortlist? Is this something you fancy then? |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on May 13, 2022 20:58:34 GMT
JC, ''Just out of interest, if someone socially transitions from man to woman, can they be included on an all-woman shortlist?''
Labour has stopped using AWSs now for the next GE.
|
|
|
|
Post by caroline on May 13, 2022 21:00:06 GMT
As I understand it, the vote to determine the Labour candidate for Wakefield will go ahead on Sunday and the winner will be determined by the votes of all Wakefield CLP members. This mass resignation by the CLP Executive committee looks like self indulgent gesture politics to me. Unless all the members boycott the vote on Sunday, I don't see this navel-gazing silliness making the slightest bit of difference to either the candidate selection or by election campaign. From my experience, CLP Executive members are a pretty unrepresentative bunch of people in terms of the broader CLP membership and are far more politically driven and committed too. Most of the membership are low profile and have much more in common with mainstream Labour voters. They'll determine the candidate on Sunday. Labour need voters more than members. The Wakefield electorate won't be giving a toss about the sensibilities of Wakefield CLP Executive committee, I wouldn't have thought. Nor should they either. Of course CLP Executive members are more politically driven and more committed than ordinary LP members! They wouldn't be on the EC if they weren't. They are the ones that organise the meetings, arrange deliveries, keep members motivated and informed and do nearly all the long hard slog to keep an active local LP alive. Not just at election times but month after month all year, every year. Without them there wouldn't be local labour parties. They are not self selected either they are voted onto the EC at the annual general meetings by all CLP members. I understand that Starmer doesn't want a candidate (any candidate) with baggage right now that the media will exploit and that candidates are being vetted much more rigorously but ignoring the preferences of the local party for a short list is scoring another home goal, something we are pretty good at. It won't make any difference in the long run, the EC have made their stand, and because this is the group that are the most committed to a Labour victory they will turn out for Labour at the election and let a new team sort out the mess afterwards. The press of course will love the story but I'll bet a penny to a pound that the local activists in Wakefield, including the non selected candidates will rally round whoever the candidate is. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 13, 2022 21:01:31 GMT
I've never understood the logic that dictates a political party should represent the views of people who didn't vote for it, and ignore the people who did.
Surely a political party has to appeal to both those who habitually vote for it as well as those who don't to be successful? Was that not a lesson of the 2019 election? Drawing firm lessons from an election as anomalous as 2019 is fraught with difficulty Lab were crushed by Brexit. Perhaps the only viable lesson of the 2019 election is that divided parties (especially divided opposition parties) do not win elections. You would therefore have expected any new Labour leader to work towards internal peace and unity so Labour could then largely move forward as a cohesive unit. Unfortuntely, he is constantly seeking to accentuate these divisions. The Wakefield fiasco is another unforced error. Lab should just let local parties pick their own prospective parliamenrary candidates to ensure their overall candidates nationwide are genuinely representative of the country. Parachuting candidates in from other constituences and changing the selection rules late on in order to ensure a handpicked candidate wins selection, is clear not the right thing to do. It simply further alienates local constituency parties and members and results in that party speaking with a bland, monochrome and unrepresentative voice. Labour should be various shades of red. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 13, 2022 21:02:23 GMT
Surely a political party has to appeal to both those who habitually vote for it as well as those who don't to be successful? Was that not a lesson of the 2019 election? Drawing firm lessons from an election as anomalous as 2019 is fraught with difficulty. Lab were crushed by Brexit. Perhaps the only viable lesson of the 2019 election is that divided parties (especially divided opposition parties) do not win elections. You would therefore have expected any new Labour leader to work towards internal peace and unity so Labour could then largely move forward as a cohesive unit. Unfortuntely, he is constantly seeking to accentuate these divisions. The Wakefield fiasco is another unforced error. Lab should just let local parties pick their own prospective parliamenrary candidates to ensure their overall candidates nationwide are genuinely representative of the country. Parachuting candidates in from other constituences and changing the selection rules late on in order to ensure a handpicked candidate wins selection, is clear not the right thing to do. It simply further alienates local constituency parties and members and results in that party speaking with a bland, monochrome and unrepresentative voice. Labour should be various shades of red. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 13, 2022 21:03:31 GMT
Drawing firm lessons from an election as anomalous as 2019 is fraught with difficulty. Lab were crushed by Brexit. Perhaps the only viable lesson of the 2019 election is that divided parties (especially divided opposition parties) do not win elections. You would therefore have expected any new Labour leader to work towards internal peace and unity so Labour could then largely move forward as a cohesive unit. Unfortuntely, he is constantly seeking to accentuate these divisions. The Wakefield fiasco is another unforced error. Lab should just let local parties pick their own prospective parliamenrary candidates to ensure their overall candidates nationwide are genuinely representative of the country. Parachuting candidates in from other constituences and changing the selection rules late on in order to ensure a handpicked candidate wins selection, is clear not the right thing to do. It simply further alienates local constituency parties and members and results in the party speaking with a bland, monochrome and unrepresentative voice. Labour should be various shades of red. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 13, 2022 21:15:59 GMT
jib - "The last stand of the Momentum left?" Does Momentum have a stand? I could go with 'Inertia's last stand', but perhaps for Momentum we need a 'last push', or a 'last gentle acceleration' might be more appropriate?
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 13, 2022 21:20:10 GMT
@lakeland Lass - "I've never understood the logic that dictates a political party should represent the views of people who didn't vote for it, and ignore the people who did."
I guess it's a numbers thing.
If you won the last election, yes, by all means appeal to those who voted for you.
If you lost the last four elections, you need to think a bit about thems that didn't.
|
|
