Beginning to distrust Jeremy Corbyn

But one reason you joined nightowl was to vote, if there had been no leadership contest you would or wouldn't have joined ?

So I didn't even get 10/10?

voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/08/14/when-did-the-mail-start-using-nazi-as-a-term-of-abuse/

I joined the Labour Party after Jan 12th. I did not join merely to get a vote, but I did understand/ was informed that by doing so I would get a vote. The NEC then decided to renege on that undertaking and told me I would not get a vote. However, if I chose to pay a further one off payment of £25 I would get a vote. How is that right? I can see an argument that new members need to prove themselves and their commitment to the party before being given a vote, but in that case that rule should not imposed retrospectively. And if that's the case, surely there's no case for saying people can buy a vote with a one off payment of £25 which demonstrates no commitment to the party whatsoever. They really can't have it both ways.

I think the NEC's actions are completely inconsistent and the whole thing smacks of spite and manipulation. They are bringing the whole party into disrepute and making fools of themselves.

DaphneBroon I hope you didn't think the 10 out of 10 was for you. Your comment was priceless.

Only 10/10 petra?

dj - what exactly should be against socialist principles? That a rich man funded a court action to challenge what he saw to be an unfair advantage to JC or that he is rich in the first place?
As I recall the wording of the NEC rules, and I am not quoting it exactly here, it could be construed both ways:
1. The challenger needed a requisite % to challenge in the first place and the incumbent leader didn't;
or
2. Having challenged, and got the % needed, all nominations needed the requisite % of the PLP.
This was what the court case was about, clarifying that rule of 1 or 2. The court found for JC. What now needs to happen for the next challenge is that the rules are very clearly set out and I await how the new NEC will do that, for I am sure they will, among other things. Of course they will ensure it is fair to all sides otherwise it will be as undemocratic as some members appear to claim this round is.
Anyone can say they agree with LP policies to get on the ticket. How would you ensure they were being honest about their convictions? I agree the worst offenders with evidence against them are being weeded out but others who do not have the best interests of the LP at heart can still get through. Only the passing of time will reveal whether they are as honest in their convictions as we think.
I was not referring to the crowdfunding of the court case but to the crowdfunding to pay the £25 for registered supporters. That is against the LP rules for membership. If you wish to donate money to fund a court case that is your right and I assume you are happy to have funded the alleged Tory member of the five in his pursuit of justice. But, perhaps I malign him and he really did have a Pauline Conversion and will become a loyal and staunch member of the Party.
I see from the Labour site re the election that all members who had joined, up to Jan 12th 2016, can vote as can those who paid their £25 between 5pm on 18th July to 5pm on 20th of July as registered supporters and members of affiliated organisations who signed up individually by 12th Jan and as an affiliated supporter by noon on 8th August.
dj - I ask the question again - what would your rules have been for the leadership election as regards eligibility and deadline dates? We have eligibility and deadlines for general elections. Are we wrong there too? Genuinely interested in your take on how it should all happen.

DaphneBroon lol, I mean really lol. 10 out of 10 for trying, though

I have a v close relative who has been a Trotskyist for over 50 years. She would no more support Corbyn than she would volunteer to have Trump's love child. You have to believe in the destruction of capitalism and world revolution.

I would be a trot only I'm not sure what I have to believe in. My grandfather always claimed he was a communist to which my gran always replied "You're not really, George." Maybe he was a trot and didn't know it.

Being a good union man doesn't mean one has to be a trot or far left Jen. I don't read the times

Ooh goody!
Are we resurrecting that thread then?
It didn't arouse HUGE interest last time..............

dj,post 15.17pm, then what do you make of Jonathan Lansman who started momentum?

Not using it as an excuse, Annie.
Do you believe everything you read in the Times, because it's only in that paper that I've seen that they are trying to get rid of McNicol?
McNicol must feel as if he's between a rock and a hard place, being a good union man. Why would the left want rid of him any more than the right?

Devorgilla, the person who funded the opposition to Corbyn to get him off the ballot paper did not need to crowdfund. He is a very rich man.
Surely that should be against socialist principles.

People signed up between January and July with the promise that they would be able to vote.
They signed up to say that they agreed with labour party principles. Labour rules say that you cannot be a member of the labour party as well as another party, and they were being weeded out.
I actually gave some money to the crowdfunding for the five members going to court, those ones who have decided not to go to the supreme court as it would cost too much.
Are you saying I should not have been allowed to?
I crowdfund quite a few occasions where I see injustice, and that's what this was.

The labour party took £25 per person from 130,000 new members, then disenfranchised them.
They have now used that money to take them to court to make sure they stay disenfranchised. I call that fraud.

So a reason for the far left to get shot of him hey Jen, pathetic excuse

McNicol has been in post since 2011, Annie, whch is quite a long time. Nobody has been in post that long since the 1980s.

Jen, Blair isn't standing

dj - I too believe everyone's vote is of equal value but is every vote of equal value to the Labour Party? By that I mean that if you do not check out the credentials as far as you are able and have a cut off point then how do you know who is voting for your leader? Just suppose, worst case scenario, loads of UKIP voters joined up to vote for the leader of the Labour Party and then went on to infiltrate the party at local level etc and pushed their own agenda would you be happy that their votes were of equal value to the Party? After all they lay claim to having won over disillusioned Labour voters. What is to stop them making it Labour UKIP instead of, say, Labour Momentum or Labour Traditional? This is my dilemma. Just again suppose the NEC is abolished and the leader decides on the rules for the leadership and states you can join and vote up to 24 hours before the poll closes, would you see that as democratic and everyone's vote having equal value? To me, you have a body that sets your rules for such contests and because they have been voted for by the existing party members they are seen to have the authority to make these rules. They decided you had to be a member for six months which seems reasonable to me. They also allowed a window for those disenfranchised, or not yet members, to apply to join as supporters. Again, to me that seems reasonable. Admittedly this came with a price but the price was surely to weed out those who were purely mischief makers, and I take Trisher's previous point that not everyone can afford that fee. But the rules state you must pay for yourself and some joined by crowdfunding. This raises the question as to who was behind the crowdfunding? Can the LP guarantee that it was done with the pure intent to allow genuine LP supporters to join up or could perhaps a less friendly organisation be behind it and getting existing LP members to actually fund the downfall of their own party? I would really like to hear responses from those who support JC on this as to why they think the NEC setting rules for the contest is wrong and why they think the LP election machinery should not be given time to check whether people are genuinely interested in the LP or not? Perhaps I am being too cautious here and everyone joining up has our best interests at heart but what if they don't? Above all we need an effective leader and an effective opposition and, at the next election, an effective government.

He is a trot , he fought to get the likes of Hatton back into the party regardless of the fact the new leader had fought to get them thrown out. Now he squeals that MP's should get behind him and support him , a case of don't do as I do, do as I say

Corbyn has been a trojan horse for a very long time.
I'm surprised he isn't called a Trotsky or communist sleeper!

It's how i seem him Beam. If as he claims he if fighting for the people who voted for him and putting the party first, why did he fight and scheme against the members who voted for Kinnock , hypocrisy

Of the two, Blair and Corbyn, which would you expect to be given an international award for peace by the Ghandi Foundation for upholding the Ghandian values of social justice?

That's the person I support, not the warmonger.

Considering your pedigree, ab, I am not surprised you are so angry at the current state of the LP. Corbyn has been a "Trojan Horse". Get in then break out and destroy.

Wait and see how long the chairman lasts Jen