Party leaders

I still see nothing positive in the anti Labour Party posts. They do not suggest any alternative and some just come down to personal attacks. If other socialists or social democrats have something else to offer why don't the tell us about it? This is the Labour Party we have the Labour Party which is closer to it roots than anything we saw when Blair got hold of it. If you fee it's message is not for you don't vote for it; it is not trying to be Tory light. If that is what you want why not vote Tory?

If the posts are obviously saying the alternative is the Tory offering I find them very easy to ignore. They are simply attacking the proposals of one party while backing the chaos the Tories have plunged us in to while showing their inability to run the country for all those who live in it.

Len McClusky has a problem with Progress , wonder why ?

The other three contenders are supported by Progress.

Thanks for that information Trisher - from what you say it looks as though a handful of activists could swing a vote - I'd guess that there's a lot of apathy particularly amongst members of the affiliates? I remember as a union rep that most members could not be bothered to come to meetings.

The situation for sitting MPs remains as it was before-
At the moment, for every general election, local parties vote for their candidate in what is called a “trigger ballot” – a watered down version of mandatory reselection. This is a system by which each separate branch of a local party, and affiliated organisations, get a simple “yes/no” vote to nominate the candidate. Branches represent the membership of the constituency party (local parties are divided into branches, usually based on the ward boundaries for councillors). Affiliated organisations are groups like trade unions, the Fabians, BAME Labour, Co-op party, etc.

All the local constituency party’s branches and affiliates are entitled to return a vote. The votes of the latter are usually decided by a local official representing that affiliate group, rather than by a ballot of all the local affiliated group’s members. The MP must receive two-thirds of the nominations of all these groups to stay sitting. If the MP is unable to gain two-thirds of the nominations, then they have lost their trigger ballot, and a “full” selection process begins, in which other potential candidates can be nominated.

There is a vote soon for three extra seats in the NEC, arranged by Corbyn, three contenders are supported by Momentum, one is the founder of Momentum, Jon Lansman

I'm unclear about the position of sitting LP MPs - I thought that Momentum were campaigning to stop automatic reselection and therefore current MPs such as Angela Raynor would become candidates for selection and therefore be required to sign a loyalty pledge.
And don't Momentum now have a majority on the NEC? So they can introduce such changes?

POGS, I have found out about Momentum by searching Momentum in the search bar.
Quite easy, really. You should try it.
You get a big red page, telling you how to join, and what the criteria are for joining.
I also read about them occasionally on Labourlist, who do not like Momentum. They do like Progress, and Labour First, just like Annie.

But that's all I know about them, not being a member and never having joined.

Maizie -my post indicated Angela Rayner isn't being asked to sign because she is an MP. There are several links on line to what she said, apologies,, Im a genuine technophobe and have tried but failed to do links.

Momentum rules

RIP Labour Party

I would be in support of party candidates signing a loyalty to their leader cause or not being able to stand, and I don't see why doing so would take away their freedom to vote with their conscience.

IMO disloyalty to a party leader is being openly critical and seeking to undermine both their position and authority. Voting with one's conscience even if that means going against the party leader's wishes is not being disloyal, it is an democratic right to vote as you wish.

I suppose it can be argued that abstaining is also a democratic right but I think it's wrong for MP's to do so and they should sign a clause stating that they wont. If they're not prepared to vote, what's the point of them being there?

Maizie d

" I'm confused. Angela Raynor isn't a candidate, she's an MP. She isn't being asked to sign a loyalty pledge. It's only prospective candidates."

So if and when there is another General Election is it the case a presently elected MP from any party is a guaranteed 'candidate ' to stand for their constituency or do they have to be chosen to stand as a 'candidate' again?

This is the reason why the Momentum issue is causing concern and here is just one example of the problem:-

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/02/momentum-let-us-choose-candidates-labour-letters

whitewave

"How on earth does that progress the debate?"

Simply put it doesn't.

No more than posters who have stated they nothing of Momentum on other threads telling another poster " If you don't know about Momentum why make a silly statement about them?"

I'm confused. Angela Raynor isn't a candidate, she's an MP. She isn't being asked to sign a loyalty pledge. It's only prospective candidates.

Have you a link to that story, Iam64?

Are you seriously suggesting that Angela Raynor is more interested in getting her name in the paper than anything else?
This issue is of interest and I'm assuming she was asked a question and answered it honestly. She's a relatively new MP with imo good credentials so far. It's relevant to me that had she been a prospective candidate now, she may have lost out because she would take what I see as a principled stance.

GG

"Of course the Twenty-two committee has more power than momentum; they are MPs. They can vote down or threaten to vote down what the government wants to do if they don't like it. I find it anti-democratic. "

Who said the 1922 was less powerful than Momentum?

Any parties MP'scan vote down or threaten to vote down what the government wants to do if they don't like it, whether the government is in opposition or their own. Do you believe this has not happened to Labour and Conservative governments past and present?

If you find MP's voting against their own government 'undemocratic' are you saying MP's who say voted against their government say on Iraq , the EU were being 'undemocratic'?

I have posted on the 1922 committee not in defence of it but sticking to the facts of how Parliament works and trying to explain why Momentum is a different entity to Parliamentary MP's irrespective of which party they belong to but it seems I am failing.

Obviously some are happy to have an organisation stipulate who and what 'candidates' standing for parliament and Councils must pledge Alliegence to.

There is a name for that.

What debate? A debate is discussing different views not calling people liars or dismissing their opinions as very silly.

What a very silly post pogs dear oh dear.

How on earth does that progress the debate?

Actually whitewave and durhamjen you have both on previous threads stated you 'know nothing about Momentum' and yet have posted past and present about Momentum.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You have the same views ........ that’s all.

What a charmer you are lemon

Oh, sorry, it’s trisher not whitewave ( hard to spot the difference sometimes.)

Well, if Labour MP’s are saying this, it shows what they think of the whole idea and Momentum whitewave and I admire Raynor for saying it, she had a difficult start in life so nobody could accuse her of being a champagne socialist.

The ‘ordinary’ members of Momentum are likely to be idealistic people who think that the Labour Party is going to make life wonderful for the whole country, but the ‘executive’ are something else entirely.Their hopes are pinned on getting Corbyn into power and a radical far left movement going, they are not interested in the Labour Party as such.It would be naive not to recognise that.

OFFS I though we had established that it's about supporting candidates and not MPs. You do wonder sometimes if there are Labour MPs who are more interested n getting their names in the paper than in actiually getting the truth out there!

GG - your comments about Norway confuse me - the Prime Minister of Norway is a Conservative - first elected in 2013 and retaining power in the September 2017 election - so of course the newspapers & Conservatives don't call Norway "far left" - that's because it's not.