Party leaders

Could you stop calling me dear? I do not know you and I find it quite insulting.

The opening post is incorrect. No party has asked it's MPs to sign the suggested document.

The OP is a hypothetical and highly leading question with strong undertones of a personal agenda. I can't think why people bothered to answer it.

Why would any party ask its candidates to sign a loyalty to the leader clause?
Leaders change, some more often than others.
Nobody would be a candidate for a particular party if they did not agree with the party manifesto. That's what matters.
Unfortunately, some parties ditch their manifestos as often as they ditch their leaders.

So sorry, didn't know you were uncomfortable with terms of endearment . Do give up twisting the O/P, admit you have made a mistake, it is quite easy to do I promise, never been a problem for me, I have never thought I wasn't capable of errors.

Where in the O/P does it say a party HAS ASKED ?

It doesn't. I can be as hypothetical as you, though.
I said "Why would any party ask...."

The opening post is incorrect. No party has asked it's MPs to sign the suggested document.

I think we're all aware that this thread is about the Momentum loyalty test. Really - pretending to be unaware of political news just insults your own awareness and pedantry is the dotage of knowledge.

Personal derogatory comment.

The opening post is incorrect. No party has asked it's MPs to sign the suggested document.

Unfortunately some seem to be aware of what Momentum are actually asking for and have read into the reality any number of falsehoods based on their own prejudices and pre-conceptions. In fact this whole thing is a bit like a giant Chinese whisper with the origin lost somewhere and certain posters eager to jump in with all sorts of fantasies.
GGMK2 It isn't worth banging your head against this wall. I've given up. There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.

And none so blind as those who will not see

Let's consider the wording of the OP.

'No matter the Party you support or are considering supporting would you be content for your party candidates to sign a loyalty to the leader clause or not being allowed to stand ,do you see it as taking away freedom to vote with one's conscience?'h

Gracesgran you say:-

"The opening post is incorrect. No party has asked it's MPs to sign the suggested document.'

You are simply incorrect in your statement. The OP does not mention anything other than 'candidates'. Of course the 'candidates' are potentially future MP's but that is not stated in the OP .

You would be correct in saying 'No party has asked for it's MP's to sign' if we change the word correctly to 'candidate' not ' MP ', although the question of MP's is debateable as previous posts have spoke to this happening in a manner akin.

Why do I say you are right? Because Momentum is not a party in the sense of the Labour Party/Tory Party/Lib Dems etc to whom the 'candidates' for potential councillors and MP's will belong to are the ones doing the asking.

If I am mistaken I will be happy to be corrected on the following point.

Momentum is not ' at this moment in time but watch this space' anything more than a ' lobby group ', 'think tank' . It is I grant you more powerful then say the Fabian Society , Progress etc. etc. because it is for the man Corbyn and the Labour Party second. This will change if Corbyn goes but until then it is getting it's feet tucked under the table by using Corbyn to gain purpose and people are backing Corbyn not the Labour Party because they are hoping he will transform, take Labour in a different direction. An example of this would be the 'return' to Labour voters who were telling us not to vote Labour until Corbyn became Labour Leader!

I have asked this question before of the Momentum :-

Why should Momentum make a decision full stop about candidates.?

What is the point of the Labour Party if it is run by, dictated to by Momentum?

Would the Labour Party allow any other group to request such a thing ?

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind if other Labour groups such as Progress were doing as Momentum those who cannot see this for what it is 'control of the Labour Party ' they would not be sitting back without comment. As for 'whataboutary' that is in the eye of the beholder!

Ok POGS point by point
Why should Momentum make a decision full stop about candidates.?
They are not taking any decisions- selection of candidates will remain entirely unchanged. If the selected candidate wants the resources and personal of Momentum to back them they will be asked to sign an agreement.
Any candidate can refuse to do so.

What is the point of the Labour Party if it is run by, dictated to by Momentum?

Momentum is a group of activists with certain beliefs. The Labour Party has always been broad in accommodating people with similar aims if different ways of implementing these. It remains so.

Would the Labour Party allow any other group to request such a thing ?
Arguably Blair etc were a group within the Labour Party and operated much more clandestinely to acheive their aims.

The Labour Party has never been run by a set up like momentum . There was the militant group in the seventies which caused the disastrous 1983 election loss

Any analysis you make of the Labour party is flawed Annie. It's called bias and you have in the past railed about Unions and communists and all sorts of other things. Pity you can't actually back anything up with facts.

trisher

Of course they are 'taking decisions' !

They are asking candidates to follow the Momentum route of how the Labour Party will go forward.

It is saying we Momentum and our members will not back you if you cannot abide by 'our rules'. Momentum and Corbyn have put pressure on potential candidates to give allegiance to Momentum/Corbyn not the Labour Party.

Yes the so-called 'loyalty test' it has in it's wording :-

' To work for the election of a Labour government;'

but it then goes on to say :-

'To revitalise the Labour Party by building on the values, energy and enthusiasm of the Jeremy for Leader campaign so that Labour will become an effective, open, inclusive, participatory, democratic and member-led party of and in Government;'

'Commit to the following actions, which follow on from Momentum’s political aims.

' Commit to the following standards, which follow on from Momentum’s Code of Ethics'

Now some posters will say "So, what's wrong with that?". Others are saying it is putting Momentum before the Labour Party.

I think it will take a strong 'candidate' to stand up against Momentum and not sign up to putting Momentum / Jeremy for Leader as the precursor for serving the Labour Party .

If there was such a thing as a lobby group that told ANY political Party 'candidates' they had to show allegiance to 'The Leader' and their groups ideas ahead of the overall Party I would hope they got their comeuppance but I can't see it happening somehow. Show allegiance to your Party Leader yes, to whom ever he or she maybe at any one given time not to a 'specific leader ' as the Jeremy for Leader/Momentum group are doing.

Pity you hadn't been a party activist in 1982/83 Trisher you would heard the voters views on the unions strikes and their domination of the party, and the fear of the rise of the far left , it's the voters who choose the government and do not hold back on their reasons as to why they voted as they did.

My knowledge comes from those experiences not from newspapers or the internet . Quite simply it's listening to voters .

POGS The 1922 committee has run the Conservative party for years. They do it secretively (How did May get to be leader?) and through discreet threats and offers of advancement (not necessarily in Parliament). Personally I think it's so good that you can read what Momentum actually means, although of course you over estimate what they can do.

The 1922 committee are conservative back benchers

Of course they are Annie and they have never influenced the leadership, weren't responsible for IDS going, and as for Mrs May they've probably never heard of her (or wish they hadn't)

Pity the Labour Party back benchers didn't have a similar committee instead of an outside company running the party

And the 1922 members were voted for by Tory voters, I did not vote for Momentum

Never heard of Progress, Annie?
I am surprised.

The opening post is incorrect.
No party has asked it's MPs to sign the suggested document.
No one, other than the members of the Parties will choose who stands to be MP in their name.
No one has been influenced to vote against their conscience by any Party.
No body, other than Parties, was mentioned in the OP.

Pity the Labour Party back benchers didn't have a similar committee

The LP has its members. This comment seems to loose the sense of Democratic Socialism - it supports the thinking of the Conservative Party.

The OP doesn’t say MP’s.
Perhaps it is us who should be banging our heads in the wall.
It is not fake news, it is real news.
Momentum ( who are an intrinsic part of the LP machine for Corbyn) are asking selected candidates to sign a loyalty clause ( to Corbyn and all his works) in order to be supported and helped by them, Momentum.
If you want to make sure as much as you can that you will do well, how can you not sign up? Take a strong minded person wouldn't it.
Stop all the pedantry about this and saying it’s fake news FGS.