Labour witch-hunt has started

So, as far as I can tell:
Luciana Berger's local party put forward a vote of no confidence.
One view was that it was because she could not confirm that she would not leave the Labour Party to become part of another party.
Another view was that it was because she was critical of Jeremy Corbyn.

The no confidence motion has now been withdrawn after pressure from the central party, including Tom Watson and from Corbyn's office.

There are certainly divisions in the party but the idea that this was the start of some sort of witch hunt was
just an exaggeration.

Wonder what will happen about Luciana’s local party , Tom Watson was so angry

Anniebach Quote [Blair had no contact with the unions ?

Suppose those new to the Labour Party have no knowledge of the party’s history ] End Quote

Anniebach, I did not state that Blair had "no contact" with the trade unions in my above post.

What I did state was "Blair never once addressed any of their conferences." In that he never engaged with the rank & file of the Labour movement and that eventually brought the downfall of the "Blairite hold" on the party.

Of course, there are still Blairite leaning MPs who will not recognise or accept the democratic changes brought about in the party. That is more for their own self-serving ends than any genuine socialist belief they may hold.

Anyway, back to the thread ,unless unions are involved in anti semetic attacks.

Luciana didn’t say she was thinking of leaving the party , McDonald lied

jura2 Quote [ Interesting yes, very dangerous too] End Quote

Yes jura, but should the situation in the Labour party remain as it is at present, is there any other way to go?

Also to be considered, should Unite, RMT and GMB unions merge would the TUC still be required. In that, they are the main link between the various unions and the Parliamentary Labour party at present.

Blair had no contact with the unions ?

Suppose those new to the Labour Party have no knowledge of the party’s history

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1354833/Blair-seeks-union-funding-deal.html

I know that jura you know that , some don’t .

Actually NO, he did not!

I'd have thought everyone would have realised that by now.

So Gordon Brown caused the global banking crisis

Interesting yes, very dangerous too

I believe there are some fundamental re-thinking of strategy taking place in the broader Labour movement that is driving much that is happening in the Labour party at present.

As is well known the Labour party was born out of the trade union movement in the early years of the twentieth century when it was realised that not all the ambitions of working people could be achieved from within their workplace. Therefore, the trade unions have financed the parliamentary Labour party for a century by way of affiliation subscriptions from their members and branches.

The above support for the Labour party remained unchallenged until the Bliar/Brown government years when while still taking the affiliation subscription funding given by often poorly paid trade union members, Blair never once addressed any of their conferences or repealed not one section of the anti-trade union legislation brought in by the Thatcher and Major governments.

However, what those trade union members did witness was the Labour party executive cosy up to the bankers that eventually brought Britain to its knees in 2008. Therefore following the 2014 General Election defeat it was the above grassroots trade union activists that demanded change, and through that brought about a far greater democracy and recognition of the major part they played in sustaining the Labour party.

However, their are now very definite signs that due to the continual disruption caused by a minority of Labour MPs combined with a number of external victories the trade unions have achieved through the courts in recent months outside of any Labour party assistance, there has been placed a question mark over the trade unions commitment to sustain the Labour party into the future.

The election of Jenney Formby as General Secretary of the Labour party and broader movement in the country was without doubt major evidence of the above taking place. Formby's aggressive address to Labours National Executive Committee and its MP representatives this week in regard to anti-semitism in the party was I believe further evidence of the growing frustration in the wider Labour movement with the parliamentary party.

If anyone adds to the above the reports of early talks between Unite, RMT and the GMB unions in regard to a possible merger under the leadership of Steve Turner (Unite Union) then under those circumstances it may well be felt that a "continually squabbling" Labour party would not be required as part of a new industrial and political agenda brought forward by that body.

Interesting times indeed I feel

Had to look it up - but of course it is Lucianna- not Lucianno!

Corbyn so reminds me of the weather cock on the church tower in the centre of town, spins with the wind .

Not all voters are members of a party, did Blair only have Labour Party members who gave him three consecutive general election wins ? Did Thatcher gain power only on Tory party member votes ? What rubbish.

I have canvassed at every general election for many a year, remember the many labour voters who wouldn’t vote when Michael Foot stood in 1983 because of the strikes in the seventies .

Why do some think it is only party members who vote at elections, Blair had the sense to know you get votes by reaching across the country. Corbyn / Momentum are concentrating on the young vote and ignoring older voters who are far more likely to turn out to vote.

Foot reached out to the far left, the result ? The 1983 election disaster

If they are not party members then it's a bit like me protesting that I don't approve of the captain of my local golf club I'm not a member and I don't play so it's nothing to do with me
No Trisher the local golf club captain’s relationship with the people who live in the area but don’t play golf, is nothing like an MP’s relationship with his constituents who may or may not have voted for his party.
The golf club captain’s acts and omissions have no effect on, or consequences for, the local populace.
But the decisions an MP makes have consequences for all constituents, and the rest of the country.

It’s all very well saying if an MP is deselected they can stand as an independent. That’s a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face though, isn’t it?

Can’t the Labour Party see that they’re less likely to regain office if they deselect popular candidates who then stand as independents, thus splitting the Labour vote?

I do love the way Labour try to promote they are a united bunch, bless ‘em.

The day Corbyn takes control will be the day pigs fly. He is more controlled than controlling . The rest of the Labour Party are just squabbling (and knifing each other) to get hold of the strings. As it is he just flip flops around as every one gets hold of the strings for a few seconds and then get pushed aside.

His only abiding loyalty seems to be Venezuela.

A dictatorship is a government or a social situation where one person makes all the rules and decisions without input from anyone else. Dictatorship implies absolute power — one person who takes control
So not one person but two democratic organisations- so even supposing they have the power- over every local Labour Party in the country??? not a dictatorship.

Momentum/UNITE Party

Hang on I thought Corbyn couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery!!!??? Now he's a dictator!!!! Bit of confusion going on here!

janeainsworth it is now a dictatorship

Does it matter who is on any list-hypothetical or illusionary as it might be? The people who do the deselecting will be the local party officials. If people disagree with it they can if they are party members stand for that. If they are not party members then it's a bit like me protesting that I don't approve of the captain of my local golf club I'm not a member and I don't play so it's nothing to do with me. The deselected candidates (who as M0nica has reminded me are not MPs when they stand) are then free to join another party or stand as an independent. If people think they have done a good job they can then vote for them. It is very wrong to expect the local party to continue to support a candidate just because they have been an MP for years. Democracy is being able to vote for change if you want to and you think it necessary.

MPs in parliament, they are the servants of the party not its directors
Interesting use of words there, Trisher
If by ‘servant’, you mean someone in public service whose work contributes to the public good and the civilised functioning of society generally, then fair enough.
But I suspect that you don’t mean that. I suspect that you mean that MPs should do their constituents’ bidding.
That’s nonsense.
As Monica has pointed out, MPs are representatives and not delegates. Their role is to act in their constituents’ best interests.
All their constituents, that is.
Not just the ones who voted for them.
They also have to act in the country’s best interests. These may sometimes be at odds
with what a vocal minority in a local party want. In that situation, what should an MP do?
It seems to me that some Labour Party members have lost sight of this and as Iam said, are behaving as if the Labour Party is a dictatorship.

On the paper review last night they discussed a poll which places Corbyn as unpopular as Michael Foot.

Michael was honest and loved his country , no comparison

I suspect Luciana's name is one of many that the Momentum group have on their list of 'unwanted' or 'those to be deselected'.
My biggest concern about all of this is the fact the LP is not streets ahead of this government in the opinion polls. Why don't the leadership see this and make changes so they can be elected and we can live in a country that takes better care of its people.

So, Luciana didn’t say she was thinking of leaving the party, this came from McDonald. How low will they sink ?