What now for Labour Party ?

varian, I sympathise with your enthusiasm, your commitment to electoral reform. As someone who hopes to vote in the Labour leadership election, I confess, there are other issues top of my list.

There is a group of Labur Party members who campaign for electoral reform.

If I were a Labour Party member, I would ask each of the candidates for the leadership if they supported a change in our voting system to proportional representation.

www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/labour4pr

True Opal , they cannot accept voters do not want far left
politics. Long Bailey as leader would be a disaster.

Well in that case Anniebach, they've learned nothing from the results of this election, have they? If they continue with far left politics, they will remain unelectable - that seems to be the clear message from the British voters.

I left the Labour Party some time ago but still receive several emails daily. Just after the election they sent an email listing
every labour MP and asking to tick the box next to the three MP’s you supported for the leadership. This was followed a few days later saying the first choice was Long Baily,

We were out to lunch the other day and I sat next to a woman I'd never met before who was very interesting, probably aged around early 60s.
She was a very caring person who is going to spend her Christmas day serving lunches to the homeless.

She said she had been a lifelong member of the Labour Party but resigned after Corbyn became leader for her own very good reasons which I won't post openly on here.

Thanks Grandad.
I understand the reasons given but I will be unhappy if a cut off point of say, the December election is made. Many of those joining will be, like myself, former members. I've been a member since the 1970's, with a break in response to the Militant influence and of course, Iraq. I left because of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. I re-joined, along it seems with many other leavers, in order to have some influence over the next leader of what I do still see as my political home.

Interesting times continue.

Iam64, in regard to your above post @18:49 yesterday (20/12/19), please accept my apology for my delay in replying to your enquiry of me as our Christmas preparations got in the way. In that enquiry, I feel the reasons for changing the membership length criteria would always be in comparison with the election being held. As I have stated i am not a directly subscribed member of the Labour Party, but i am an affiliated member by way of my membership of the Unite Union.

With the Unite Union, the length of membership criteria for ballots is always reduced for Branch officer and workplace representative elections as those who will be voting will in the main personally know those standing for election by way of their work in the local branch or workplace.

By example to the above, it would be very difficult to inform someone who has been recruited into workplace union membership that three or four weeks after they had signed up to that membership they were not entitled to vote in the election of representatives many of whom they may by then know personally.

the same situation could well apply in the election of constituency or district Labour Party officers where those standing for office may be known to local activists some of who may be those who have recently joined the constituency or District party to assist in local or national elections.

However, the reverse to the above could apply when it comes to high office ballots such as the election of a General Secretary in a union or the Leadership of the Parliamentary Labour Party. In that, those standing for office are only personally known to those who are working in close proximity to them, while the vast majority of the electorate will only have knowledge of the candidates by way of the documentation they put out, by social media or by what they read in the national press.

In the above, those with a long length of membership would have a better knowledge of the candidates by way of internal newsletters etc or by simply being a member of any organisation brings greater awareness of how that organisation works and who in its higher echelons is the best, or would be the best in its operation.

Of Course, in any large election, especially in a political party, it is quite possible that large blocks of persons will join that party in the run-up to the ballot for the sole reason to "swing" the election in a political direction that they would desire. Allowing such new members to vote has to be judged against by allowing that new member vote in the election will weaken the voting powers of those who have been longstanding members of the organisation and especially that of the lay activists who always maintain the organisation of any union or party on a day to day basis often over a very long period of time.

The above i accept is "a conundrum" for on this occasion the Labour Party National Executive (NEC) to consider and adjudicate on. As i have stated earlier in this thread i would not wish to be any part of the body that has to make that decision for the crap will very much hit the proverbial fan whatever decision they make, if indeed the NEC do decide to trigger a leadership election on the sixth of January.

Well Iam64, the above is my view on the matter for what it is worth. Apologies if I am unable to reply further, but with twelve coming to us for Christmas there is much to do.

Grandad- can you help me understand the 'genuine reasons' why the NEC may decide to raise the member length of time criteria to vote in the leadership election?
I'm not looking for a row honest, I'm genuinely interested to understand.

I would have to agree with your above comments POGS. If the NEC does decide to raise the member length of time criteria to vote in this leadership election, the will very much hit the proverbial fan.

However, I can see genuine reasons why they may decide to do that, but should they do it is certainly another matter?

Who would want to be one of those making that decision? ?

Grandad

Thank you for replying.

" In my opinion (for what it is worth) I do think it is possible that a longer qualifying membership period could be declared for this leadership election."
----

That certainly is aligning with the thoughts of those commentators and MP's I have heard speak and if implemented by the NEC could ' possibly' be a bone of contention as it would be seen as indeed trying to ' stack the odds' in favour of candidates the NEC favour.

I feel trouble brewing for Labour.

POGS, In regard to your post @15:23 today in which you enquire to the member eligibility criteria for the forthcoming Labour leadership election, I have stated on this forum that I am not a directly subscribed member of the Labour Party, but an affiliate member of that organisation by way of my longstanding membership of the Unite Union.

However, In the above, I believe the same practice is normally engaged for all elections throughout the Labour movement. That practice, from my experience, would seem to be that the time length of membership is lowered for lesser ballots such as the election branch officers and raised for major ballots such as the election of the General Secretary etc.

The above is to allow for the reality that in the election of branch officers and workplace reps etc the membership of that branch or workplace will personally know those standing as candidates by way of their work often personally carried out for them and on behalf of the branch or workplace membership in general. Therefore the length of membership criteria can be lower as members new or old will know their branch or workplace leading activists.

However, with larger elections such as that of a general secretary then members will only be aware of the candidates who are standing through the documentation they send out, by way of reputation, or what is placed before them by way of the media or national press. Therefore a longer length of membership is required before any member is allowed to vote.

As stated I am not a direct member of the Labour Party and therefore not aware of the full history of their polling procedures, but the above practice I feel may well be that the above first practice may be engaged for constituency officer ballots and the second for Parliamentary Party leadership elections.

It has been reported that the Parliamentary Party National Executive is due to meet on the sixth of January at which that body may decide to trigger the Leadership election. If that is the situation, the full criteria for the ballot will also be laid out and In my opinion (for what it is worth) I do think it is possible that a longer qualifying membership period could be declared for this leadership election.

The above was not discussed POGS at the Branch Meeting I attended yesterday evening, as that would not be within the remit of any Branch organization to declare a stance.

Grandad
I posted :-

" I appreciated the above but from what I am reading between the lines, to be fair that is purely by watching commentators and MP's on TV, there is the thought the NEC will try to alter the voting time frame again to thwart any attempt for new Labour Members who are more centric from having a vote. To, pardon the pun, the NEC wants to keep the momentum with the far left in it's image."
--

I am interested in your opinion as to the prospect of the NEC ' moving the goal post' again over Members voting rights.

At your extraorinairy meeting of the Unite Union Branch was this mentioned at all, do you think it is a possibility?

Anniebach
????

So shoot me, I typed 23 instead of 13 ,

13 years another little blip ?

Anniebach Quote [ grandad43 during the Wilson years you forgot or didn’t know Edward Heath popped in for 4 years] End Quote.

Anniebach, if you read my post @12:49 today " thoroughly" you will witness that I have placed the Heath government years in there which were from June 1970 until March 1974.

That proves the complete contradiction and inaccuracy of your post @10:59 today in which you stated: "After the 5 Year Atlee government we had 23 years Tory government."

Again, Most definitely not a fact.

grandad43 during the Wilson years you forgot or didn’t know Edward Heath popped in for 4 years

Hilary Benn?

Not forgetting Wilson was in and out of No 10 like a bloody yo-yo

Callaghan lost the election in 1979 .

Next labour government 1997

18 years Tory government, silly me 18 years is just a blip , not
important

Hell bells, when will the far left stop navel gazing , stop asking
what the party wants and ask what do voters across the country want .

I didn’t gaze into a crystal ball when I said Corbyn would kill
the party, I spoke as a party member and activist who knocked
doors from the time Gaitskell was leader.

Ask yourselves what did Blair and Brown do to win 3 executive elections , what did Michael Foot in 1983 do to cause the years of Thatcherism .

All the rubbish of Tory light, no, it’s centre left acknowledging
votes are needed across the country not just in labour heartlands .

Anniebach Quote [
After the 5 Year Atlee government we had 23 years Tory government.

After Wilson/Callaghan government we had 18 years Tory Government. ] End Quote.

Anniebach, in reality following the Atlee government Harold Wilson headed the next Labour Government from 16 October 1964 – 19 June 1970.

After four years of Tory government Wilson then led a Labour Administration from 4 March 1974 – 5 April 1976 when he was then forced to stand down due to being diagnosed with Dementia.

Jim Callahan then took over as Prime minister from 5 April 1976 – 4 May 1979.

Therefore Anniebach your above statement of "23 years" of Tory government is very inaccurate to say the least.

Links to the above can be found here:-
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Callaghan

Thatcher created the cult of the individual.......me me me it's all about me. There is no loyalty, no society, no band of brothers. I will stamp on whoever I like to get where i want.

Good post,Annie - those numbers really highlight the situation.
As I've written before, the Tories, or their equivalent, have had a stranglehold on English politics since time 'immoral' as husband says.
It's the landholding system which puts the power and the money in the hands of a few who only care about keeping that wealth.
I agree though that there are many Tories who care about those who are more disadvantaged.
It's very difficult to form a lasting effective opposition to this monopoly.

Oh Anniebach you do make me smile! That post will get up a few noses!