Jeremy Corbyn.

[BLOCK F]

The whole point is that there will be more power to constituency parties and to members. Yes, there will be some resistance - some MPs may move to other parties or stand as independents - but in the long run, the party, by the time of the next election, the party will be on stronger footing.

I've said earlier on in this thread, I can't see Labour winning the next election, but if Corbyn wins and he enacts the changes he wants, in the long run, the party will be based on a formidable mass membership

Oh well, let us wait and see what happens!

 

[Surf's Up]

The problem (ironically) of totally democratising a political party is the extent to which it increases the likelihood of division. This may well mean that the future Labour Party (or whatever its going to call itself in its future iteration) is even more riven with division than the current model, exacerbated by the fact that all the factions will now have a vote. Difficult to see how a consensus could emerge from this chaos sufficient to present a unified, coherent and attractive enough set of policies that are likely to appeal to the wider electorate.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I agree with the strong opposition bit, but I would count myself as a life-long supporter of PR - way before it was fashionable. I would also go along with the almost inevitable coalition governments that it would throw up. Germany has not done too badly on such a system.

Are you being facetious? German elected Hitler entirely because PR allowed the party to slowly increase seats and obtain credibility that FPTP would have precluded (as has not happened to UKIP here, and in the 70s theNational Front before them - lots of votes but no Westminster presence, and no likely change to that). I agree that Germany has been very stable since 1945, but that was because it had to have a rethink after losing a war (!) rather than because of PR. Germany has two main parties, too, unlike Italy which is about as politically mature as your average 15 year old. Israel is a good examples of a place where a plethora of parties and opinions mean the main ones are always vulnerable to a disproportionate influence by fringe groups, and the government always ends up behaving more extremely than the party of government would prefer. But I guess the national psyche holds sway whatever the system. David Ben Gurion once said to Rooseveldt that (to paraphrase) whereas you have 200 million voters and 2 outlets for their opinion to consider, we have 2 million voters and 2 million opinions'. Yet in Canada (FPTP) a party of government lost an election and most of its seats a while back in a way that would be unthinkable in the UK (the country is too rich for people to have a need to develop any party political culture). Finally, I don't imagine that democracy means that all my opinions should become party policy or the law of the land. You have to accept a bit of give and take. But you'll get nothing if a government (or party) is fully reflective of the full range of opinion, other than endless squabbling. That's where labour have made their mistake.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Are you being facetious? German elected Hitler entirely because PR allowed the party to slowly increase seats and obtain credibility that FPTP would have precluded

This is an interesting take on things. My understanding of things is that his rise to, and ultimate seizure of, power was a direct result of him exploiting oddities within the Weimar system. FPTP may well have halted him. You could also say a few tweaks to the Weimar system would also have stopped him. I feel it's disingenuous to lay the blame with "PR" per se.

 

[beorhthelm]

...He has a lot more in common with the electorate than Cooper, Kendall and Burnham.

have to point out that with a career a unionist then MP, rather than political researcher then MP of the rest, Corbyn has a lot more in common with his fellow candidates than he has with most the electorate. essentially they are all professional politicans, Corbyn the least worst in this regard but still never done a proper days graft in his life.

 

[Bry Nylon]

It's threads that go from Jeremy Corbyn to Adlof Hilter in 79 pages that keep luring me back to NSC - matter how much I try to quit. Where else?

Nowhere, that's where.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This is an interesting take on things. My understanding of things is that his rise to, and ultimate seizure of, power was a direct result of him exploiting oddities within the Weimar system. FPTP may well have halted him. You could also say a few tweaks to the Weimar system would also have stopped him. I feel it's disingenuous to lay the blame with "PR" per se.

I may be wrong (occasionally ) but never disingenuous. I seem to recall that AJP Taylor made the same point, But I could be wrong.

 

[abc]

This is an interesting take on things. My understanding of things is that his rise to, and ultimate seizure of, power was a direct result of him exploiting oddities within the Weimar system. FPTP may well have halted him. You could also say a few tweaks to the Weimar system would also have stopped him. I feel it's disingenuous to lay the blame with "PR" per se.

Not disingenuous at all to be fair. Hitler would not have gained power were it not for PR. PR enables parties with very little support to gain a place in parliament and therefore a path to power. This is a danger of PR not necessarily a reason not to embrace it but we ignore the lessons from 1930s Germany at our peril.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Are you being facetious? German elected Hitler entirely because PR allowed the party to slowly increase seats and obtain credibility that FPTP would have precluded (as has not happened to UKIP here, and in the 70s theNational Front before them - lots of votes but no Westminster presence, and no likely change to that). I agree that Germany has been very stable since 1945, but that was because it had to have a rethink after losing a war (!) rather than because of PR. Germany has two main parties, too, unlike Italy which is about as politically mature as your average 15 year old. Israel is a good examples of a place where a plethora of parties and opinions mean the main ones are always vulnerable to a disproportionate influence by fringe groups, and the government always ends up behaving more extremely than the party of government would prefer. But I guess the national psyche holds sway whatever the system. David Ben Gurion once said to Rooseveldt that (to paraphrase) whereas you have 200 million voters and 2 outlets for their opinion to consider, we have 2 million voters and 2 million opinions'. Yet in Canada (FPTP) a party of government lost an election and most of its seats a while back in a way that would be unthinkable in the UK (the country is too rich for people to have a need to develop any party political culture). Finally, I don't imagine that democracy means that all my opinions should become party policy or the law of the land. You have to accept a bit of give and take. But you'll get nothing if a government (or party) is fully reflective of the full range of opinion, other than endless squabbling. That's where labour have made their mistake.

No, I was not being facetious. I recognise the Hitler being allowed in through PR bit, and wouldn't want anything like that to be able to happen again.

I was talking purely post 1945, since when first West Germany and then subsequently the united country have had almost exclusively (if not totally exclusively) coalition governments, often taking some time after an election actually to get something in place, and forcing people who would normally be opposed to each other to co-operate.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

You can shake your head all you like, Gwylan; the Labour Party is a shambles.

It certainly is, and this election is tearing the Party apart.

Those MPs who put Corbyn up for election purely to widen the debate must wonder what a can of worms they've opened.

If he wins, I wonder what sort of shadow cabinet he could cobble together?

 

[Bozza]

It certainly is, and this election is tearing the Party apart.

Those MPs who put Corbyn up for election purely to widen the debate must wonder what a can of worms they've opened.

If he wins, I wonder what sort of shadow cabinet he could cobble together?

If? It's "Game Over" already isn't it?

 

[Gwylan]

It certainly is, and this election is tearing the Party apart.

It really isn't: it's strengthening the party, although (as I said, the election has been handled shambolically). There'll be a few bumps on the way but I really struggle to see why making a party more democratic is a bad idea.

As an example, one of the big bones of contention was the Labour policy (and Tory too) of imposing candidates chosen in London instead of candidates chosen locally. UKIP made hay with this and presented it as a big selling point - most of their candidates were local. A reversal of this policy will make MPs more representative of their parties and ultimately of the members. What the leadership election has thrown up is that there's a big disconnect between what MPs think and what members think - that's not a good position to be in. That has to change.

I'd be willing to bet that within 20 years, the Tories will copy Labour and seek to give more power to their members too

 

[sydney]

Maybe you should stick to shorter words you can actually spell?

touche....sir.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

As an example, one of the big bones of contention was the Labour policy (and Tory too) of imposing candidates chosen in London instead of candidates chosen locally. UKIP made hay with this and presented it as a big selling point - most of their candidates were local. A reversal of this policy will make MPs more representative of their parties and ultimately of the members. What the leadership election has thrown up is that there's a big disconnect between what MPs think and what members think - that's not a good position to be in. That has to change.

I'd be willing to bet that within 20 years, the Tories will copy Labour and seek to give more power to their members too

We were discussing this very point this evening en router to the pub. I could not agree more. Ed Milliband - Doncaster ? Really ?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I may be wrong (occasionally ) but never disingenuous. I seem to recall that AJP Taylor made the same point, But I could be wrong.

What ? Wrong ? A ridiculous notion.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Unbeknown to me those nice chaps @ Paddy Power increased my credit balance by £1050 three days ago.
Stop the Count, as according to them, Jez has won already & they have paid out
Congratulations Comrade Corbyn

 

[Tarpon]

I just love the fact that no one saw it coming. Puts me in mind of

'There's something going on and you don't know what it is do you Mr Jones?'

 

[Tarpon]

I just love the fact that no one saw it coming. Puts me in mind of

'There's something going on and you don't know what it is do you Mr Jones?'

Well apart from [MENTION=14118]Vegas Seagull[/MENTION]

 

[Hotchilidog]

It really isn't: it's strengthening the party, although (as I said, the election has been handled shambolically). There'll be a few bumps on the way but I really struggle to see why making a party more democratic is a bad idea.

As an example, one of the big bones of contention was the Labour policy (and Tory too) of imposing candidates chosen in London instead of candidates chosen locally. UKIP made hay with this and presented it as a big selling point - most of their candidates were local. A reversal of this policy will make MPs more representative of their parties and ultimately of the members. What the leadership election has thrown up is that there's a big disconnect between what MPs think and what members think - that's not a good position to be in. That has to change.

I'd be willing to bet that within 20 years, the Tories will copy Labour and seek to give more power to their members too

I agree. I think the Labour Party is actually rediscovering it's identity and is reconnecting with the legions of voters who have spent the last decade walking way from it. It does indeed look like the PLP is out of step with the membership, but the party does seem to be reinvigorated at the moment. It amuses me that the three mainstream candidates from the 'modern' wing of the party are the ones looking like dinosaurs clinging on to discredited policies.

 

[BLOCK F]

It certainly is, and this election is tearing the Party apart.

Those MPs who put Corbyn up for election purely to widen the debate must wonder what a can of worms they've opened.

If he wins, I wonder what sort of shadow cabinet he could cobble together?

I agree. I said much the same in an earlier post.
As a Tory voter, I am watching this with a detached interest, but wearing my UK citizen hat, I am horrified that H.M.'s Official Opposition have lost the plot.
Can't be good for the country and I reckon plans are already afoot to topple Corbyn asap.