UK Labour's dirty trick excludes 130,000 members from leadership vote

So…what I’m getting from this is that the ‘Britain + Stay = Bray’ movement is also full of arseholes.

1 Like

wasn’t it Britain + Remain = Brain?


The problem is that winning an election within Labour isn’t remotely the same as winning a general election: Corbyn might be the darling of dedicated activists but Labour MPs, focused on actually getting elected to Parliament, are aware that the general public are less keen on a Corbyn-led party.

I see this as two distinct issues:

  • Do I agree with the principles of Corbyn’s branch of the party? - To some extent.
  • Do I think Corbyn is a suitable person to represent those principles? - **** no. He’s not a credible leader.

So whilst I might consider voting for a party offering the former, there isn’t the remotest chance I’d vote for a Corbyn-led party. It’s frustrating that anyone saying that the man is the problem tends to be accused of opposition to the principles, but that doesn’t follow.

Heh. I’d normally say “it’s not personal, but…” but in this case it really is. Corbyn, personally, is a liability.

But to return to the point: rigging the election like this is absurd.

1 Like

That’s American level politics right there.

Well done Britain?


I’ve just had an email from the local party; all meetings and debates about the leadership election are cancelled until the contenders are announced. Fuck knows how that’s supposed to work, but it strikes me as being to stifle the uproar that these shenanigans are undoubtedly causing.


No, this is entirely about the job prospects and pensions for a whole lot of MPs and assistants most of whom were picked by Blair or his friends. When people were trying so hard to say that a document didn’t say what it clearly said, money was involved.
This shower claimed “Jeremy didn’t try hard enough” because that was the best they could do.

1 Like

Probably to prevent her local party deselecting Angela Eagle before the contest.


Well, if I was looking for a strong leader who can rule the Labour party with an iron fist, I’d be looking at someone other than Corbyn.

On the other hand, Labour won’t be getting anything done until 2020 at the earliest, so maybe strong leadership is overrated.


“I like it when my politicians play dirty tricks and game the system so that they can ignore parts of the community”
-Said no one, ever.


So…lying, opportunistic arseholes, then?

You’ll find thats the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee, not the UK National Election Committee


I always find these sorts of shenanigans profoundly depressing. I expect people in any organization to have widely differing views of how things should be run. But when you decide that your side winning is more important that the basic principles upon which your organization runs (and I would say that disenfranchising a significant section of your voting base qualifies)…

Well, at that point, you’ve announced that you don’t stand for anything.

I try to give the benefit of the doubt to people whose position I personally disagree with. But at this point, I find it almost impossible to understand how they justify this act even to themselves.



Why are they so desperate to avoid providing a meaningful alternative to the Tories???


The next election isn’t til 2020. Why rush?

1 Like

So the Tories get to choose a new PM and not face the electorate?

Even dirtier than I thought :frowning:

1 Like

That’s just how parliamentary systems work. Same for Brown, Major, Callaghan…


True, but does it ever feel like a bait and switch

Oddly, the British system does not take official notice of political parties. In theory, someone who can command a majority in the Commons can visit Brenda and say “I can run your government for you,” and she says "Oh good, I was afraid I was going to have to do it, here’s the key of the executive washroom, tell your predecessor to leave it as they would wish to find it."
We in theory completely independently elect representatives and they decide on our behalf who to support. This is what comes of not having a constitution written down in one place.

(An example of this actually working is Fox Talbot, who stood on a platform that he would support the Reform Bill and then leave the Commons. Which he did, and then went on to become much more famous for something completely different.)

See the last page of Animal Farm.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”


See the last page of Animal Farm.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

I guess that’s what I’m wondering about.

In America they now get to choose between two wealthy, out of touch politicians that are only in it for themselves. Both totally full of shit.

One party successfully fought off an authentic populist, and the other was crushed a narcissistic fabulist.

I’m thinking that the Democrats threw away their chance at the holding higher ground in this election. They’re stuck mumbling “at least she’s an adult” in the country that reelected Bush II.

I feel like labour is busy trying to do the same (though the election is off in the radioactive dusty distance, 3 years into the reign of emperor Trump)