Protestor intrusion on Keir Starmer

seasideone said:
How the party started is irrelevant it’s what’s happening now that matters.
Click to expand...
It's not irrelevant as there's no subterfuge, the Labour party constitution states;

"A National Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation shall be established to involve affiliated unions in Party organisation"

Can you point me to the similar bit in the Tory constitution relating to oligarchs or anyone donating enough?
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
It's not irrelevant as there's no subterfuge, the Labour party constitution states;

"A National Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation shall be established to involve affiliated unions in Party organisation"

Can you point me to the similar bit in the Tory constitution relating to oligarchs or anyone donating enough?
Click to expand...
It’s simple really - and I know you get it - the Unions fund the Labour Party and then dictate lots of things.

…just like all political parties, who provides the dough - dictates the show.
 
seasideone said:
It’s simple really - and I know you get it - the Unions fund the Labour Party and then dictate lots of things.

…just like all political parties, who provides the dough - dictates the show.
Click to expand...
Not quite, a lot of the time the funders provide the money because they like what the party is offering anyway, or at least they dislike the alternative more, so in that case the show dictates the dough, and not vice versa.

Most political parties do not, however, allow their donors to have a say in their leadership elections.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Not quite, a lot of the time the funders provide the money because they like what the party is offering anyway, or at least they dislike the alternative more, so in that case the show dictates the dough, and not vice versa.

Most political parties do not, however, allow their donors to have a say in their leadership elections.
Click to expand...
So there money dictates the show - they like what they are doing so they fund it to continue what it’s doing.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The difference is that big business isn't expecting the government to fund massive pay rises for their members out of the public purse.
Click to expand...
Comedy gold. What's a suggested abolition of Corporation Tax, refusing to impose a windfall tax on energy or reducing upper rate tax to 40% if not to pander to big business.

All at the expense of the public purse.
 
seasideone said:
Unions have undue influence over the Labour Party!

You may not like that - but it is correct.
Click to expand...
No they do not. It has already been explained to you as well. They influence policy through their membership of the party. It is not an undue influence. Indeed, they pay their dues. However, you will, no doubt, repeat your assertion regardless of being now told twice, what the position is.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Not quite, a lot of the time the funders provide the money because they like what the party is offering anyway, or at least they dislike the alternative more, so in that case the show dictates the dough, and not vice versa.

Most political parties do not, however, allow their donors to have a say in their leadership elections.
Click to expand...
'Unions' don't vote for Labour leaders. Union members do. Ordinary people who pay a few quid in subs to their union each month. No different to signed up party members of the Tory party, for example - when they are allowed a vote and the 1922 committee doesn't just install the guy who lost a few months ago. Labour has a one member-one vote system. I can't see why that would be a suprise considering the Labour party was literally founded out of the trade union movement.

It is obvious that all parties are influenced by donors and lobbyists and I think it would take great naivety to pretend any aren't.
 
i was once a union member. guilty as charged. you dont get me i,m part of the union you dont get me i part of the union you dont get me i.m part of the union . till the day i die till the day i die. Strawbs 1974.
 
seasideone said:
I was not actually against the war, it was the lying that I was against.

It’s a huge difference and the two must be seperated.
Click to expand...
Well it was obvious at the time that they were finding a pretty dubious narrative to make the case for war, hence 1.5 m people at the largest ever protest in the UK. Nice one for admitting you supported it though👍
It was of course a massive mistake and Blair will always be remembered for it and not for the good things his labour government did in office as listed above .
 
foggy said:
'Unions' don't vote for Labour leaders. Union members do. Ordinary people who pay a few quid in subs to their union each month. No different to signed up party members of the Tory party, for example - when they are allowed a vote and the 1922 committee doesn't just install the guy who lost a few months ago. Labour has a one member-one vote system. I can't see why that would be a suprise considering the Labour party was literally founded out of the trade union movement.

It is obvious that all parties are influenced by donors and lobbyists and I think it would take great naivety to pretend any aren't.
Click to expand...
Is Ed Milliband a name you remember?
 
Kurtan said:
Well it was obvious at the time that they were finding a pretty dubious narrative to make the case for war, hence 1.5 m people at the largest ever protest in the UK. Nice one for admitting you supported it though👍
It was of course a massive mistake and Blair will always be remembered for it and not for the good things his labour government did in office as listed above .
Click to expand...
I’m not sure it was a mistake - taking out a leader who promoted rape and pillage plus used chemical weapons inside his own country.

I can live with that!

What I can’t live with is the lies we were fed 👎
 
seasideone said:
I’m not sure it was a mistake - taking out a leader who promoted rape and pillage plus used chemical weapons inside his own country.

I can live with that!

What I can’t live with is the lies we were fed 👎
Click to expand...
But you don’t mind being fed lies by the day by this government ?
 
Lost Seasider said:
Is Ed Milliband a name you remember?
Click to expand...
Yep. He won the plurality of votes from individual union members.

The rules of Labour leadership elections have changed since 2010. The current rules, under which Starmer won, give every single person a vote. Straight up popular vote. Trade union member or party member, your vote counts the same. In 2010 an electoral college style sytem was in place where PLP, Union members and Party members all counted for 33.3%. Your percentage in each of these blocks was then averaged out. This didn't give Union members more power, in fact it actually significantly reduced their power. There were twice as many union members as party members and yet they both got one-third of the vote. So a party member's vote was twice as powerful as a union members vote. I think it's much more democractic now, and we are talking about the Labour party now, not 13 years ago. But regardless Miliband won at a time union voters were having their voting power supressed.
 
foggy said:
Yep. He won the plurality of votes from individual union members.

.
Click to expand...
Nope, his brother was miles ahead on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Labour_Party_leadership_election_(UK)


foggy said:
The rules of Labour leadership elections have changed since 2010. The current rules, under which Starmer won, give every single person a vote. Straight up popular vote. Trade union member or party member, your vote counts the same. In 2010 an electoral college style sytem was in place where PLP, Union members and Party members all counted for 33.3%. Your percentage in each of these blocks was then averaged out. This didn't give Union members more power, in fact it actually significantly reduced their power. There were twice as many union members as party members and yet they both got one-third of the vote. So a party member's vote was twice as powerful as a union members vote. I think it's much more democractic now, and we are talking about the Labour party now, not 13 years ago. But regardless Miliband won at a time union voters were having their voting power supressed.
Click to expand...
2015 and 2016 were the same.

Regardless of the subsequent changes, it should be obvious that, because the vast majority of the members are there because of their Union membership, the Unions still maintain a significant influence over the leadership election, and that's before you look at constituency level elections.

Not that I remember mentioning Labour, or 2023 anyway.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Nope, his brother was miles ahead on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Labour_Party_leadership_election_(UK)



2015 and 2016 were the same.

Regardless of the subsequent changes, it should be obvious that, because the vast majority of the members are there because of their Union membership, the Unions still maintain a significant influence over the leadership election, and that's before you look at constituency level elections.

Not that I remember mentioning Labour, or 2023 anyway.
Click to expand...
Nope. Please read again. I said he won a plurality of votes from "individual union members". He did. 60/40 in the final run off.

I'm aware they were the same in 2015/16. The same rules which gave union members less power. And now the rules of the Labour party are different, and it's a one-member, one vote, popular vote election. You were talking in the present tense earlier, not past, which is why I felt the need to point this out.

As I said, Unions don't vote. Union members do. These are real people, who spend a few quid a month on their membership. I'm glad Labour politicians court their votes and they have influence.
 
Kurtan said:
But you don’t mind being fed lies by the day by this government ?
Click to expand...
You really are talking out of your backside!

Go check my previous posts - I cannot stand any of the current political parties and the BS they ALL talk and do.
 
Thought Labour would win the next GE with a landslide.
I mean, all they need to do is come across as moderately competent.
Surely even Starmer can’t fcuk this up? Can he?
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
What did the protestor say as I switched on just as he was being removed
Click to expand...
Oh the usual, something about making parliament into a people's parliament which I thought it already was. He also wanted to be a citizen seemingly unaware we are subjects of His Maj, he certainly cared a lot about it.
 
Interesting continuation of this thread.

FWIW I was with people who had attended both the Conservative and Labour party conferences and had attended plenty over the years. Most of them are Labour members.

They said this year, there were far more big businesses attached to the Labour event than the Tories and massively more than the just few years at the Labour Conference.

I don't have anything to match it against.

At one of the fringe meetings, someone made it something of a triumph that there were so many theyre and Labour was a party of business.

It does suggest that big business has/tries to have influence over all politics as you'd expect.
 
Last edited:
tangerine_neil said:
Thought Labour would win the next GE with a landslide.
I mean, all they need to do is come across as moderately competent.
Surely even Starmer can’t fcuk this up? Can he?
Click to expand...
They need something like a 20% swing to get to parity, don't forget. Not a foregone conclusion, especially when the brainwashing is already underway.

Non dom owned newspapers lining up to pick up on any falter while the Tories get away with murder, only to be given one more chance.
 
Listen boys. Save all your complaining until Sir Kier is our new PM.

Don't like seeing people wasting energy thrashing out lengthy messages in support of your Dishi Rishi that go unnoticed and unread.
 
Macseasider said:
Listen boys. Save all your complaining until Sir Kier is our new PM.

Don't like seeing people wasting energy thrashing out lengthy messages in support of your Dishi Rishi that go unnoticed and unread.
Click to expand...
The problem I have with Starmer is that he unilaterally supported Corbyn and is now distancing himself from the far left just to try and win votes

I also think he will increase taxes and screw motorists to pay for his pie in the sky plans to build 1.5 million houses

Listening to Cooper on question time it does appear like Labour think they can fix everything yet have no idea how they will pay for it all
 
Last edited:
We now have polling data from several pollsters from after the Conference.

Deltapoll: Labour lead grew from +15 to +20
Opinium: Labour lead grew from +13 to +16
Wethink: No change
YouGov: Labour lead grew from +21 to +23
Techne: Labour lead grew from +19 to +20

Conference bumps tend to be temporary but all signs show Starmer and Labour profited from Conference season. If there was an election tomorrow they'd be likely to get a ~200 seat majority. The Conservatives chances are getting slimmer and slimmer now that Labour are looking likely to be the biggest party in Scotland, giving them more margin for error.
 
foggy said:
We now have polling data from several pollsters from after the Conference.

Deltapoll: Labour lead grew from +15 to +20
Opinium: Labour lead grew from +13 to +16
Wethink: No change
YouGov: Labour lead grew from +21 to +23
Techne: Labour lead grew from +19 to +20

Conference bumps tend to be temporary but all signs show Starmer and Labour profited from Conference season. If there was an election tomorrow they'd be likely to get a ~200 seat majority. The Conservatives chances are getting slimmer and slimmer now that Labour are looking likely to be the biggest party in Scotland, giving them more margin for error.
Click to expand...
Labour are compromising on their party values to win public appeal
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
The problem I have with Starmer is that he unilaterally supported Corbyn and is now distancing himself from the far left just to try and win votes

I also think he will increase taxes and screw motorists to pay for his pie in the sky plans to build 1.5 million houses

Listening to Cooper on question time it does appear like Labour think they can fix everything yet have no idea how they will pay for it all
Click to expand...

Someone's been reading The Sun, obv.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
The problem I have with Starmer is that he unilaterally supported Corbyn and is now distancing himself from the far left just to try and win votes

I also think he will increase taxes and screw motorists to pay for his pie in the sky plans to build 1.5 million houses

Listening to Cooper on question time it does appear like Labour think they can fix everything yet have no idea how they will pay for it all
Click to expand...
The tax burden is the highest its been in 70 years under the party of low taxation, ditto crime rate under the party of law and order.

The Tories are claiming the 1.5 million house target is their's, by the way. How are they paying for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top