Of course there was:
MPS
MEPs
Full dues paying memebers of the Labour Party
And those who had been members of the Labour Party for more than a year.
Jeremy Corbyn 2
Wed, 2017-05-03 20:26
#552
Wed, 2017-05-03 20:36
#553
The MEPs and the MPs are the least Labour parts of the party.
Thu, 2017-05-04 00:42
#554
From nicky:
No Rev, Corbyn doesn't scare the right at all. The right is rejoicing that they have such an unelectable oppoponent.
But by everything right-wingers do it is clear to me that they do not want Corbyn in the election, in any form. The lies, the made-up stories, the hand-wringing, all tell me that nothing scares the right-wing more than a moderately lefty candidate inserting moderately lefty policies into the debate.
Your contention that it was Conservatives that signed up to elect Corbyn party leader is a bit amusing given the original contention was that it was Trotskyists that were the culprits in his election.
Why can't you accept the very simple explanation that the party hierarchy had lost touch with the membership, and the membership, staunch Labour supporters, elected Corbyn to try and return some progressive policies to the Labour platform?
By the way, how frightened the right-wingers are is also indicated by the fact the Conservative party is trying to portray themselves as the workers friend. They're practically to the point of singing "We Shall Overcome" to try and prevent any kind of slightly left policies being brought forward.
Thu, 2017-05-04 01:01
#555
given the original contention was that it was Trotskyists that were the culprits in his election.
Was it literally suggested that they were Trotskyists? Or just that the sudden influx of new members were using an old Trotskyist strategy? Does the UK even have that many bona fide Trotskyists?
Thu, 2017-05-04 06:44
#556
"But controversy surrounded Labour’s voting system, which was being used for the first time, with reports of “entryism” from the far-left and even Conservatives who relished the chance of a Corbyn-led opposition skewing the vote in his favour. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-...
Why are so many Tories joining Labour after Jeremy Corbyn's leadership announcement?
"Conservative voters are paying £3 to become Labour supporters in bid to sway leadership race in favour of left-winger Jeremy Corbyn"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11680098/Why-are-so-many...
"Why Tories should join Labour and back Jeremy Corbyn
For just a £3 membership fee you can help consign the party to electoral oblivion in 2020 - and silence its loony Left forever"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/1168...
Thu, 2017-05-04 11:12
#557
From Mr. Magoo:
Does the UK even have that many bona fide Trotskyists?
Of course not, and that's sort of what made the scenario a bit hard to believe. The Trotskyists are probably the smallest left group in the UK. Could probably hold their convention in a telephone booth.
And why would some group that was not Trotskyist use a 'Trotskyist' tactic? Signing up members in the hopes of winning a party election? That's kind of everyone's tactic, isn't it?
I honestly think what happened with Corbyn is not a lot different than what happened with Bernie Sanders. People were looking for a progressive alternative, and they were unhappy with the left party that had completely lost touch with it's base. Of couse the 'New Labour' types couldn't accept that their vision for the party wasn't what party members wanted, so they've had to invent several different conspiracies to explain what they should understand is their own failure.
Thu, 2017-05-04 13:35
#558
"But controversy surrounded Labour’s voting system, which was being used for the first time, with reports of “entryism” from the far-left and even Conservatives who relished the chance of a Corbyn-led opposition skewing the vote in his favour. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-...
Why are so many Tories joining Labour after Jeremy Corbyn's leadership announcement?
"Conservative voters are paying £3 to become Labour supporters in bid to sway leadership race in favour of left-winger Jeremy Corbyn"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11680098/Why-are-so-many...
"Why Tories should join Labour and back Jeremy Corbyn
For just a £3 membership fee you can help consign the party to electoral oblivion in 2020 - and silence its loony Left forever"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/1168...
If any of the other candidates had had anything to offer in terms of electability, they'd have at least come close to Jeremy in the overall vote. No polls had Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper or the all-but-Tory Liz Kendall(a figure whose policies are to Blair's RIGHT, for goddess' sakes)doing any better against the Conservatives in the polls. If there had been any such polls, they'd have been heavily publicized.
If you can't be popular in your own party you can never be popular among the voters as a whole.
Blair, by contrast, was instantly popular with all sectors of the party, whatever else you can say about him(and you can say a lot...you can certainly say that his toxic hatred of socialists and socialism did nothing to gain Labour votes-Labour was ahead before Blair won the leadership and the ERM-Exchange Rate Mechanism-crisis had already doomed John Major and the Tories to defeat.
You know it's too late to replace Corbyn and you know that no one from the past has anything to offer.
Thu, 2017-05-04 13:51
#559
No it is not toolate.
After today's election results, if Corbyn has any respect for the Labour Party's continued viability, he will resign and allow for an interim leader to attempt to rescue Labour from the mess Corbyn has created.
Thu, 2017-05-04 19:06
#560
"But controversy surrounded Labour’s voting system, which was being used for the first time, with reports of “entryism” from the far-left and even Conservatives who relished the chance of a Corbyn-led opposition skewing the vote in his favour. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-...
Why are so many Tories joining Labour after Jeremy Corbyn's leadership announcement?
"Conservative voters are paying £3 to become Labour supporters in bid to sway leadership race in favour of left-winger Jeremy Corbyn"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11680098/Why-are-so-many...
"Why Tories should join Labour and back Jeremy Corbyn
For just a £3 membership fee you can help consign the party to electoral oblivion in 2020 - and silence its loony Left forever"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/1168...
If any of the other candidates had had anything to offer in terms of electability, they'd have at least come close to Jeremy in the overall vote. No polls had Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper or the all-but-Tory Liz Kendall(a figure whose policies are to Blair's RIGHT, for goddess' sakes)doing any better against the Conservatives in the polls. If there had been any such polls, they'd have been heavily publicized.
If you can't be popular in your own party you can never be popular among the voters as a whole.
Blair, by contrast, was instantly popular with all sectors of the party, whatever else you can say about him(and you can say a lot...you can certainly say that his toxic hatred of socialists and socialism did nothing to gain Labour votes-Labour was ahead before Blair won the leadership and the ERM-Exchange Rate Mechanism-crisis had already doomed John Major and the Tories to defeat.You know it's too late to replace Corbyn and you know that no one from the past has anything to offer.
Tony Blurr was popular in all sectors of the party? Wish another Tony were still around to respond to that one.
Fri, 2017-05-05 00:23
#561
"But controversy surrounded Labour’s voting system, which was being used for the first time, with reports of “entryism” from the far-left and even Conservatives who relished the chance of a Corbyn-led opposition skewing the vote in his favour. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-...
Why are so many Tories joining Labour after Jeremy Corbyn's leadership announcement?
"Conservative voters are paying £3 to become Labour supporters in bid to sway leadership race in favour of left-winger Jeremy Corbyn"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11680098/Why-are-so-many...
"Why Tories should join Labour and back Jeremy Corbyn
For just a £3 membership fee you can help consign the party to electoral oblivion in 2020 - and silence its loony Left forever"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/1168...
If any of the other candidates had had anything to offer in terms of electability, they'd have at least come close to Jeremy in the overall vote. No polls had Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper or the all-but-Tory Liz Kendall(a figure whose policies are to Blair's RIGHT, for goddess' sakes)doing any better against the Conservatives in the polls. If there had been any such polls, they'd have been heavily publicized.
If you can't be popular in your own party you can never be popular among the voters as a whole.
Blair, by contrast, was instantly popular with all sectors of the party, whatever else you can say about him(and you can say a lot...you can certainly say that his toxic hatred of socialists and socialism did nothing to gain Labour votes-Labour was ahead before Blair won the leadership and the ERM-Exchange Rate Mechanism-crisis had already doomed John Major and the Tories to defeat.You know it's too late to replace Corbyn and you know that no one from the past has anything to offer.
Tony Blurr was popular in all sectors of the party? Wish another Tony were still around to respond to that one.
OK...I was working on the assumption that the Labour Left wasn't actually a sector for the purposes of the leadership election process(I was thinking the unions, paid members, MPs MEPs, CLPs-all of which anyone who actually cared about workers and the poor, as "Labour moderates" are incapable of doing due to their devotion to preserving the status quo at all costs, had been purged, leaving no one but soulless moneygrubbing cynics behind). You're right that Mr. Benn would question what I said there, but his portion of the party was still being punished in 1994 even though they were no longer responsible for any of the party's problems, what with Kinnock having lost the 1992 election on a manifesto with no socialist positions whatsoever...no nationalization, no repeal of the anti-uni0n laws, robotic agreement with the entire Tory foreign policy and no solidarity with working people anywhere else in the world anymore. There was nothing Kinnock was proposing that was to the left of the Liberal Democrats(as they were in that era)at all.
Fri, 2017-05-05 04:35
#562
I am interested in your views on the Labour debacle in yesterday's local election.
As one measure of what happened, for the first time ever Labour has lost botn Methyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent, seats that used to give Aneuran Bevan and Michael Foot 95% of their votes.
Of course they must have voted against the evil Blairites but don't any of you think that Jeremy bears even the slightest responsibility?
Fri, 2017-05-05 04:52
#563
You don't think the endless refusal to accept Corbyn as leader and the relentless disrespect your fellow right-wingers showed the guy played any result in that?
If Labour lost with your kind of leader in 2010 and 2015, that means Labour is ALWAYS going to lose with that kind of leader.
The result on June 9th will be exactly the same with Corbyn with or without him.
There is nobody who's going to say "ok, they have a right wing leader who hates workers and the poor, so now we CAN vote Labour".
If you had agreed to what he asked for on the leadership ballot, this wouldn't be happening.
It could never have been legitimate to ask an overwhelmingly left-wing party to accept having no choices but anti-Left candidates to choose from for their party's leadership. Why couldn't those of you on the right accept that and let the ballot actually be democratic?
Yes, Corbyn has minor flaws, but no more than Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham or Owen Smith. And if there had been any indication any of them would have done better against the Cons, the polls would shown it.
No polls ever, at any point did.
It's sickening that you want Labour to be just another party of the status quo and that you think the voters wanted another dreary gray election fought on trivial differences. It's sickening that you want Labour to be a party no young person would ever vote for again.
Labour will die if it puts in someone you want as leader, because it will have no reason to exist.
Fri, 2017-05-05 05:14
#564
Well said.
Fri, 2017-05-05 05:36
#565
There is almost a one to one relationship in UKIP's collapse to the Tories' gain.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/860399853041594369
Which establishes my point that it is Brexit, not Corbyn that is driving both the Tories and Labour's numbers.
Fri, 2017-05-05 06:44
#566
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Ken, you insult me by calling me a "right-winger". You do not know me. I have fought for progressive causes since I was a teenager. I have put in countless hours campaigning for left-wing causes and candidates, and more dollars than I care to count. My professional life is in support of civil liberties and I have fought more hard battles in this field than you can imagine.
There are many concerned and sincere people of the left who see what what you refuse to see through your puritanical myopia - that Corbyn is an incompetent unacceptable leader who is leading a great historical inspirational party to one of the lowest points in its proud history.
It may somehow comfort you irrationally to defllect the disaster of the local elections away from Coryn who bears overwhelming responsibility. This attitude will presage a parrallel disaster on June 9 should Labour remain cursed with him as leader.