Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Activist group Momentum called the rule change "an MP veto by the backdoor", adding: "Handing this much power to a Westminster elite is the opposite of democracy".

Voters make MPs not self-important activists.

No sense that Labour members and the public are not the same thing.

Looks like a clear win for Starmer and Momentum haven't even noticed yet that that they've been played.

I think it may slowly be dawning on the Trots that the proposal to restore the electoral college was effectively a loss leader, which Starmer must have known stood little chance of getting past the NEC/unions, but which served its purpose of providing cover for the real changes.

Those other "undemocratic" changes will do nicely, particularly the reversal of Corbyn's earlier reduction of the PLP leadership nominations threshold to only 10% (they seem to forget that the Labour leadership is well entitled to propose rule changes) - in itself a transparent attempt by the trots to enable a possible future recreation of Corbyn's ascent to the leadership.

Hoping fervently that "Squealer" Jones continues his pathetically melodramatic meltdown. I mean, I hope he actually melts down.

It's a tactic familiar to anybody ever involved in any form of negotiation, whether a pay dispute, flogging a second hand motor or indeed a rule change.
You initially ask for more than you want and allow your opponent to haggle you down to your actual asking price. They think they've won something but you're the one who's got what you wanted in the first place.

You can get what you want and still look a mug because it wasn't worth the effort.

Could you show your working on that one, Tubbz?

Party conferences are one of the few chances the Opposition get to set the agenda. Not something to blow on internal changes the public don't really care about, or care about in a "there they go again, internal squabbles" way.

The policy is good. We could have been hearing about that this last week.

Right, so according to Tubby, Starmer's move to institute rule changes to disadvantage the Trots was "not worth the effort" not sure how he's arrived at that position, but I could not disagree more with it.

A move against the Trots at this conference is, far from being "not worth the effort" is on the contrary absolutely *essential*.
A public demonstration that the Labour Party has left the wasted years of the Corbyn leadership behind is required. Think Kinnock's expulsion of the Militants, or Blair's Clause IV re-wording. Or even John Smith's conference victory on TU OMOV, aided by a remarkable John Prescott speech.

Without such a public demonstration, Starmer's public credibility, and crucially, electablitity, is fatally undermined.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:56 pm Party conferences are one of the few chances the Opposition get to set the agenda. Not something to blow on internal changes the public don't really care about, or care about in a "there they go again, internal squabbles" way.

The policy is good. We could have been hearing about that this last week.

It is possible at conference to discuss both party rule changes *and* policy proposals, you know - it isn't a binary choice, and the event has the capacity to do both - indeed, it is what conference is for. The "there we go again with internal squabbling" line is entirely hostile media spin.

You can do both on terms of standing on a stage at different times. But doubtful if in terms of media bandwidth you can do both. This is why Labour in the past has held special conferences.

I think Starmer is getting poor advice. It's a gift to people like McDonnell who'd be fading quietly away without unforced errors.

Nonsense. Part of the entire raison d'etre of conference is to deal with rule changes. Corbyn himself instituted a number of rule changes without "special conferences" that he thought would be beneficial to his Trot faction. Special conferences have only ever been held for major constitutional changes, such as Blair's Clause IV re-casting.

McDonnell will continue to fade away after this conference, without a doubt.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:32 pm You can do both on terms of standing on a stage at different times. But doubtful if in terms of media bandwidth you can do both. This is why Labour in the past has held special conferences.

I think Starmer is getting poor advice. It's a gift to people like McDonnell who'd be fading quietly away without unforced errors.

Starmer should have presented these rule changes from the start rather than the electoral college.. But I'm with Abernathy conference has always had debates about rule changes. Also I find it really annoying that people are having a go at Labour over this because there's a fuel crisis as if it's somehow on them to solve it.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:52 pm Nonsense. Part of the entire raison d'etre of conference is to deal with rule changes. Corbyn himself instituted a number of rule changes without "special conferences" that he thought would be beneficial to his Trot faction. Special conferences have only ever been held for major constitutional changes, such as Blair's Clause IV re-casting.

McDonnell will continue to fade away after this conference, without a doubt.

For Corbyn and co internal changes are the main thing a lot of the time. But for anyone else, it has to be policy and themes. Anybody who isn't Jez or John Redwood will get a lot of "at least we know where they stand" bollocks. So you have to use this time well.

Agree McDonnell isn't getting back into the Shadow cabinet but there's a difference between fading away quietly as part of natural evolution, and giving him easy rally points.

It does look very much like a row was set up for its own sake, and incompetently. I say that as someone who'd happily have MPs elect the leader.

Well, here's a Labour 'dead cat': https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58697307

Smart move, Rayner...

The highest rated comment on the Mail so far:

About 10% of the population says "Tory Scum". She knows that, hence she only said it under her breath. Why on earth would she revive memories of that?

Because she's an idiot?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:40 am About 10% of the population says "Tory Scum". She knows that, hence she only said it under her breath. Why on earth would she revive memories of that?

That doesn’t get under the wire despite Johnson being open season for all sorts of personal insults.

Tory establishment plant.

A bunch of Jez fans aren't "young people". He engaged with them before, but they tried to make out he hadn't.

Any green announcements at all today? It's a proper mystery that he wanted Rachel Reeves to announce it on stage, rather than blurting it out to some people as he went for a stroll.