[Oboogie]

This is an excellent move by Starmer, people who pay little attention to politicians do listen to famous musicians.

[The Weeping Angel]

Apparently proposing going back to the electoral college is bad because it will distract from the worst economic crisis since the 70s at least according to someone from another forum.

I look on Twitter, in the midst of what’s described as an “energy catastrophe” and the main person calling for action is Martin Lewis. Meanwhile, Labour supporters are all busy getting OMOV and internal idealogical disputes trending.

I’m sorry. I really am. I truly sympathise that these internal issues mean a lot to you personally. But as a somewhat floating voter (never been swayed to vote Tory mind) facing a catastrophic hit to my finances these are not my priority right now!!! As Martin says, many could face a choice between “heating or eating” this winter. So apologies if getting into a barney about how Labour elects it’s leader seems a little like fiddling whilst Rome burns to the likes of us right now.

Rant over.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Surely what he is saying is that at such a time (when the party needs to be building support through sensible alternative policies) it is a little slef-indulgent to be arguing over internal politics.

I'm not sure I agree, but it's a point I'm seeing expressed in a lot of places.

That noise you can hear is a waterfall, and the people in the canoe are arguing about who holds the paddle.

[Abernathy]

Surely what he is saying is that at such a time (when the party needs to be building support through sensible alternative policies) it is a little slef-indulgent to be arguing over internal politics.

I'm not sure I agree, but it's a point I'm seeing expressed in a lot of places.

That noise you can hear is a waterfall, and the people in the canoe are arguing about who holds the paddle.

Mange tout, mon brave, mange tout.

I mean for fuck's sake - it's the Labour Party's annual conference . If that isn't the place to discuss "internal politics", then where the fuck is?

Don't people realise that getting the party into shape to fight and win an election requires vital, essential improvements to the party's rules and structures (especially after the malevolent shite that Corbyn's goons imposed) and not just presenting a few nice new policy ideas ? Building support through sensible alternative policies is part of the continuing, full-time job of opposition - and it continues outside of conference time.

The phrase "catch a fucking grip" springs to mind.

[Abernathy]

Re: reinstating the electoral college :

OMOV in Labour Leadership elections twice delivered a party leader who was demonstrably unacceptable to an overwhelming proportion of the voters whose support the party required to be elected to government. Worse, that leader overwhelmingly lacked the confidence of the members of parliament that it was his key job function to lead day to day. This is why Corbyn's leadership could never succeed - and why the party basically wasted 4 years treading water while the Tories set about establishing their malicious hegemony in the UK, before effectively handing Boris Johnson an 80 seat majority in the worst GE result for Labour since 1934 and guaranteeing a hard and shambolic Brexit.

Thankfully, the same system then resulted in the election of Keir Starmer, but we now witness the spectacle of the hard left of the party moaning that Starmer is a "Tory plant", and a liar, among other absurd grievances.

Much is made of the worth of "party democracy" by the hard left, to the point of fetishisation, but it makes no sense whatsoever to continue with a leadership election process that risks repeating the disastrous waste of the Corbyn years.

The electoral college system worked very well for many years, and is emphatically not "undemocratic".

[The Weeping Angel]

Thanks Abernathy could I copy and paste this please?

[Abernathy]

Be my guest.

[Abernathy]

.

[Crabcakes]

Re: reinstating the electoral college :

OMOV in Labour Leadership elections twice delivered a party leader who was demonstrably unacceptable to an overwhelming proportion of the voters whose support the party required to be elected to government. Worse, that leader overwhelmingly lacked the confidence of the members of parliament that it was his key job function to lead day to day. This is why Corbyn's leadership could never succeed - and why the party basically wasted 4 years treading water while the Tories set about establishing their malicious hegemony in the UK, before effectively handing Boris Johnson an 80 seat majority in the worst GE result for Labour since 1934 and guaranteeing a hard and shambolic Brexit.

Thankfully, the same system then resulted in the election of Keir Starmer, but we now witness the spectacle of the hard left of the party moaning that Starmer is a "Tory plant", and a liar, among other absurd grievances.

Much is made of the worth of "party democracy" by the hard left, to the point of fetishisation, but it makes no sense whatsoever to continue with a leadership election process that risks repeating the disastrous waste of the Corbyn years.

The electoral college system worked very well for many years, and is emphatically not "undemocratic".

It also doesn't address the elephant in the room - if a candidate was really good and got the support of the grassroots party and MPs, they could win regardless. A system that allows people to win based purely on numbers, where those numbers can be artificially and temporarily inflated by groups with vested interests and the same weight is given to a mate of a bloke who persuaded him to sign up and vote for "some guy who's a bit of a meme" as it gives to a well respected MP of 10+ years' service, is clearly at high risk of compromise.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

All those points were put to Ed Miliband before he pushed it through.

[mattomac]

Anything that allows people to pay some small fee to choose a leader and then bugger off only to reappear when said leader or leaders successor needs to get elected should be got rid.

Surprised to see the Unions were the ones you need to get onside, I would have thought that was why Starmer was pushing it as they would generally back it.

Labour will only be electable once it’s agree that the enemy is not in the party but out.

[Youngian]

Wouldn't object to the Tory system of the PLP electing two candidates to put to the members. You can't have a parliamentary party lumbered with a leader they have no confidence in.

This procedural issue won't matter much to voters but whether Starmer is in charge. Perhaps thats why Starmer chose it to fight on as the electoral colleges isn't going scare old lefties and trade unionists very much.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Even better, have MPs choose the leader.

[Arrowhead]

Whilst they're at it, let's hope the current Labour leadership also does something about the supposed ambiguity surrounding precisely what happens when a leader loses a PLP confidence vote. Corbyn arrogantly staying put in July 2016, having lost the support of more than three quarters of his own parliamentary colleagues, is part of the reason why Labour eventually ended up in such a pitiful state. The fact that Corbyn was automatically allowed a place on the ballot for the subsequent leadership contest, without having to once again gather together the requisite number of MP nominations, simply rubbed further salt in the wounds.

[Abernathy]

Anything that allows people to pay some small fee to choose a leader and then bugger off only to reappear when said leader or leaders successor needs to get elected should be got rid.

Surprised to see the Unions were the ones you need to get onside, I would have thought that was why Starmer was pushing it as they would generally back it.

Labour will only be electable once it’s agree that the enemy is not in the party but out.

I distinctly recall the likes of Daniel Hannan saying that they were happy to hand over 3 quid in order to cast a vote for the leadership candidate most likely to lead Labour to a crushing defeat - AKA Jeremy Bernard Corbyn.

[Abernathy]

I've already said this in another part of the Mailwatch forest, but I think it bears repeating on this thread :

It's all strategy. For a while we've been talking about Starmer needing to have his "Blair moment", just as Blair in turn engineered his own "Kinnock moment" - in essence, it's the leader picking a fight with his/her own party in order both to demonstrate to the electorate the virility of his/her leadership qualities and control over his/her party, and to convince the electorate that Labour has indeed changed for the better and can again be trusted to govern as a real alternative to the incumbents.

In Kinnock's case it was a genuine and essential need publicly to kick Hatton, Heffer, and the rest of Militant Tendency out of the party.

In Blair's case it was the slightly less essential and more confected need to re-word clause IV of the party's constitution. (I remember being skeptical at the time - and I still don't see that the re-write of clause IV was even necessary - but looking back I can clearly see the benefits that accrued to the party because of it).

Starmer's "Blair moment" then, seems to be to get rid of the OMOV system that delivered the Corbyn leadership debacle and revert to the electoral college.

From the reaction to the proposal from the left faction (see J. McDonnell), it would appear to serve the purpose of picking a fight with his own party very well, though it is a highly sensible reform in its own right.

Should Starmer succeed in getting this change through, this can (and will) be presented as a victory over Labour's diminished and weakening crank left faction, a demonstration of Starmer's strong leadership qualities, and a very public and symbolic (and essential) indication that Labour has changed in the wake of the Corbyn disaster, and can be trusted to govern again.

In that respect, there is more to this proposal than meets the eye. In fact, there is a great deal riding on it.

[Andy McDandy]

I distinctly recall the likes of Daniel Hannan saying that they were happy to hand over 3 quid in order to cast a vote for the leadership candidate most likely to lead Labour to a crushing defeat - AKA Jeremy Bernard Corbyn.

If not Hannan, then Toby Young certainly did.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

@Abernathy
Is it strategy or tactics?

[Abernathy]

@Abernathy
Is it strategy or tactics?

Well, both, I’d say. Even if he doesn’t get it through, he’ll accrue credit (not from the cranks, obviously) for having been bold enough and strong enough to try.

I think he had to do something like this at this conference.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Which is why I think it's just another tactic in the strategy of moving the party back to 2010 in terms of organisation.