|
U-Know! Forum » The Future of the Labour Party |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Stevo 6664 posts |
Jul 25, 2016, 18:52
|
||
|
Hope you got the window right this time, since they didn't when she announced it. Do wonder to what extent people are thinking that it was lucky no shards of glass hit anybody in the office from what they're hearing of the story. & how shards of glass were being swept from the stairs in a groundfloor office.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Jul 25, 2016, 20:52
Jul 25, 2016, 20:51
|
||
|
Well the bastards are going to be there a long time yet, endlessly insisting on no concessions during the exit negotiations. There have been calls for the Govt to commit to replacing all the environmental finance when Europe's end. Generally, bastards don't do the environment.
|
|||
|
Stevo 6664 posts |
Jul 29, 2016, 14:21
|
||
|
What is the desired result of the members' case against the Labour Party concerning the exclusion from the vote unless you payed £25. Sounds from what I'm hearing elsewhere like it's not going to be a situation where the court could upturn the £25 charge and would be more likely to be viewing it as an internal Party matter and that Breach of contract would be likely to just mean those taking the court case would be offered the option of exiting the contract and getting a refund of membership charges up to that point. Is that just a pessimistic interpretation of things? Could it actually alter the party's ability to make a move like that? Or is it one set of established authority trying to bring a judgment on an area it doesn't actually have authority over? JUst hearing that the judicial system is unlikely to try to make rulling against constraints within a Party set up. But surely for those trying to make a court case there must have been some advice that they could win in some way. Which what I heard elsewhere sounds like the judicial system would have little hope in ruling for. Stevo
|
|||
Captain Starlet 1110 posts |
Jul 29, 2016, 15:12
|
||
problem LP have is that when people signed up it specifically said they'd be allowed to vote in leadership elections so it is actually a breach of contract. Ideally I'd like to see everyone who's joined be allowed to vote, but as you say the courts may just say it's a party matter
|
|||
Markoid 1621 posts |
Edited Jul 30, 2016, 20:15
Jul 30, 2016, 20:11
|
||
|
It's all piss and Pizzas. I totally respect Jeremy Corbyn, but there is no chance he would be a Prime Minister. No chance. His influence is brilliant and that is all we can hope for, but who? Some cunt, yeah some cunt! All the fucking same.
|
|||
|
Stevo 6664 posts |
Edited Jul 30, 2016, 20:58
Jul 30, 2016, 20:55
|
||
|
JUst left with that central point to this case. Desired result for people feeling cheated by this decision by the Labour Party is presumably to attempt to change the Labour Party decision. Whereas it looks like the only result that the courts might be able to offer is that they get the money back and that only if they give up being members. So the near opposite of their aim. So I'm just wondering if there is a way around that through this course. & finding it odd taht a lawyer would take a case onboard without looking at what the judge might/would be able to offer. I half heard teh end part of the discussion about labour party on Newsnight last night and think that the guests might have been asked about this and said taht it was most likely to be viewed as an internal party decision. Not sure what routes could be taken to change a decision like this after the fact so that people didn't feel ripped off. Would involve the judge actually having control over what could be done inside a Political party. & presumably would also have involved having the possibility of a freeze being put on the £25 fee before it was paid, so the moment was gone before anybody was able to act on it. Somebody is paying for a court case to be pursued so I would think that they would need to have some hope of a result that they desired. Can't see the fact that they've taken the case as simply being a protest of some kind with no hope of greater significance. Or is the idea simply to bring attention to the fact that this has been done. In which case the plaintiff is seeing the Labour Party as the thing that needs to be punished as well as the thing it is attempting to be loyal to. Which is a difficult place to be isn't it? Would think taht it may just be too late to force change in this process at least by this route. & that the one way to try to bring around change will be to do with who gets to be elected to the NEC whenever that election is. I've heard talk of it being forthcoming but not sure when. Are things like that going on over the summer or did most things apart from the leadership campaign go on summer break from the 21st July? I'm just trying to wrap my head around what would actually be able to be changed by a judge's decision that would automatically be effected. Stevo
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5290 posts |
Aug 04, 2016, 20:09
|
||
|
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/10_pledges I like them I don't suppose the papers will want to print them in case lots of people like them. The crummy guardian ran a story about them that initially didn't even list them. I give up on it.
|
|||
|
Captain Starlet 1110 posts |
Aug 04, 2016, 20:40
|
||
He's definitely on the right track, people just need to remember that these things aren't going to happen overnight. I'd like to see getting rid of the bedroom tax on there as well
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5290 posts |
Aug 05, 2016, 12:07
|
||
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls1HzPZs_eY I have watched this and I honestly tried to keep as open minded as possible, but I still couldn't help seeing Smith as a suit who was saying 'it's time to be united, it's terrible we're not' - when he's one of the ones causing the disuniity! and that he seemed better at dodging the actual questions than Corbyn and just spouting the soundbites rather than talking about the root causes of things. Also the clapping is so weird, you hear lots of clapping but a lot of hte time you can't see many people clapping! (I think they must have paid people to whoop at the back, the people you can see look very dour). Smith's insistence that you need nuclear weapons to try and pursuade other countries to give up theirs seemed quite bizarre to me. He keeps going on about 'we need to be in government' but I still don't understand why he thinks he's more able to win a bloody election than the person he disagrees with.
|
|||
|
Captain Starlet 1110 posts |
Aug 05, 2016, 12:14
|
||
|
I find it uncanny that as he agrees so much with Corbyn that he wants to take his job. After all he's been stealing his policies since he decided to challenge, if Corbyn goes he'll have nothing to convince voters with. According to a Labour insider a few MP's are asking Smith to stand down from the leadership challenge after last night's complete disaster. The bit "I'm not having that" after being challenged on resigning was just pathetic. If he can't remain calm and dignified against a pensioner what chance will he have against the Tories and other opposition, not to mention foreign affairs! He totally got put in his place last night and shown as a rank amateur. I hope today he's thinking about doing the decent thing.
|
| Pages: 21 – [ Previous | 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
