Labour Leadership 2016

^ indeed.

The problem with #SaveLabour and the PLP is that they seem to have one way of engaging with the crisis they've done a lot to create: attack Corbyn and do everything possible to destroy the idea of a Labour party with him as leader. They've been incredibly successful in getting this opinion out there, so have convinced many potential (non-affiliated) voters, but have done nothing to convince party members, supporters, or anyone really, that they have an alternative.

Depressing conversation with a colleague who is a member of the Tory party - she still has a number of friends joining labour to vote for Corbyn because they think he is unelectable... make of that what you will

I know a guy who gave UKIP a referendum because he thought they'd never win it

Fair point! Although you are equivocating voters who support Corbyn with the swivel eyed loons...

I think it says something about how he is perceived by non-Corbynites, though.

It seems to be very much a problem of "We don't like Corbyn" VS "We don't like PLP" with no option 3.

Combined with some nice infighting which the Tories avoiding despite have a cowardly ex PM and a few backstabbers it makes for good TV but bad for voters... a middle ground is needed but I've no idea where it can come from. Maybe from new incomers...

The £25 is outrageous. Who decided that? Was it designed to put people off?

I thought this was the party for the working (wo)man. Charging the same as the Tory membership fee >>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's the fee to become a registered supporter. Membership is diffrent.

http://www.labour.org.uk/pages/questions-about-membership
https://join.labour.org.uk/

We’ve got a wide range of rates so you might pay as little as £1 a
year. Our standard rate starts at £3.92 a month and you can choose to
pay more if you wish, as many of our members do.

Unlike the Tories, we don’t rely on a small number of super-wealthy
donors. We rely on funds from our dedicated members and your
membership fee would provide a vital boost to our campaigning efforts.
Without that money, we simply wouldn’t be able to run the Labour
Party.

Membership Freeze Date:

The 6 month freeze date was determined by the National Executive Committee (the elected >body that oversees the Labour Party) and is normal for internal selections.

Members who joined before 12 January 2016 and are still fully paid up members by noon on 8 August will be entitled to vote.

Members who joined after 12 January can still take part in the leadership election by registering as supporters before 5pm on Wednesday 20 July, paying £25 and agreeing to our terms and conditions.

Members in Arrears:

Any member who is currently in arrears, who was a member on or before 12 January 2016, has until noon on Monday 8 August to bring their membership payments up to date. You can renew online at renew.labour.org.uk from 5pm Wednesday 20 July.

2015 Registered Supporters:

If you were a registered supporter in 2015 you will not receive a vote unless you re-register as a supporter or you fulfil the conditions of either a member (see above) or an affiliated supporter (see below). You will need to register as supporter before 5pm on Wednesday 20 July, paying £25 and agreeing to our terms and conditions.

If you were a registered supporter and subsequently joined as a member before 12 January 2016 and are currently fully paid up, you do not need to re-register to vote.

2015 Affiliated Supporters:

If you were an affiliated supporter in 2015, are still on the electoral register and still a member of your affiliated organisation, you will receive a ballot in this leadership election. There is no action you need to take. We will confirm your eligibility with your union, and check you against the electoral register.

All members and supporters taking part in the leadership election must subscribe to the Labour Party’s aims and objectives, and not be a member or a supporter of any organisation that opposes the Labour Party.

All other information about the leadership election can be found at labour.org.uk/leadership.

Our terms and conditions can be found at labour.org.uk/pages/membership-terms-and-conditions.

With best wishes,

The Labour Party

Why is a membership freeze normal?

No idea...do other parties do it? Have labour done it in the past?

or...they would say that wouldn't they

Inside The Complex Snarl Of Companies Which Control The Pro-Corbyn Momentum Campaign
A web of companies controlled by one man lie at the centre of Momentum’s operations, official records show, raising questions as to its “grassroots” structure.

I've read that article (poorly) twice and am at a loss - what's the claim being made in that article? In regard to election campaigns/political organizations, is any of that unusual? If so, what might be the reasons be for that setup?

a middle ground is needed but I've no idea where it can come from

Hey, how about a Third Way?

Maybe raises some questions over transparency, ownership and decision making but, yeah, I'm left thinking "so, what does all that mean". I'd be more surprised if it's dodgy than if it's actually a justifiable way of structuring this kind of organisation.

Can anyone here provide a decent analysis?

Well, if it owns the data and receives the donations but is unaccountable to anyone, it's not dissimilar to a slush fund.

It's not unheard of for small political operations to have this kind of structure, but it's very murky and unaccountable and that's the bit that doesn't sit well.

I mentioned up-thread that the SWP has never registered as a political party - nobody outside the leadership knows what it does with its money, either. But it will spend that money on political materials that it will then use to try to influence proper, registered parties. Like it did with Respect.

Now, there are lots of rules preventing registered parties from receiving donations from certain entities, and because of their increased transparency, people can criticise them if they accept donations that at hypocritical or unethical.

You can't do that with a company like this. For all we know, Lord Ashcroft could be its biggest financial backer (not suggesting he is, you just don't know).

Cheers.

One thing which complicates things is Momentum not being a political party. It's more akin to a pressure group, I suppose. So, in that case, I wonder if this is a perfectly normal organizational structure? Would it be more unusual to have a different structure? Openness and accountability certainly sounds good, but is it particularly possible/easy to achieve, or is this just how things work?

I do wish Buzzfeed would hire some better editors. Their "exposes" are often terrible.

FUCK LORD ASHCROFT lS BACKING MOMENTUM

Well, setting up entities designed to circumvent political funding rules has quite a long history in the US - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Super_PACs

And while it is indeed the way the world currently works, the general feeling is that it hasn't done American politics any particular favours.

We don't have anything like the scale of the money problem in UK politics as there is in US politics, but fundamentally it's hard to see the difference between Jeremy for Labour Ltd and a Super Pac. It's not a healthy avenue to go down.

What a ridiculous article. They're really grasping at straws. I say it's ridiculous because it tries to make a lot of very little, styling itself à la Panama Papers ('complex snarl of companies'--errr no, not by the evidence you present).

It would be more substantial if there was any information on how much money really is involved. Until that comes out, I'll assume that's it's run on not very much money. That Jon Lansman is closely involved hasn't exactly been a secret, and until it's shown that he's massively benefited personally/siphoned off donations, there doesn't seem to be anything in it. As it's a not-for-profit company, it appears to be unlikely that there's any malfeasance.

The 'good bank/bad bank' comparison is hilarious. There are legal requirements to fulfil when you're employing people and those structures will have been set up/be required for doing that, no more. There also seems to be nothing 'complex' about these simple companies.

All that notwithstanding, the questions the article should be asking, quite reasonably, and doesn't quite manage to ask, are about governance, i.e. whether Momentum members have ever asked about establishing any kind of governance structure or whether the organisation is just a mailing list or contact shop. It seems that there is little or no governance structure in place at present, and that may be fine as far as the members are concerned, but as organisations/associations mature, it may, of course, not be enough at some point in time.

Perhaps anti-social media today take the place of such structures, which might traditionally have been provided by something within Momentum-like outfits, and there's actually no need for it to do any more than being a conduit for information. I'm obviously just speculating, as I have no idea how Momentum really works, let alone whether it works at all. :)

FUCK LORD ASHCROFT lS BACKING MOMENTUM

What kind of organisation is 'Fuck Lord Ashcroft'? Is it the secret power behind the throne?

So the PLP want me to vote for a guy who went to work for Amgen in 2008?

So the PLP want to strongarm me into voting for a guy who went to work for Amgen in 2008?

Fixed. :)

It would be more substantial if there was any information on how much
money really is involved. Until that comes out, I'll assume that's
it's run on not very much money. That Jon Lansman is closely involved
hasn't exactly been a secret, and until it's shown that he's massively
benefited personally/siphoned off donations, there doesn't seem to be
anything in it. As it's a not-for-profit company, it appears to be
unlikely that there's any malfeasance.

I'm sorry, but you've set up a straw man and knocked it down again here.

There's no allegation he's siphoning off money for personal profit. And generally when politicians are found to have set up slush funds, they're not for personal profit either. The point is that it is money that can be spent for political purposes over which there is no clear political control or accountability, which undermines the rules that have been put in place to try to ensure that our political system doesn't get corrupted.

Why is it different from https://www.savinglabour.com or Angela Eagle's now defunct organization and what will be Owen Smith's when he gets it going?