How U.S. And UK "Liberals" Disfranchise Their Party Members
The "liberal" party establishments in the U.S. and UK, within the Democrats and Labour, are united in their distaste for party member opinions. They alone want to decide which positions the party has to take. They want to make sure that there is no alternative to their rule. It is elitism at its worst which no longer bothers with the pretense of democracy. Does it count as "shared values"?
Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people who supported him.
Trump's attack lines on this are spot on:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 7:01pm · 12 Jul 2016Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs.
and
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 7:03pm · 12 Jul 2016Bernie sanders has abandoned his supporters by endorsing pro-war pro-TPP pro-Wall Street Crooked Hillary Clinton.
Those are valid statements. I find it hard to to argue with these.
Abstaining from any endorsement or running as independent or Green party candidate would have been more honorable ways for Sanders to admit defeat. It would have pressed the Democratic party to stop its movement to the right of the Republican party.
I expect the "Not Hillary" protest vote to be very strong in the November election. There is still more significant dirt to be dug up about her and her family foundation. Trumps current lows in the polls will recover when the media return to the "close race" mantra that makes them money. He still has a decent chance to win.
Then again - its the first time now that I have to concede that Clinton may well win. But that would be with a record low turnout, and record low legitimacy. There would be no wins for the Democrats in the Senate and House. She would be another Republican President who would represent only a record small slice of the electorate.
The election shambles on the other side of the Atlantic are no less depressing. "Corbyn can not win votes," is the claim of the anti-Corbyn Blairites. That is why they have to resort to dirty tricks to disenfranchise Corbyn voters. His supporters are not allowed to count in a Labour leadership election because they support him. How can such "logic" and this step be legal?
Jeremy Corbyn was jubilant after the party’s ruling national executive committee (NEC) decided his name should automatically appear on the ballot paper in the leadership contest triggered by Angela Eagle.
...
However, in a separate decision taken after Corbyn had left the room, the NEC ruled that only those who have been members for more than six months will be allowed to vote – while new supporters will be given two days to sign up as registered supporters to vote in the race, but only if they are willing to pay £25 – far higher than the £3 fee many Corbyn backers paid in the contest last year.
If that ruling stands nearly 100,000 new party members who have joined in support of Corbyn will either have to immediately pay a poll-tax of £25, or will not be allowed to vote. Here is what the Labour website promised them when they joined:
Corbyn may need some lawyers to set the NEC straight.
One can only hope that he wins the new Labour leadership election. The Labour establishment stinks like an Augias stable and the party needs a thorough house cleaning.
Posted by b on July 13, 2016 at 4:18 UTC | Permalink
next page »Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane.
thanks b, for highlighting these sad realities. bernie sanders, when it comes right down to it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for.. trumps comments on this are indeed bang on.
the labour. party is run by a gang of thugs.. i hope the people who want corbyn are able to overcome the mostroisity the labour party has become.
i echo @1 v. arnolds comments..
@2 bill..bernie spporters better not show how stupid they are by also voting for hillary..
Posted by: james | Jul 13 2016 5:27 utc | 3
The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the US, co-opted and quashed it.
Even as deliberately unplugged as I've been from this race, it's been easy to see at a glance that Sanders magnetized the next wave of concerned citizens - of course the young people rallied to his banner - and will now leave them broken and in disarray, or delivered to the Democrats.
He was an independent. He so simply could have turned the Green Party into a ten-percent force in the US, making it hugely important, and advancing in one leap the cause of multi-party governance.
He didn't.
Posted by: Grieved | Jul 13 2016 6:46 utc | 4
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/1/12083494/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-concessions
Posted by: Brunswick | Jul 13 2016 6:48 utc | 5
I agree with what you have written. I am cautiously optimistic, however, that the little boy has called out"but he isn't wearing any clothes" and people are hearing it. For many it is the first time, and they are confused and don't know what to make of this naked emperor. Hence we need great leaders who are able to articulate a decent world view. I'm from the UK so Corbyn is my man. And he is starting to do it. I think this is the beginning of something marvellous. Now I am old and I know we have heard it all before, but in the past that was the media telling us who was the next great hope. This time it is the people. It's going to work. Or we are all damned to a chilling fascist future.
Posted by: bigfatfred | Jul 13 2016 7:14 utc | 6
Thank you for this Very Important Post, b.
People, world wide are beginning to come to grips with the fact that there is only one type of individual who can dupe them, or anybody else - someone who has hijacked their trust.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 13 2016 7:22 utc | 7
Bill H @ 2
Hey, Bill! Don't knock the idea of screen doors on submarines. They do keep the pesky fish out.
Posted by: Macon Richardson | Jul 13 2016 7:56 utc | 8
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/06/29/lorna-finlayson/keep-corbyn/?
Lorna Finlayson: Keep Corbyn!
There are a lot of people who at some point supported Jeremy Corbyn, but are now saying ‘with a heavy heart’ – always with a heavy heart – that he has to go. I would like to ask them to think one more time about this: to ask themselves why they supported him in the first place, and what has changed.
Most of the Parliamentary Labour Party hate Corbyn. More than that, they hate what he stands for. When they claim to think he’s a nice guy, they may well be telling the truth. What they can’t tolerate is the possibility of a real challenge to the continuation of the Thatcherite and then Blairite politics which blights the lives of the vast majority of people. Until recently – for my generation, FOR OUR ENTIRE LIVES – there has been no hint whatever of a parliamentary alternative or even a meaningful challenge to this politics.
Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 13 2016 8:23 utc | 9
Thomas Frank: It's Bill Clinton Who Wrecked the Democratic Party.
https://youtu.be/pmCibWptzZQ
Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 13 2016 9:04 utc | 10
The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections: they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most popular in the general election.
Registering for a party does not mean that you are a member of a particular party or even support it, you are simply choosing to vote in their primary elections (if you live in a state with closed primaries). That is something a lot of Bernie supporters found out much too late. But that is not a "rigged system", those rules were in place long before Sanders decided to run as a Democrat.
And rules differ from state to state: some places allot delegates proportionally, in others it is winner-take-all. Some states hold a general election, other hold a caucus:you have to travel to a certain place at a certain time to cast your vote, which means you have to have the time and money in order to participate.
I have never seen a similar system in place anywhere else. Usually it is only card-carrying, dues-paying party members who are allowed to select their candidates.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Jul 13 2016 10:25 utc | 11
ralphieboy | Jul 13, 2016 6:25:21 AM | 11
I have never seen a similar system in place anywhere else. Usually it is only card-carrying, dues-paying party members who are allowed to select their candidates.
Oh, but this is the result of generations of careful gerrymandering, corruption (at the highest levels), and fine crafting of the electorate.
Democracy at its finest; brought to you by money, lots and lots of money...
Posted by: V. Arnold | Jul 13 2016 11:11 utc | 12
I fail to get the butthurt. Sanders did what he said he would from the start -- support the Democratic candidate. You can't co-opt something that was in your ranks to begin with.
What happens now to the Sandersistas is the USD64 question. Politics here has definitely changed, with the millenials all-in for Sanders soft-core social democratic politics.
Posted by: rufus magister | Jul 13 2016 11:19 utc | 14
Further to 14 -- Big Legacies of Bernie Sanders' Historic Campaign.
Seventh is the real possibility Bernie has inspired of a third party – if the Democratic Party doesn’t respond to the necessity of getting big money out of politics and reversing widening inequality, if it doesn’t begin to advocate for a single-payer healthcare system, or push hard for higher taxes on the wealthy - including a wealth tax - to pay for better education and better opportunities for everyone else, if it doesn’t expand Social Security and lift the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax, if it doesn’t bust up the biggest banks and strengthen antitrust laws, and expand voting rights.If it doesn’t act on these critical issues. the Democratic Party will become irrelevant to the future of America, and a third party will emerge to address them.
From the first I hoped that the revolutionary left would be able to capitalize on the issues raised by Sanders' insurgency. You will win support by winning concrete gains for real people. Not by shrill denunciations of the masses ignorance or gullibility.
Posted by: rufus magister | Jul 13 2016 11:29 utc | 15
"... honorable ways for Sanders to admit defeat. It would have pressed the Democratic party to stop its movement to the right of the Republican party." ~ "b"
I would ask a favor. Could someone please tell me how we define "right and left" here? I know that many people have different definitions of those terms. I sometimes think these terms are useless anymore other than in the Orwellian manner of "Political Speech" outlined in his great essay.
I would point out that the Democratic Party is worthless, but that does not mean that the Republican Party is any better. In the USA we have a fascist economic system (since the 30s) and I mean that non pejoratively. The USA has a crony-capitalist system or a "corporatism" system. In this system, there are people behind the scenes running this nightmare.
In my view, only a populist uprising that contains the "left" and the "right" against the corrupt, evil system can beat the bastards. I am not optimistic on that happening. I don't even believe the UK will make it out of the EU despite the vote. The masses are losing in the USA and in Europe. God help us all.
Posted by: Mark Stoval | Jul 13 2016 11:32 utc | 16
Seems that the knives are out for Corbyn;
however, i am not totally sure as to the real reason why.
it is more than likely that the real reason has to do with the recent
EU referendum, in which Corbyn's support for the Remain camp was deemed
too weak for the Parliamentary Labour Party, and so it seems that Corbyn
is now getting all the blame for their defeat, as they see it.
this has to be nonsense, because i never paid much attention to him in the first place. However, now that he has attracted the enmity of the Blairites, seems to be the best possible reason to start listening to what he actually says (for the first time, in my case) and maybe even start supporting him. (although it is not actually support for him and/or his positions/principles---just what he seems to represent
the Labour party must have assumed that since their MPs are 99% in the Remain camp,
then their worst possible nightmare was to find their own natural constituency
ie voters, actually turn up to vote, and end up voting for the "wrong" side.
i have heard (from the TV) that a lot of the voters in the EU vote were generally apathetic regarding general elections etc, and were only voting for the first, and only time
ps i love reading this article from the Sun
BARMY ARMY Labour Party membership rises by 100,000 as loony left try to rescue Comrade Corbyn
Momentum militants thought to be behind the boost in numbers
my take on that article is that
a) labour party membership has been in steep decline (ie dead), particularly since
the late 1990s (ever since Blair starting winning)
b) perhaps the ignorant masses, in general (ie public)
are waking up to the damage caused to the British body politic
by subservience to such anti-democratic bodies as represented by the EU
(in its present form), as well as various supranational (ie unelected) entities
as TTIP, NATO,UN, mainstream media etc
c) people are taking the hint from the likes of Donald Trump and bernie Sanders
that maybe politics is not so dead after all.
PS The Labour party establishment, and the entire political party establishment of all
parties are still reeling from the outcome of the Brexit vote,
and there are 5 stages to grief,
the first of which is Denial
and the second is Anger.
Seems we are in the early stages of Anger
Posted by: chris m | Jul 13 2016 11:52 utc | 17
Very good observations from b. Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot out for every presidential election.
The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the most politically corrupt figures in our history. And once again, every 1930s, New Deal trope and hurrah, is to be trotted out, even though the former Clinton administration drove a stake into the heart of most of FDR's work.
Get in line sheep. Mutton will be served.
Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary party.
Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP is one example.
Owned by Goldman Bilderberg and the CFR, the Den of Lying Thieves and Whores - aka the Democratic Party - now has sneakily moved forward to tee up the TPP for passage by Crooked Hillary if not Oilbomber.
Note: The Republican Party is also a Den of Lying Thieves and Whores.
Posted by: fast freddy | Jul 13 2016 12:11 utc | 19
New Zealand seems to have managed to get to a better voting system. The voters recognized the First past the Post (FPP) game for what it was, democracy charade by entrenched powers. The people had to win not one but two referendums (referendae?) to get their way though....http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp/first-past-the-post
Hoping we with see some positive changes to the FPP system soon here in Canada too....
Hoping the Never Hilary and/or the Jill before Hill movements In USA will be strong....
Posted by: Bluemot5 | Jul 13 2016 12:20 utc | 20
rufus: Sanders did what he said he would from the start ...
He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution' to play to the discontented and young idealists.
Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary (like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party.
Those who said that Sanders was a sheepdog from the start were right: the Democratic Party led by "Third Way" sellouts is hopeless. Long past time to move on.
Vote Green Party.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 13 2016 12:26 utc | 21
How is a huckster "businessman" beloved by white nationalists, a hater of labor, immigrants and minorities, going to attract Sanders voters?
This is an even more bizarre fantasy than Sanders gifting his campaign to the Greens.
Dear Mr. Fantasy, could you play us a tune? Something to make us all happy?
Posted by: rufus magister | Jul 13 2016 12:29 utc | 22
Jill Stein response to Bernie endorsement of Hilary:
http://www.jill2016.com/sanders_endorsement_clinton
Posted by: Bluemot5 | Jul 13 2016 12:33 utc | 23
16;Heru;You gotta throw that ideology crap in the can.
Wtf do think Trumps support is,but democrats and republicans tired of Israeli shills?
Trump will win,as the only way the pos crud could is by Trumps assassination.
Did you hear what he said about Ginsburg?Her mind is shot!
An Israeli on the SC.3 in fact.sheesh.
Posted by: dahoit | Jul 13 2016 12:35 utc | 24
22;A red for the hell bitch!Thats as bad as Sanders for the hillaryous one.
Nice song though,as the only way out of this gloom is Trump and America First.
And all domestic America haters will be deported.:)
Posted by: dahoit | Jul 13 2016 12:41 utc | 25
Now now Jackrabbit, go easy on rufus. You have to remember that cognitive dissonance is infinitely extensible across a mind that is captured by delusion.
Yes Virginia, they are all hucksters! Surely the microscopic communist party, or its pale American likeness, of which rufus is a mustache twirling member, is less of a political fantasy, than the Green Party!
What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses?
The way I see it the Labour Party has Labour members and Labour supporters [Affiliated supporters and registered supporters] Affiliated supporters must be members of a Trade union or other affiliated organization, which pays an affiliation fee to the Labour Party on their behalf. Affiliated supporters can vote for the Labour leader. Unlike registered supporters, affiliated supporters will not be required to pay a fee to participate in the leadership elections because their affiliation fees cover this. Registered supporters however will be required to pay a small fee to participate in the leadership election,[this was promoted in a Labour party publication put out by LP General Secretary Iain McNicol] we now know that small fee will be 25 pounds. Apparently the Trade Union 'Unite' has a community membership scheme whereby you can vote for Labour Party leader simply by joining for as little as 2 pounds.
By the way Angela Eagle voted for the Iraq war and subsequently voted 3 times against any inquiries into it. How many windows in Iraq were broken?
Posted by: harrylaw | Jul 13 2016 13:18 utc | 27
Green is our best option. Nothing else makes sense.
Posted by: juliania | Jul 13 2016 13:34 utc | 29
Posted by: harrylaw | Jul 13, 2016 9:18:24 AM | 27
So it is basically the British Trade Unions making sure their members dominate in the leadership election?
The US democratic party is a huge income generating corporation with some worker representation. Sanders is correct to stay inside if he wants to change politics. If Sandernistas continue the fight (they will, it is generational, same as the Clintons were generational) seat for seat they will change the party. They will get changed themselves in the process for sure.
It seems the Libertarian party succeeds in splitting Republicans. For Sanders to split Democrats would be voting for Trump. He would have to live with this fame outside of the Democratic Party with no one to team up in the Senate.
US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around.
Posted by: somebody | Jul 13 2016 13:46 utc | 30
Bluemot5 @23
Jill goes easy on Sanders in her statement because she wants to attract his supporters.
In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race:
> he was late in calling out Hillary-DNC collusion - campaign financing got the headlines but what about the DNC's silence about: a) media bias toward Hillary and b) voter irregularities: AP called the race for Hillary the day before California voted based on secret polling of Super-delegates!;> he failed to attack Obama's record on black/minority affairs - despite Sanders having conducted a fake filibuster over the Fiscal Cliff/Sequester - Hillary walked away with the black vote;
> he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails;
And Sanders is not an "independent" as any ordinary person would interpret that term:
> he has caucused with the Democrats for a very long time (nearly 20 years?);> he runs in the Vermont Democratic Primary when running for House/Senate with the understanding that he will not run in general election as a Democrat (this effectively blocks opposition from a Democratic candidate);
> he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 13 2016 13:48 utc | 31
Because Corbyn did not want a secret ballot, NEC member Johanna Baxter said Labour leader’s decision endorsed bullying, threats and intimidation of his opponents http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/13/corbyn-endorsed-bullying-by-voting-against-secret-ballot
Secret ballots should have no place in a democracy, voting should be open and transparent and not behind a veil of secrecy, especially when the Labour Party NEC are elected officials. It beggars belief that these Blairites can spew such rubbish. A couple of day's ago Neil Kinnock [he who has his and family snout's firmly into the EU's financial trough] said that Corbyn was unelectable, what brass neck from the man who in his 9 years as Labour leader fought and lost two General elections.
Posted by: harrylaw | Jul 13 2016 14:17 utc | 32
I "stole" this great piece for Global Research, with so many thanks again:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-u-s-and-uk-liberals-disfranchise-their-party-members/5535699
RIP democracy in the US and UK, finally out of it's misery, been gasping it's last for a very long time.
Posted by: Felicity | Jul 13 2016 14:35 utc | 33
Kshama Sawant: Bernie Sanders Abandons the Revolution
The strategy of lesser evilism has been an utter disaster for the 99%. Effectively unchallenged by the left, the Democratic Party helped the Republican Party to push the agenda steadily to the right over the past decades. As Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has aptly put it, “the politics of fear has delivered everything we were afraid of.”... Bernie’s endorsement will be used in an attempt to prop up that same rotten establishment ... [that makes] Sanders endorsement of Clinton is [sic] a fundamental failure of leadership.
...
We can’t afford to follow Bernie’s error. It is time for us to move on. ... That is why I’m endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein. ... There can be no doubt that Jill’s campaign is the clear continuation of our political revolution, and deserves the broadest possible support from Sandernistas.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 13 2016 14:45 utc | 34
Mark Stoval @ 16 -- We've had a fascist economic system (since the 30s)...
Even before. At least since 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which transferred the holdings of the U.S. treasury to international bankers.
b, me too. For the first time I think Clinton may actually be president. Sanders never had a chance for the simple reason -- never stated -- that he is too old. When he took office he would have been only a few years short of the age Reagan was when he left.
(For some reason age has never come up with this elderly bunch. Both Bill Clinton (as co-president) and Trump will be older than Reagan was on election day, and Hillary will be only a few months younger. You'd think we'd be seeing clips of Hillary chopping logs and Trump free climbing the face of cliffs -- the sort of stuff they put poor old Ron through.)
A scary thought is that age has never come up because the powers that pick presidents don't intend for them to be in office long.
Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and bragging there's nothing they can do about it.
Her style's different, but the same game will go on.
There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere, a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony.
To riff off a comment by Banger a few posts back. To say there is a deep state controlling Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future.
It's often said here that the plan is chaos. Maybe, or it could be that there is such confusion and turmoil and chaos is so prevalent, that it looks like it must be a plan. Or taking a longer view, it could be what we're seeing everywhere is the inevitable collapse of a vast culture that has grown too complex.
In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own.
Posted by: Ken Nari | Jul 13 2016 14:55 utc | 35
Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes, he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in common with Trump that he has with Hillary.
One hopes that disenchanted Sanders supporters will either abstain or vote for Trump.
Having the choice only of two candidates is an absurdity.
Posted by: virgile | Jul 13 2016 15:04 utc | 36
@ Bluemot5 | Jul 13, 2016 8:20:50 AM | 20
{QUOTE} New Zealand seems to have managed to get to a better voting system. The voters recognized the First past the Post (FPP) game for what it was, democracy charade by entrenched powers. {UNQUOTE} -- Bluemot5
Yet another victim of the demented election methods mavens. "First past the post" is a corrupt and actually meaningless phrase. I doesn't mean anything more than "most fish caught". It refers to nothing whatsoever.
The New Zealanders have achieved nothing, and are still hopelessly caught in a pure two-party system.
What they need is simple score voting, which really simple and just simply works.
Posted by: blues | Jul 13 2016 15:11 utc | 37
Turnouts in the US depend on nonwhite turnouts. When nonwhite voters don't show up, turnouts are low and GOP candidates win. Clinton's support from nonwhite Dem primary voters was very strong, delivering huge margins in places like South Carolina. A record low turnout would favor Trump, not Clinton.
Posted by: Inkan1969 | Jul 13 2016 15:17 utc | 38
According to DNC rules, that is Convention Rules... if I am correctly informed...
if Sanders had not endorsed Clinton, his delegates would not have been seated at the Convention.
Posted by: crone | Jul 13 2016 15:23 utc | 39
Felicity@33 Thanks for the Global Research article, it would appear the UK Labour Party are indeed creating two classes of membership having a cut off date for being a 'Leader voting member' to January 2016. This was done on an entirely arbitrary way on the part of the NEC, this is a new term in the membership contract for which new members could not nor should have anticipated. As such [in my opinion] this is a breach of contract not justified by any time constraints. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/all-full-members-of-labour-to-be-allowed-to-vote-in-the-leadership-election-regardless-of-join-date-1
Posted by: harrylaw | Jul 13 2016 15:26 utc | 40
"Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs" is not a valid statement.
Sanders is a long time member of The Party and Congress. One cannot be a member of those clubs for so long -- particularly during the years spanning the turn of the last century -- and not be rotten to the core.
His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now.
Yes, masks are coming off.
Per continuing scrutiny of the Brexit campaign(s) I have often read that Cameron was not genuinely behind Remain. I can’t judge that. Certainly his alea jacta est (some argue the saying orginally was ‘let the die be cast’ in the sense of ‘let the game begin’) attitude to the whole matter signals ambivalence. (I get the political machinations behind it.)
Now we see the major Leave Figures, Farage, Johnson, Gove, promptly bowing out, doing their own Br-pol-exit (or called backstage!) with the most important figure, ambivalent at best, or following other sirens, Cameron, gone as well, singing toodle-oo or what not on his way out. (link, funny even if fake)
As figureheads only T. May and Corbyn are still on stage - both gingerly remain supporters, most likely because of various pol. pressures, calculations, etc.
Brexit has been deemed to be the most crucial vote since WWII, and the main parties were split on it. Btw the anarchists supported Remain (!)
These parties have to go, and new parties should be formed. However, new parties can't be formed because of the grip of finance/banks, US control, mega corps, Milit. complex, etc. etc. acting behind the scenes, aka, entrenched power circuits, old-boys type on the take for sure, more importantly the extremely vicious, embedded, encrusted in, controllers of, the traditional pol. parties.
In what ppl imagine a ‘democracy’ to be, or hope it would be, it would be natural for Corbyn, Sanders, and Trump to simply start a new Party. That doesn’t happen because the control from the top is very effective. Sanders, an Independent, ran as Dem, and Trump as Rep, Corbyn as Labour, etc.
Hopefully ppl are waking up to this sham-democracy BS. Realistically, what can they do?
I’m overall not optimistic. As for ppl who advise voting for X or Y ‘official’ candidates, I have no words.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 13 2016 15:55 utc | 42
To be fair - anyone - and I mean anyone - can afford to pay £25 to register their vote.
Even if you are so poor as to not have £25 to spare, I can tell you this - the average BEGGAR in the street would make about £100 in a day of begging.
So absolutely anyone can afford this impost if voting in this election is the least bit important to them.
I am a supporter of Corbyn winning this leadership battle. But seriously this is hardly a big deal.
It seems more likely to me that a sum of £25 might actually more fairly represent the costs of administration involved in keeping track of each individual new member, doing mailouts, whether electronic or snailmail to these members etc. Whether for this election or for other mailouts during the (presumably annual) membership period.
This is seriously a non-issue.
@Grieved | Jul 13, 2016 2:46:33 AM | 4
Excuse me, not meant to be offensive. :-)
Like million and millions of Americans you have been fooled not once but repeatedly and still believe in democracy and Democratic party. Get real, Sanders probably a better lair than most liars but not as good as Obomo and Hillary. Understands million and millions still believe these two liars (dun believes me look at the most recent poll).
Do the smart things vote the opposite what the masses or MSM tells you. Better still vote Trump and end the drip, drip and drips. Buy yourself a good cheap pitchfork, snows shovel or whatever in yr local Craigslist or yard sales. Get ready for the final solution.
Good luck. :-)
Posted by: Jack Smith | Jul 13 2016 16:14 utc | 44
You have to (almost) admire the Democratic Party's (represented by DLC and DNC types) continuing commitment to backing unpopular candidates rather than give up on their convictions to be the most pro-Wall Street, pro-corrupt trade pacts, pro-Israel, pro-war, anti-labor party. Sanders polls better than Hillary yet the party pre-selected Hillary and pushed every button to make sure she won, no matter what actual voters thought. They'd rather lose with Kerry/Clinton/Gore/Dukakis/etc. than ever touch someone ordinary people could rally behind.
With Trump's massive negative ratings dwarfing even Clinton's (and a significant demographic advantage) it would be nearly impossible for Clinton to lose this election. But if anyone could find a way to do this, incompetent, crazy, war-loving, corrupt Hillary would be the one.
I'll be voting for Jill Stein--haven't been a huge fan of hers but she has learned to speak a little better this time around after plenty of practice. And she has sharpened her attack against the two-party system with some effective points. Anything but another Demopublican servant of the 0.001%.
Posted by: WorldBLee | Jul 13 2016 16:18 utc | 45
Re: Posted by: Mark Stoval | Jul 13, 2016 7:32:42 AM | 16
I'll give you the classical definition of LEFT & RIGHT as I understand them.
FAR LEFT: Communist, Statist, Big Government.
FAR RIGHT: Anarchist, Small Government.
As I see it at present, most major parties everywhere in the Western World are one or other variation of the LEFT.
Certainly both the Republican & Democratic Party are of the LEFT.
Elements of the Republicans - like the Tea Party who demand Smaller Government but seemed to be constantly hijacked by ambitious politicians to advance their own agendas - Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio spring immediately to mind.
Libertarians come from the Right - obviously - but they are a rare outlier as a truly right-wing party.
On a slightly less "extreme" reading of LEFT-RIGHT.
The LEFT will always support power being accreted upwards - as in to Supra-National organisations like the EU or UN or assorted other International organisations.
In those terms, the RIGHT, is more interested in State sovereignty and National independence - which is where you find the likes of UKIP, the National Front, Geert Wilders etc.
The RIGHT therefore works to bring power closer to the people.
I can't possibly accept that is a bad idea. The closer the Government is to the people it governs the better. The further away it is the less democratic and more corrupt it is inevitably going to be.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Obviously if there was a ONE WORLD Government - whoever that ruler was would be incredibly corrupt. It could simply not be any other way!
Good take b, thanks.
I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were totally correct. Trump and HRC are 2 sides of the same coin. It matters not who wins. With either one, workers of the world are fucked. The corporate global takeover rolls on.
I will "vote" for Jill Stein.
On the efficacy of E-voting in the U$A.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545
Posted by: ben | Jul 13 2016 16:23 utc | 47
jules @ 46: in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by 50% every year for the next 500 years is lying.
Posted by: jason | Jul 13 2016 16:29 utc | 48
@Stan | Jul 13, 2016 11:26:42 AM | 41
You really believe Sanders followers were fools and some of them know it?
Get real will ya, they're still fools and will continue to be fools unless they do exactly the opposite and vote Trump and end our misery and wretchedness. It an't gonna to happen anytime soon. So our misery and wretchedness continue. PERIOD!
Posted by: Jack Smith | Jul 13 2016 16:29 utc | 49
Jules @ 46: For me, right and left are old terms. In today's world you're either pro-corporate, or pro-people. Decide for yourself, which faction should rule.
Posted by: ben | Jul 13 2016 16:30 utc | 50
Re: Posted by: rufus magister | Jul 13, 2016 8:29:00 AM | 22
I would have thought anyone with half a brain could see why there is an attraction for Trump.
Hillary represents a continuation of the last 8 years, or even perhaps the last 16 or 24+ years. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
Trump represents someone who's just so mad he might well blow up the entire global trading system starting trade wars left right and centre.
How do you think a US trade war with China will go down?
It will destroy the G20, WTO, perhaps even the US trading relations with Europe in the backdraft!
For anyone who is against the NWO, this can surely be only a good thing.
Also, Trump's stated foreign policies are basically bomb and kill all the terrorists and leave the various thug governments alone.
Sounds better to me than NeoCon Wars all over the place "of choice".
Ala, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.
PS-I guess, to distill the question, one might say..Should corporations serve the people, or should people serve the corporations? As of now, "the powers that are", believe in the latter.
Posted by: ben | Jul 13 2016 16:37 utc | 52
I sincerely believe at least two Sanders supporters feel foolish today. I know Trump and his supporters are fools.
@Inkan1969 | Jul 13, 2016 11:17:25 AM | 38
You can bet your sweet life I'm voting against the Democrats and NOT for the Repug. You are correct nonwhite including female will vote blindly for Killary. Blacks lives don't matter neither do the White nor any colors. Period!
Posted by: Jack Smith | Jul 13 2016 16:43 utc | 54
Re: Posted by: Noirette | Jul 13, 2016 11:55:41 AM | 42
Brexit has been deemed to be the most crucial vote since WWII, and the main parties were split on it. Btw the anarchists supported Remain (!)
That can't possibly be right. I'll need a link for that claim.
How could those against Big Government be in favour of centralising power into a huge over-arching governance structure.
It sounds like they're calling themselves by the wrong tag if that's really the case.
Re: Posted by: jason | Jul 13, 2016 12:29:05 PM | 48
I agree mate. Did you see what I said?
To quote myself.
Certainly both the Republican & Democratic Party are of the LEFT.,
The LEFT being BIG Government. Big Spending etc. Obviously spending trillions of Dollars on the Military is BIG SPENDING. IE it is a policy of the LEFT.
The MIC is a text-book example of Fascism - National Socialism. IE - THE LEFT.
Re: Posted by: ben | Jul 13, 2016 12:30:53 PM | 50
Ben - those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
Read what I've said about RIGHT & LEFT. They are not redundant terms, it's just you refuse to understand their classical meanings.
Do you think Hitler and his National Socialism was Right-Wing? WRONG.
When Government jumps into bed with Big Business that is textbook Fascism/ National Socialism.
Who gets screwed?
Small businesses and the people.
Being Pro-Corporate means you are Pro-Big Government means you are of the LEFT.
Being Pro-People means you are Pro-Small Government means you are of the RIGHT.
See how easy it is?
Don't be fooled son.
@Jules | Jul 13, 2016 12:34:42 PM | 51
Got to rebuttal this one!
You got full brain and anyone voting for Trump half a brain? Its ppl like you the full brain idiots (sorrie) got us into the mess today. The full brain’s apologist and lesser of evils now blame the half a brain?
If what you speculate Trump is real, half truth or worst. So be it! I’m voting against ppl like you the smart ones.
Posted by: Jack Smith | Jul 13 2016 16:59 utc | 58
Apparently Capitalism is Bolshevism in a three piece pin strip suit.
US founded on Free Enterprise.
noun: free enterprise
an economic system in which private business operates in competition and largely free of state control.
just saying
Posted by: ALberto | Jul 13 2016 17:05 utc | 59
To be fair - anyone - and I mean anyone - can afford to pay £25 to register their vote. Jules 43.
I can't believe anybody would dare to post such an asinine comment on MoA.
Do you have any grasp of the poverty stats. in Britain, what they mean for individuals and families who may be literally starving, as in so hungry they may faint after 3 days of no food? Or feed their kids once a day with dried cereal and a can of sardines split in 3? Hopefully a school lunch of disgusting food to fill a little? Also they can't pay heating and electricity (if they are lucky! enough to be among the tiny privileged group who have council housing), then what? The others are in the streets! or living with family members and all the resources are spread so thin that anything can crack anytime. If you think I’m exagerating, look into it, if you are capable, and you will find that officialdom downplays exteme, and/or ‘regular’ poverty and covers it up. And that it affects a large chunk of the population.
Jules, you must understand that eventually hate and violence will hit ppl like you. That isn’t a threat. But you need to get a grip on life in Britain beyond your measly sneering middle class zone.
You can reach me at andreablack140@gmail and I will respond to anything more or less, and explain at length.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 13 2016 17:13 utc | 60
Jules@43."To be fair - anyone - and I mean anyone - can afford to pay £25 to register their vote". You miss the point, when people were signed up as full members of the Labour party, nobody told them they were to become 'second class members' by insisting they pay 25 pounds for the privilege of voting for a leader. In my opinion this is a breach of contract or at worst the LP trying to gain a pecuniary advantage through a false pretense [fraud]. By the way, where could I go to make 100 pounds a day begging?
Posted by: harrylaw | Jul 13 2016 17:20 utc | 61
My apologies if anyone else has written this. I believe that b is being too pessimistic here. What we are being fed is the line that because the media is as untrustworthy as Bernie, this will dishearten the electorate and cause them to refrain from voting. In other words, the educational experience that so many on both sides of the Atlantic has gone through since the turn of the century is worthless - people will go along with what they are being fed by the media - and I don't care if it is what is called 'mainstream' or a blog or what - as we see with Bernie, so it is with many of the pundits we peons ought to be relying on. And that is supposed to make us give up.
Codswallop! The Brits showed us that people do think for themselves when it comes to their livelihoods, their families, their traditional concepts of decency. And if the media has had to placate us, Bernie has had to placate us, with the supposition that our message is being broadcast, just we don't have anyone to carry it through for us, well, I beg to differ. There are people bucking the system, even using the system, to get the word out, and those are the ones you can call the 'supporters' of Bernie or Corbyn. They are mighty in number, and they won't care if their 'leader shows signs of duplicity - they are the message, not the media, not the pundits.
This is presently the difference between Bernie and Corbyn - the latter is holding firm. The media would like us to believe that Scotland will go, the economy will shatter. We don't believe it. I don't beieve it. The Scots are made of sterner stuff. The media, the pundits, are going hell for leather to discourage us. We will not be discouraged! Why? Because as they say, there is no alternative - we are at the cliff face. The Greens have been working hard on the nitty gritty - to get on the ballot. They're doing it! Support them! If not with your cash, with words!
There is no alternative!
Posted by: juliania | Jul 13 2016 17:46 utc | 62
Sorry for the misspellings, and third line above should read "have gone through."
Posted by: juliania | Jul 13 2016 17:49 utc | 63
To those of you talking down about the Bernie supporters I will say this - they are disappointed in him, most definitely, but although I was not one of them I do not find them to be gullible fools. That is the difference between now and 2008. Sure, there were most likely dyed in the wool believers in Bernie - he's a likable fellow - but I submit most were simply using him to get their message out to more people - and everyone remembers the Obama duplicity. It's not that long ago. People learn from the immediate past, and there is now a huge group of people looking for the next hole in the dam, and there is going to be a huge one at both conventions. I can't predict what will happen but it is going to be something to watch.
Posted by: juliania | Jul 13 2016 18:00 utc | 64
What do you expect of the Empire? Bernie does not have a death wish. Political suicide is better than assassination.
But, to talk a bit about the context of all of this breast beating, there is a great article at Tom Dispatch [ http://www.tomdispatch.com/ ] by William Astore today. If the author is correct, and I think he is, then What DO you expect of the Empire?
Posted by: rg the lg | Jul 13 2016 18:04 utc | 65
...
By the way, where could I go to make 100 pounds a day begging?
Posted by: harrylaw | Jul 13, 2016 1:20:16 PM | 61
Not to mention where 100,000+ people would go to make 100 pounds a day begging?
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 13 2016 18:16 utc | 66
After doG did its trick at Babel giving each a separate tongue, they had one advantage over the commentators here; they once shared a common language, none here seem so endowed. Not only are 'right' and 'left' without mooring, up and down are likewise confounded. It would be pathetic if it weren't so funny.
Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jul 13 2016 18:21 utc | 67
@juliania | Jul 13, 2016 2:00:54 PM
People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who were not gullible.
@ 16 Mark Stoval
"I would ask a favor. Could someone please tell me how we define "right and left" here? I know that many people have different definitions of those terms."
There is no 'we' here... that is to say, IMO posters here do not participate in 'groupthink' - I don't think you meant to imply that, but rather you seek clarity on the terms "right and left" from the group.
via Wiki - Political Science defines:
The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies, and parties. Left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as opposed, although a particular individual or group may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another. In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order."[1][2][3][4] The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate.Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left includes anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, believers in civil rights,[5] democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.[6][7][8]
Researchers have also said that the Right includes capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, fascists,[9] neoliberals, reactionaries, racists,[10] imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.[11]
@50 Ben
"...For me, right and left are old terms. In today's world you're either pro-corporate, or pro-people. Decide for yourself, which faction should rule."
I totally agree. The American political system today is, IMO, Totalitarian, with corporations having become the State.
Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.Source
Corporate statism or state corporatism is a political culture and a form of corporatism whose adherents hold that the corporate group which is the basis of society is the state. The state requires all members of a particular economic sector to join an officially designated interest group.
Corporate Statism (again... IMO) is successfully dividing the 'People" in order to impede any effort to gain or regain control of the government. But that is not the half of it, as we the people oppose each other without any encouragement from the State. That is to say, we throw labels at each other (communist, liberal, anti-semite, faggot, and on and on)most of us invisible to others by virtue of the internet.
The Feral Irishman is reporting the hacktivist group Anonymous is now calling for nationwide Day of Rage protests on Friday, July 15th. Zerohedge has post up top wrt the report, listing locations and times, with warning to be "aware but not there" - so, we're on the one hand advised by posters at ZH to grab a pitchfork etc. and on the other hand to not take to the streets on Saturday.
We as a People appear to be more angry at 'the other' than we are at the 'oppressors' and too 'fearful' to do anything outside of banging on the keyboard.
Posted by: crone | Jul 13 2016 18:32 utc | 69
"Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people who supported him."
Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions.
She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities.
Posted by: Casowary Gentry | Jul 13 2016 18:57 utc | 70
Where could my membership take me?
Here is what the Labour party told new members....
"As a member, you’ll be a key part of the team. You’ll be eligible to vote in leadership elections, you can help shape party policy, you can attend local meetings and you can even stand as a candidate.
So whether you want to chip in to help us reach our goals because you share our values, or because you have ambitions to serve your community and country, the only place to start is through joining the Labour Party as a member.
Was that everything you wanted to know? Click here to join now".
Note "You'll be eligible to vote in leadership elections"
Clearly this is a false representation involving potential fraud or at the least breach of contract. Will those 10's of thousands of new LP members who joined specifically to support and/or vote for Corbyn justifiably ask for a refund and if refused sue?
Posted by: harrylaw | Jul 13 2016 19:30 utc | 71
@46 Jules ...Both FAR LEFT and FAR RIGHT can bring Big Government and authoritarian nightmares. And contrary to what you wrote, it is far from true that either moderate side is intrinsically evil or especially favored by providence or inclination to make people happy or protect their rights. And corruption exists across the political spectrum.
Hitler and Stalin were both horrible. Hitler's economic alliance: the engines that made his war machine go, were the big corporatists and bankers. He made use of the traditional instrument of class war and subordination of the peons, through capital, and ownership of the means of production by the few, This fits within the political spectrum of the RIGHT. This is not stipulated to vilify the more moderate forms that we still call RIGHT, in politics; and which, in the more pedestrian sense, refers to conservative attitudes to change, to a preference for traditional social organization, religious orthodoxy and the like. No one should be confused, at least, about what the RIGHT is, because it has its roots in Western history in feudal society. Yes, the eventual concentration of power in large nation states, controlled by kings, was the beginning of the end of the feudal world in the Middle Ages.
But while this system morphed rather than completely disappearing; the thing that did not pass away in political terms was nostalgia for the past, where social roles were firmly cemented in place, including the role of religion in people's lives, and a hierarchy of unchanging authority. People will indeed become accustomed, and then deeply attached, to habits and routine, and the perception that they are safe in this blanket of sameness. Life becomes like a dependable, albeit harsh, structure of duty, obedience, and some level of protection overseen by a Prince.
This is essentially what the RIGHT is. The yearning for which the RIGHT is forever reaching, is the bygone world of order, safety, serenity, and especially certainty, about the verities and duties that are the object of this nostalgia. And such nostalgia exists in contradictory urges to resist change and uncertainty, and to reach back with a longing for renewal, to a place in the past that remains elusive, and which at its root, is probably mythic.
This is the new foreign minister of the UK...
Boris Johnson: allies should join Assad and Russia against Isis
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/07/boris-johnson-allies-should-join-assad-and-russia-against-isis
Posted by: Mandel | Jul 13 2016 19:46 utc | 73
@crone #69
That Wikipedia definition was the funniest thing I have seen in ages. One could write several full essays on the utter lack of logic and historical knowledge of it. I needed a good laugh so I thank you ever so much for that post! (no snark, I mean it)
@Jules #46
Good points, thank you for that. The only quibble I might have is that you are right in modern meanings but that in the beginning it was the Left that was for the people and against the ancien régime. We have to go with the modern meanings for communications.
Consider that the word "Liberal" once meant something entirely different than it does today. The Classical Liberals believed: https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism
Heck, we even now have socialistic anarchists who want to use "no government" to enforce total egalitarianism on the world. WTF??
Oh well, a common language is not so common after all.
Thanks to all for any comment on my question.
Posted by: Mark Stoval | Jul 13 2016 20:07 utc | 74
Secret ballots should have no place in a democracy, voting should be open and transparent and not behind a veil of secrecy, especially when the Labour Party NEC are elected officials. It beggars belief that these Blairites can spew such rubbish. A couple of day's ago Neil Kinnock [he who has his and family snout's firmly into the EU's financial trough] said that Corbyn was unelectable, what brass neck from the man who in his 9 years as Labour leader fought and lost two General elections.
Posted by: harrylaw | Jul 13, 2016 10:17:39 AM | 32
The secrecy is a tricky issue. For example, people are vulnerable to their employers, family, landlords etc. Secret ballot in popular elections are a good idea. Secret ballot in a rule making committee is a different beast. Moreover, their decisions were such that no wonder they preferred secrecy. In my language it is called: "a candle for the Lord and a taper for the Devil". Retroactive stripping party member of their ballot rights (with two day "grace period") is definitely a "taper for the Devil".
It seems that NATO is in serious danger and the war party did not bury their tomahawks yet.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jul 13 2016 20:14 utc | 75
Mandel @ 74
Yes Boris Johnson is the new foreign secretary: Teresa May has already lost her grip (if she ever had one). The Brexit clown is now going to work with the EU to find an amicable solution. It can only get worse before it maybe never gets better.
Posted by: Quentin | Jul 13 2016 20:26 utc | 76
By the way, Labour politics remind me ancient "Noble democracy" of Polish-Lithuanian government. There were two basic rules: "one saber one vote" (each member of the gentry had one vote, only the gentry could vote and carry sabers, and during elections it was highly provident to have a saber, the use of firearms in caucuses was highy frowned upon, but brandishing sabers, not so much) and consensus. Intimidation was more of a feature than a bug.
A history book cited a memoir: "[during a county caucus, two MPs were elected by such a causes and a lot of county offices] Sir Massalski with his son killed Sir Eysmontt and many a good gentry were slashed".
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jul 13 2016 20:32 utc | 77
I just made a web search, and there was a hit to the following explanation in The Independent:
More than 100,000 new Labour Party members must pay a £25 fee to take part in the upcoming leadership election vote.
The decision by Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) has caused outrage among Jeremy Corbyn's supporters who have interpreted it to be another attack on his leadership.
There are, however, a number of ways to avoid the fee, which currently is an obstacle to around 20 per cent of the membership who joined the party after 12 January.
Firstly, people can join the Unite union as a community member, paying 50p a week until becoming an affiliate member by 8 August.
This would allow members or anyone interested, including students and the unemployed, to vote in the upcoming election.
Secondly, if you are black, Asian or belong to an ethnic minority, you would be eligible to vote in the election after paying £5 for a two-year membership of BAME Labour.
If you are LGBT, you could gain a say in the leadership election if you join LGBT Labour for £8 a year.
Alternatively, you could join Scientists for Labour for a concession rate of £5 to vote.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jul 13 2016 20:42 utc | 78
I am old. Never voted in my life. Why? No point. You get involved in that pointless exercise if you have the time and the slave mentality. Good luck... And when, after generations, nothing has improved, come and have a chat...
Posted by: dan | Jul 13 2016 20:59 utc | 79
Syriza...oops, Sanders, was always more loyal to the Democratic party then his ideology. ALWAYS.
I don't know why his supporters are surprised. Did they actually think he was lying when he said he would support Hillary Clinton.
And not only that, he out right lied saying that the Democrats have the most progressive platform in Democrat history !!! A fucking ludicrous lie to protect evil Hillary. Disgraceful.
Most of The left are so pathetic it's embarrassing, it's a great invitation to be dominated by the right wing.
I believe every threat that the despicable right wing will bring, I do not believe the ideology commitment the vast majority of the left wing in power. Miserable lying cowards.
It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support, but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate new movement.
Posted by: tom | Jul 13 2016 21:13 utc | 80
Congrats to those who labelled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call.
Posted by: MadMax2 | Jul 13 2016 21:41 utc | 81
Yesterday I had two emails from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, giddy with joy over Sanders endorsement of Clinton. Today I had another, which made me giddy with joy:
After Bernie’s call for unity yesterday, we just figured Democrats would...well...unify.Great to hear that they're falling on their faces. The DCCC recruits ex-Republicans, Republicans-Lite, and conservative Democrats to run for Congress, and actively oppose liberal candidates. Long may they fail. Support worthy individual candidates.
But instead, everything is falling apart.
FIRST: We heard barely a peep from grassroots Democrats.
THEN: A Quinnipiac poll showed Trump and Clinton tied in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
NOW: We’re questioning whether the Democratic Party can unify at all.
Posted by: Mudduck | Jul 13 2016 22:08 utc | 82
@77 In fact Boris the clown is just the man to deal with Angela. What's going on in the UK is all about immigration of course....though nobody wants to actually say so.
The only question now is will Mrs. May sign Article 50 before or after Angela agrees to negotiate.
Posted by: dh | Jul 13 2016 22:40 utc | 83
Don't know if anyone's mentioned this book: "The Clinton's war on Women." There's a good long review posted here, http://thesaker.is/the-clintons-war-on-women/ Lots of potential mud for Trump to sling that will stick.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 13 2016 23:56 utc | 84
Mark Stoval @ 16, 75:
Distinctions between Left and Right, while relevant to 1790s Revolutionary France, have become (and deliberately so) blurred.
The distinction you must make these days is between those forces (and they can be government, collective, individual, religious, private, corporate, whatever you want to call them, and whatever their management and structures are) that concentrate and centralise power in a small power elite on the one hand, and on the other those forces that want to diffuse power through society so that everyone has the opportunity to exercise some of that power.
Perhaps you should read the English-language translation of Benito Mussolini's manifesto "The Doctrine of Fascism at this link:
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
Then read the article on the economic component to Mussolini's fascism here:
http://www.fascismusa.com/
- and see if you agree with what it says and predicts.
Posted by: Jen | Jul 14 2016 0:03 utc | 85
@ 46
To say the Republican Party is of the left is laughable. The left traditionally favoured more equality in wages and salaries, in access to education and healthcare. While the left represented employees/workers the right favoured shareholders and bosses. In other words the left emphasized human capital in an enterprise while the right favoured financial capital. I use the past tense because Clinton and Blair became Reagan II and Thatcher II respectively, thus ending any notion that the Democratic Party or Labour Party could in any sense be described as of the left.
The elites were split in the early 1930s.The financial sector had trashed the economy which, together with a fear of communist revolution, allowed Roosevelt to bring in the New Deal. The same situation pre-New Deal is now coming to pass except without the threat of communist revolution. Libertarians argue that big government is the problem when they should know that the financial sector took over governments decades ago, just as J.P.Morgan was de facto US President from 1900 to 1913. They also took over corporations lock, stock and many smoking barrels, beginning with the leveraged buyouts of the 1980s – Do what we say or you get taken over. The more workers you lay off the higher we fix your stock price. And by the way the company only exists to benefit the shareholders, your employers (an idea first mooted by the fiendish Milton Friedman in 1970).
Posted by: Lochearn | Jul 14 2016 0:28 utc | 86
Never voted in my life.
Posted by: dan | Jul 13, 2016 4:59:28 PM | 80
Sounds like Dan is the smartest guy in the room.
Posted by: DM | Jul 14 2016 0:32 utc | 87
Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns.
Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders' 'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race.
Donald Trump is even worse. He hasn't released any tax info. He claims that the IRS is auditing him (and that they have for many years). But why not release estimates and/or earlier tax returns?
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 14 2016 0:36 utc | 88
We have gone through the looking glass. This evening on Public Broadcasting Service television news hour Dr. Assad was interviewed by Judy Woodruff, a talking head teleprompter reading hand puppet. Dr. Assad was asked if Donald Trump was elected President would his lack of foreign relations diplomacy chops hinder his administrations abilities to achieve their goals. The question was of no import. Nor was the answer. THE FACT THAT DR. ASSAD WAS TREATED AS AN EQUAL and not "Assad must go" is a very significant event. VERY SIGNIFICANT!
Just me opinion
Posted by: ALberto | Jul 14 2016 1:26 utc | 89
in re 82 --
He's a democratic socialist, so such affiliations and tactics are not unusual. The Democratic Socialists of America, for example, a Socialist International section, is wholly within the Democratic Party.
Posted by: rufus magister | Jul 14 2016 1:29 utc | 90
Excuse the OT, but is anyone else following the story about Putin firing the entire officer
class of the Baltic fleet? It's all over the net.
Posted by: Penelope | Jul 14 2016 2:13 utc | 91
The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass.
I thought everyone knew Bernie, Hillary and Donald are all bought and sold by Goldman? Hillary and Donald sold their progeny to The Tribe, and Bernie is a woo-woo already. The traitor Chosen sold US into slavery with Gramm-Leich-Bliley, and fawning sycophant Al-Clintonim signed that bill into 'law' (sic), in return for her US Senate seat from NY.
Badda-boom, badda-bing!
These are the Vampire Squid, the Takers, Mafia Elites 'who settled the Western Frontier' and now are the 'Disruptors' of the Public Space into a privatized Fivrr-Uber hell. They own you. You are owned by the Private Central Bankim. Even a small child will tell you that your only real 'free choice' is to write-in "HELL NO!" in November, then flee to the 3W.
"We did not know" Lol, sure you didn't.
Posted by: Cho Nyawinh | Jul 14 2016 2:17 utc | 92
Re: Posted by: Jack Smith | Jul 13, 2016 12:59:20 PM | 58
Pretty sure you're jumping to conclusions there champ.
Where did I ever say I'm voting for Trump?
Re: Posted by: Noirette | Jul 13, 2016 1:13:51 PM | 60
U.S. (Far more than what I stated)
http://nypost.com/2015/11/11/this-bum-boasts-he-makes-200-an-hour-panhandling/
A panhandler outside Grand Central Terminal says he rakes in up to $200 an hour from kind-hearted New Yorkers.
And the 43-year-old former theater stagehand is only one of a legion of beggars in the city hauling in big bucks and a smorgasbord of food doing nothing but sitting on the sidewalk with hands out.
“On a Friday morning, I make $400 in two hours,’’ said Will Andersen, who was with his 9-year-old dog, Rizzo, on East 42nd Street between Vanderbilt and Madison avenues on Tuesday.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/164e6f/for_those_who_have_ever_been_beggars_how_much/
There is this interesting blog post About some dudes who did this as an experiment with different signs. Here is the summary of how much they made.
Dog day: $13.20/hr
Exwife day: $3.30/hr
Ninjas day: $13.65/hr
Beer day: $10.15/hr + 5 beers valued at say 72 cents beer = $11.95/hr
Wheelchair day: $23.59/hr
How much would that be a year working 40 hours a week:
Dog day: $27,456
Exwife day: $6,864
Ninjas day: $28,392
Beer day: $24,856
Wheelchair day: $49,067
The sight of a person in tatty clothes begging on the street is enough to elicit money from many well-meaning passers-by.
But, it was claimed last night, some 'beggars' could be office workers with homes who are topping up their salaries by earning £200 a night from donations.
Employees are said to be returning from their day jobs and dressing up in rags to spend their evenings pocketing spare change.
One office worker with a 9 to 5 job said she planned to use the money earned by begging outside cash points and shops to pay for a new kitchen in her flat.
Last night, police warned that growing numbers of people were turning to professional begging to stave off the recession by earning hundreds of pounds tax-free a night.
Officers in Leicester have launched a crackdown after discovering that none of the 20 beggars they had cautioned in the last fortnight was homeless.
Sergeant Adrian Underwood said some beggars could earn up to £200 on a Friday or Saturday night.
I mean seriously.
The only reason you wouldn't beg if you had no money would be because you had too much pride to do so.
Pride comes before a fall as you might be aware.
If you consider maintaining your pride to be more important than supporting someone who might actually change the country and change your circumstances, well, I despair for your powers of reasoning.
Re: Posted by: harrylaw | Jul 13, 2016 1:20:16 PM | 61
The point you make is a different one. If there is merit in your claim then no doubt Corbyn and his supporters will challenge it in court and get it overturned.
The unions that are backing JC are not short of the coin required to do this.
Re: Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 13, 2016 2:16:34 PM | 66
Oh please mate. Presumably not all the Labour members who joined up couldn't afford another £25 impost to be able to take part?
Are you implying that all supporters of JC must be poor and of no means?
That is a very discriminatory accusation to level at JC supporters. Effectively tarring them all as hopeless no-hopers without an ounce of resourcefulness.
followup @89
Sanders didn't release his other tax returns even when it became an issue in the campaign.
Hillary said that she wouldn't release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches until Sanders had released more tax returns. Her reasoning: she had complied with what was expected of a Presidential candidate while the other had not yet done so.
Why wouldn't he immediately release those returns - which his campaign had claimed contained no surprises - so as to force Hillary to release the transcripts?
Very suspicious.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 14 2016 2:36 utc | 97
Re: Posted by: Copeland | Jul 13, 2016 3:42:44 PM | 73
Re: Posted by: Mark Stoval | Jul 13, 2016 4:07:56 PM | 75
Good points, both, thanks.
Spare me, you lame-ass poseurs. Y’all can bring on your worst. I still have yet to break a sweat.
To be fair, that you’re wallowing in invective and projecting your own bad faith is making it easy. As opposed to offering up real information or analysis.
Hey, I’m not the one with the fantasy that Greens will win. Or that things will improve with Trump. Or that socialism and neo-liberalism are the same.
Didn’t you forget “Go back to Russia”?
Yeah, we’re so hopeless, sure.... It was only millions who voted for the soft-red Sanders. He’s done so badly, you wanted to be gifted his organization and voters. You know, the one that put talk of socialism back on the agenda? That hoary old doctrine that our young millennials are now so keen on.
And in any case, we Reds don’t pretend that we can somehow be swept to power this year, as long as Sanders or the tiresome Dr. Stein intones the proper incantation. We’re playing a long game.
And hey, wasn’t the “end of history” supposed to throw us on “the trash heap of history?” Goin’ on, goin’ strong.
I wonder why Sawant isn’t arguing for her own party, Socialist Alternative? They’ve been doing the entryism thing in the Sanders campaign. I suppose they think the Greens would be easier to take over than the Democrats. Can’t argue that one.
As I have said before, the Greens are a known quantity in American politics. Dreary moralism, unattractive politics, uninteresting candidates, piss-poor organization. If the Sandersistas wanted to be Greens, they’d be so already.
And here’s an irony – we have all these folks whining about identity politics. But then arguing for a vote for the Greens, one of the biggest retailers of identity politics around. Our dog-handler Dixon, for example, appears very keen on displacing the present "black misleadership" with his own. And it seems that he is accusing Sanders of something he was doing himself – “From 1975 to 1998, he worked in campaigns for local office trying to hijack the Democratic Party from below.” Failed to round up enough sheep, I guess.
Apparently a failure at class-based politics in the late 20th. cent., he moved back to identity politics with the founding of the Black Agenda Report in 2009, having been a Panther for a couple of years around 1970. He now seems to be working on hijacking the Green Party; I previously noted his plan to reorganize the Greens.
Green Tea Trumpism for everyone! It’s huuuuuuge! You will get so used to winning again....
in re 51 –
You look to have no brains whatsoever.
Posted by: rufus magister | Jul 14 2016 3:17 utc | 99
Trump's finance chair is Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs partner. The banks own Hillary and Trump. Heads they win, tails we lose.
Posted by: Zipwitch | Jul 14 2016 3:45 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
It is long, long past the time to see the world we really live in; the realities of our western faux democracies.
Until and unless we recognise the facts, as they are, nothing can be changed. The problem/s must be identified for it/them to be solved.
It doesn't take a critical mass of people; but it takes more than a few; far more than evidenced this election cycle...
Posted by: V. Arnold | Jul 13 2016 5:04 utc | 1