CWU support of Jeremy Corbyn

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 12 Jul 2016, 21:15

Democracy?
250,000 get to choose the most important person in a party voted for by nearly 10 million people at the last election.
Do the Labour membership represent Labour voters?
Well do Tory party members represent Tory party voters?
If they do there must be about 11,000,000 over 60s driving range rovers through Oxford on their way to bridge club tonight.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 12 Jul 2016, 21:31

fishtank wrote: Labour party members.. don't care if Labour never has any power again as long as they get to choose the manner of its death.

Come on FT - we both know thats not true.

Kinnocks/Blairs Labour Party was not a socialist party - and it offered only the appearance of being an alternative/opposition to the Conservatives.

From here on in at least we will have an alternative. You, personally, might not want to vote for that alterantive. Fair enough - vote LIB Dem instead. But, believe it or not, even you are in a better position for at least having that alternative. You are in a stronger position as a citizen, you have more bargaining power. Now you have a choice, and you could withdraw your consent. You haven't been able to do that for the last 35 years.

Now we have hope.

Get behind Jeremy Corbyn - get behind socialism - get behind Clause IV.

ps. can I just make a disclaimer here. I am not a member of the militant tendency. I am not Muslim fundamentalist. I don't want to steal your children. I am not an anti-semite etc etc etc.
I'm an ordinary bloke who didn't have the chances that a lot of people in this country seem to have had - and I'm not daft enough to imagine that it was all my own fault.

Neither should you.

Newbie001 · Post by **Newbie001** » 12 Jul 2016, 21:38

fishtank wrote:172 democratically elected people who know come the next election with Corbyn in charge they won't be 're-elected.
Call it self preservation if you like but sometimes you need something to lose to keep you straight, the Labour party members have nothing to lose, the don't care if Labour never has any power again as long as they get to choose the manner of its death.

You've got to admit, those 172 MP's were partly responsible for the last Labour leader. See how electable he was. Failed miserably against one of the most hated PMs ever. Hardly the best judges on the mood of the people.
Have never voted Labour in my life, but finding myself starting to warm to Corbyn. Just for the fact he won't let himself be bullied.

Post by **dvbuk55** » 13 Jul 2016, 07:12

I fail to understand why any labour supporter would be happy to consign the party they purportedly support to political oblivion. There will undoubtedly be a split if Corbyn wins because there is no way that the PLP will support his idea of socialism. Corbyns idea of socialism is embedded in the 60s and that is so far removed from the reality of the 21st century. The flat cap roll up smoking socialists wallow in the pointless rhetoric Corbyn spouts and may well elect him again.

Shame on the unions for supporting a lost cause. The best option is for Theresa May to call an election and for everyone to see what a bloodbath it will be for labour with Corbyn as leader and finally get rid of him.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 13 Jul 2016, 14:03

There are no checks and balances to ensure that Labour party members are really Labour party supporters, nor is there anything in place to ensure that the party remains a broad church reflecting the diverse views of all Labour supporters.

Do we know the percentages of female members, ethnic minorities, lesbian, gay , transgender? Do we know who's doing the voting?

Why did JC vote against a secret ballot last night?
Why did he want to publicly out those who didn't support him?
Didn't he understand that this would open them up to abuse and intimidation or was that the whole idea, bully the NEC into supporting him or his peeps would be straight onto Twitter and looking for bricks. Shameful behaviour.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 13 Jul 2016, 17:35

Anyone here in the know with regards what impact (if any) the proposed changes to the voting rules the NEC proposed yesterday will make to CWU members ? I don't think it will affect our right to vote - but it would be nice to have confirmation. It was all done by email last time - will it be so this time, and where do I register ?

"Last time it was open to anyone prepared to pay £3 - and it was the £3 supporters, more than the paid up party members, who gave Jeremy Corbyn his swingeing victory.This time, supporters will have to re-register and pay £25. And the thousand of new recruits who have joined the party since the referendum will have to pay that fee if they want to vote, because the executive has ruled only those who have been party members for at least six months will have an automatic right to vote."

£25 to vote, when this (see below) is what you were led to believe when you joined the party. Can't be right, surely ? Privatising the right to vote ? The Labour Party ? Effectively discriminating against the least well off in society. Disgraceful.

Petition going here if you feel that the proposed changes are unjust and wish to make your feelings known.

Post by **dvbuk55** » 13 Jul 2016, 18:39

jetblack wrote:Petition going here if you feel that the proposed changes are unjust and wish to make your feelings known.

Where do you go to vote if you feel that the changes ARE just and will probably exclude the cloth cap and braces brigade.

As a matter of interest are the CWU still supporting Corbyn? It would be fruitless to have a political fund to support a party that has no chance of having any influence whatsoever in the near, or even far, future. Mind you would it bother the union hoi poloi they'll still be sat at a table waffling about social justice whilst agreeing with RM any unsocial changes for its members.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 13 Jul 2016, 20:14

fishtank wrote: Why did JC vote against a secret ballot last night?

Maybe the vote on wether to have had a secret ballot should itself have been a secret ballot ? Why wasn't it ? So that Corbyns vote could be used against him at a later date ?
This is getting ridiculous.

dvbuk55 wrote: It would be fruitless to have a political fund to support a party that has no chance of having any influence

It would be fruitless having a union political fund to support a party that drafted the proposals to privatise our industry,courtesy of Lord Mandelson, wouldn't you say ?

This is the only alternative - always has been, always will be. It won't go out of fashion, and is as salient today as it was when it was written 1918. Its Clause iv of the Labour Party constitution (or was until Blair had it removed) :-

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

If you don't believe in Clause iv you are effectively a Tory by any other name. And your place is the Conservative Party.

Post by **dvbuk55** » 13 Jul 2016, 21:06

jetblack wrote:

This is the only alternative - always has been, always will be. It won't go out of fashion, and is as salient today as it was when it was written 1918. Its Clause iv of the Labour Party constitution (or was until Blair had it removed) :-

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

If you don't believe in Clause iv you are effectively a Tory by any other name. And your place is the Conservative Party.

Really? Are you going to set Jezza's boo boys on me? Clause iv was relevant in 1918, the scenario then socially and economically was totally different to today, 100 years later. You still think it's salient today jet? I really feel sorry for you if you cannot differentiate between the two. I was born in 1946 and started school in 1951 pupils then had cardboard in their shoes, outside toilets shared by 3 families in back to back 2 up and 2 down with as many as 4,5,6 kids sleeping top to tail. Doss houses where ex soldiers from the war and down and outs would sleep for a penny a night - made up fiction? - absolutely not that was the circumstances in which I grew up. I confess that my particular circumstances were more privileged than many of the families my school friends came from but nevertheless rationing was still on and clothes and sugar and sweets and fruit were scarce whilst the country rebuilt itself after the war. I was 11 before we got a TV, prior to that it was the wireless or home made entertainment.

You tell me that clause iv is as relevant today as it was 100 years ago, take the hood off and look at the 21st century jet. In 1957 Harold Macmillan told the country "you've never had it so good", well he wasn't wrong in some respects because by 1957 the country was starting the recovery from the war and commodities were becoming more available. Today I say, that in comparison to 1918, you've never had it so good.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 13 Jul 2016, 21:39

It's exactly that mind set and language, that not believing in blind across the board state ownership means you're obviously a Tory that has disengaged Labour's heartland. Buying your council house also makes you a Tory, worrying about immigration makes you a Tory, not sending your kids to the local comprehensive makes you a Tory, having any kind of individual social aspiration makes you a Tory.

If you keep telling people who disagree with you they're Tories eventually they'll agree with you, Blair for all his faults got that, he wasn't trying to turn the party into Tory-lite, he was trying to turn Tories into Labour-lite. It was working, people with aspirations and a social conscience were no longer embarrassed to call themselves Labour supporters, he was a scumbag on foreign policy but he understood that you'll never get people who want to get out of poverty to follow someone who believes it's your social duty to stay poor.

FinishOnTime · Post by **FinishOnTime** » 13 Jul 2016, 21:57

The CWUs and Dave Ward's unwavering support for Corbyn is nothing short of a disgrace. As a rep, I spend a lot of my time defending unions and trying to persuade friends, family, colleagues and acquaintances that they're a force for good and not the outdated dinosaurs that many people perceive them to be.

Our union's support for Corbyn, and the disgraceful abuse that has happened, both on social media and in "real life", has made even me contemplate that the Trade Union movement in this country may well be a lost cause.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 13 Jul 2016, 22:03

So, public ownership of this countries wealth (producing industries) is no longer valid cos my next door neighbour is at zero risk of developing cholera and is able to post his heartrate on Facebook via a handheld device as he walks to the chippy ?

Thats all well and good - but just because over time there have been advances in science and technology, this in no way ameliorates for this :-

We are talking about different things.

fishtank wrote:It's exactly that mind set and language..... that has disengaged Labour's heartland.

Do you know why a country that not so long ago was completely Labour now have no Labour MP's at all ie. Scotland ? Did the entire nation wake up one day being collectively completely different animals, with different values,norms and beliefs ? No - its due in part to a good chunk of those that now vote nationalist hoping for an independant Scotland where they might start again to vote for a socialist party that will represent them and their interests - which indeed the Labour Party once had, but which Blairs Labour miserably failed to do.
Don't you think thats a damning indictment for a political philosophy that seemed to be based on nothing more than popularity ? It backfired - as naked populism often will - and ended up bringing about that which it least desired.
But then that is what politics has become isn't it - that shallow longing to win people over and gain their consent, so that the politicians themselves might better maintain the status quo. Thanks in part to Kinnock/Blair et al.

Labours heartland has been disengaged yes. What do you expect in the 21st century when men and women who have had everything are hoping to represent those who have had nothing ?

It won't wash any more. The game is up.

Post by **dvbuk55** » 14 Jul 2016, 07:15

jetblack wrote:We are talking about different things.

Yes most of us are talking about different things jet. You are basing your argument on a philosophy created after the first world war when people were underprivileged, poor, without social support, when there was a great class divide far more apparent than today. Whilst most of us realise that people have changed in a hundred years, their aspirations have changed, social and healthcare has changed and the productive industries you harp on about are no longer there - I mean where have you been for the last 25 years.

You just don't get it jet, the tired downtrodden, hard pressed poor seeking social reform, aren't there. Do we still have poor people, of course, but not by comparison. How many times do you see "Life on the dole",( todays poor?) watching a 40 inch flat screen TV and hawking fags out of a 20 packet of Benson and Hedges at nearly a tenner a packet?

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 14 Jul 2016, 08:32

dvbuk55 wrote: How many times do you see "Life on the dole",( todays poor?) watching a 40 inch flat screen TV and hawking fags out of a 20 packet of Benson and Hedges at nearly a tenner a packet?

LOL - "Give em an inside toilet and some people will start voting Tory" -and, sure enough...

One thing hasn't changed in the last 100 years since Clause iv was drawn up. One half of the land, in my country, is owned by around 500 people. Much the same in England, where the same handful of families own the majority of the land that owned it 150 years ago.

I know that this doesn't probably bother you too much - the Queen does a lot for this country etc etc - you've got your hd telly and the mortgage is paid off. But to some of us, in 2016, this kind of thing does matter.

It matters because when you own nothing you are always bound to return to your masters table with your cap in hand, looking for a handout. (A flat cap BTW, if DVB is to be believed

) You have been denied the means by which you are able to attain independance and dignity.

Same old same old. Clause iv is as relevant today as it was 100 years ago. And it will still be relevant 100 years from now I'm afraid - mobiles that control the temp of your fridge from 1000 miles away or not

Anyhow, I'm starting to get tired of the sound of my own voice - I may post back here when the leadership contest is over, but not before.

Post by **dvbuk55** » 14 Jul 2016, 08:50

jetblack wrote:Anyhow, I'm starting to get tired of the sound of my own voice - I may post back here when the leadership contest is over, but not before.

Yes me too! Only post on here if Corbyn loses and the labour party can begin to rebuild itself without the loony left this time. Although would you indulge me one last time and enlighten me as to which industries you would renationalise.