Forum search & shortcuts
THM is keen to ignore what TJ actually said.
tjagain - MemberUndo the damage done by Blair and Mandleson which turned Labour from a mass membership party to one of a tiny membership
This categorically happened. 4 years of growth don't dispel 11 years of decline. Under Blair, membership tanked to an all-time low.
It wasn't that it was an "unsustainable rise"- he's not being criticised for not sustaining the rise. That'd be a fair point if it'd fallen to pre-Blair levels, but of course it didn't, the fall didn't even slow as it passed through pre-Blair levels.
"Your sales have fallen disastrously this year"
"No they haven't- they went up in January and February!"
"But then they went down in March and didn't stop falling til December, and your year end results are half what they were last year"
"But they rose! Anyone can see this is factually correct! If you disagree you are destined to remain in the darkness!"
"You're fired"
"No I'm not! You're just whitewashing my success!"
let's not forget that all parties' membership figures have been declining too. (until Jez). - and the Tories lost just as many members from 97 to 2007 as Labour did.
In fact Maggie lost a lot more members during her time as leader of the tories than Blair did for Labour...
Source:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05125/SN05125.pdf#page=8
Oh goodie, a NW lets argue against something that hasnt been said session!!
They did doris - but one thing that cannot be refuted is the success that Blair had in Sedgefield and as leader of the party originally. So that falsifies TJ point - which was my point. NW will no doubt try to twist this into something else - see above ^
diris except the SNP - who at one point had more members than any other UK party IIRC but now overtaken by Labour ( perhaps)
1:10 of the scots population are now SNP members
diris except the SNP - who at one point had more members than any other UK party IIRC but now overtaken by Labour ( perhaps)1:10 of the scots population are now SNP members
where are you getting these numbers?
The National says they're on 120K, wiki says 120K - which is about one in 40. Labour are now on 500K-ish, and have never been below about 200...
sources:
etc
PSA alert
1:10 of the scots population are now SNP members
If I read this correctly 1:10 is 10%.
SNP membership is 120,000....you do the maths...(population is about 5.4million)
Perhaps 2% is closer to the mark, but never let facts....you know the rest....
Shall we start an amusing tag to go with that? TJFact, perhaps? Too close to Jambafacts?
😉
No that would be unkind and stooping to the levels of the Jamba baiters! 😉
PSA alerts should be fine.
So ... serious question Uncle Jezza.... how do you think the beardy messiah's clear and concise message, and commanding, inspiring leadership is going to play out at the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election on Thursday?
I'm going for Labour finishing dead last, and losing their deposit, overtaken by both UKIP and the Lib Dems. Do you see a different outcome?
Binners - no idea about the byelection. I have no knowledge or interest in it really so couldn't predict. I am afraid I have lost all real interest in English politics / even polityics in gneral to a great extent given recent events.
Intersting Doris - I thought they had hit over 400 000. Blame an old mans memory.
CFH - hence "IIRC" which means I was sloppy and didn't factcheck. shouldn't rely on my memory should I 😳
Old age, TJ, it comes to us all eventually. 😉
or Wings over Scotland 😉
teamhurtmore - MemberThey did doris - but one thing that cannot be refuted is the success that Blair had in Sedgefield and as leader of the party originally. So that falsifies TJ point - which was my point.
It simply does not falsify TJ's point, and it's pretty absurd to claim it does. TJ said Blair "turned Labour from a mass membership party to one of a tiny membership", which the numbers show is true. A short rise doesn't cancel an overall decline and does nothing at all to falsify TJ's point- which was an uncontroversial statement of fact, yet which THM claimed was "re-writing of history".
It's all written on the previous page, in words. But we've got THM's standard tactic of saying one thing, making an argument about something else, then pretending that the one supports the other. A reverse strawman, as it were.
Bravo. QED.
Since you are on a roll, have a crack at the 1:10 point now. That takes a bit more imagination mind...bon chance
short rise v 30% increase 94-97 😀
Nicely put Northwind. this is why I block THMs posts
teamhurtmore - MemberSince you are on a roll, have a crack at the 1:10 point now
That one was bollocks obviously, and he admitted his mistake, sooooo
which is an improvement, your turn now...
Northwind - really - its much less frustrating to simply ignore him.
Yes just ignore me and pretend that a 30% mebership increase didn't happen and that the so-called Sedgefield model never existed. Much easier....
if you are actually interested in what happened
For 1991-93, these figures reveal the staggering extent of the membership crisis that confronted Labour by the time Blair became leader. Nearly 80,000 people left the party in 1991 alone. In the following two years a further 70,000 departed. In both years the net effect was limited by a considerable number joining. In all, departures between those three years alone represented nearly 50 per cent of the 1990 total.
But better to blame the perma-tanned one - surely a coincidence that his predecessor and successor were of a certain nationality ? 😉
Over 14.0 per cent of members left the party in 2008, the first full year of Gordon Brown’s premiership.
[quote="teamhurtmore"]
teamhurtmore said something stupid.
You talking to me? I doesn't get thru the blocker you know. Its much more fun this way.
No, just making sure that people arent being misled.
teamhurtmore - MemberYes just ignore me and pretend that a 30% mebership increase didn't happen
Nobody is doing that, of course. Why would we? TJ's post was about Blair's time in office, not just the 4 years of it when membership rose but the years which followed where it collapsed to the lowest point in a century.
You claimed TJ was "re-writing history" but you keep quoting from "Labour's Lost Grassroots" which makes it perfectly clear that TJ is correct and that membership crashed under Blair.
Seriously northwind - do not engage with him. It only encourages his nonsense and misrepresentation. Best ignored like all trolls. You won't change his arrogant views in anty way nor will the truth shine thru to him. So best ignored.
QED^2
Why would we?
A good question
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/05/trotskyist-factions-seeking-to-take-over-momentum-member-claims ]Has Binners seen this yet?[/url] 😀
Save reading the article, it can be summed up with an old song:
One trot faction sitting in a hall
One trot faction sitting in a hall
And if one trot faction stands up to speak
There'll be two trot factions sitting in a hall
Two trot factions sitting in a Hall...
( repeat until bored with their childish nonsense )
Momentum really are the most un-electable far left wing jerk fest. Labour will never get back in power with these lot having any say. Blair really was the best they ever had.
There was always a certain inevitability to that Daz
[img] 
[/img]
😀
A mate of mine got involved with momentum down in Oxford. He told me that at the start it was all young idealistic activists, then the old lefties got involved, and strangled it with procedure, rules and committees, so all the young enthusiastic kids left, At least we know that no one has to do anything to fight them, as they'll quickly destroy themselves with their bickering.
This summed it up for me...
[i]Murray’s blog claimed that a row over the form of internal voting structure the group should use at a meeting of its national committee on Saturday ended in bullying and intimidation. Murray, who advises Labour’s town hall spokesman, Grahame Morris, accused AWL members of bullying those they suspect of being “rightwing” or “alt-Stalinist” members. [/i]
I don't even know what alt-Stalinism is. Nor do I want too. I suspect that only about 23 other people in the country actually do, and yes this is one of the less obscure Momentum factions 😆
Which links back to the diverted discussion yesterday dazh. Labour have a track record - Blair and Corbyn - of attracting new members and an even better record at losing them. Is history merely repeating itself? We have Militant and the cuckoos back, will we now have a collapse in membership and electoral irrelevance too?
Wonder what our leader is up to in the middle of all this?
This weekend I was meeting with other socialist & progressive leaders from Europe to discuss how we'll combat the rise of the populist right pic.twitter.com/iuj7kWi5yw
Which reminds me of the child's poen
Tis a strange bird, the cuckoo, sitting in the grass
It's wings neatly folded, it's beak up its *
In this strange position it mutters , "twit, twit"
'cos it's hard to sing cuckoo with a beak full of *
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2016/dec/07/momentum-hope-saved-saboteurs-sectarian-labour ]More on the internecine tribulations of momentum.[/url] Completely fits with what I've been told by various people. Tragic really. Whether you like Corbyn or not, the injection of new energy and thinking into the labour party was/is clearly a good thing. Ironic that the blairite PLP and the old 1980s trots seem to be allies in repelling this new movement. And no doubt as a result the labour party will get exactly what it deserves at the ballot box.
video of recent meeting
Whether you like Corbyn or not, the injection of new energy and thinking
Eh ? new thinking ?
" I wish it were 1978 before all our ideas were conclusively shown to be utter shite"
"Me too comrade, Me too"
"Let's trash the Labour Party"
"Yes, lets, it will be jolly good fun"
There's zero new thinking in trying to re-fail the failures of the past with a smattering of Twitter.
Corbyns entire 'manifesto' was written in the late 70's, and hasn't evolved one single bit ever since.
The only reason its getting an airing now is that theres a new generation of gullible idiots who weren't around to see what a disaster it was first time around
Eh ? new thinking ?
FFS Have you even read that piece? If you had you'd know I'm not talking about Corbyn or the rest of his ilk from the 70s/80s, I'm talking about the under-30s who've joined momentum in the hope that they can forge a new way of doing politics.
theres a new generation of gullible idiots who weren't around to see what a disaster it was first time around
They only have experience of post-thatcher/blair debt, zero hours contracts, sh*tty jobs, unaffordable houses, zero social mobility, a longer working life, and rising taxes to pay for the pensions and healthcare of people who had everything they don't. Compared to that the 1970s looks like a utopian dream.
They only have experience of post-thatcher/blair debt, zero hours contracts, sh*tty jobs, unaffordable houses, zero social mobility, a longer working life, and rising taxes to pay for the pensions and healthcare of people who had everything they don't. Compared to that the 1970s looks like a utopian dream.
I do feel sorry for the current young generation, who alongside all the beneficial reforms of the 80's and increased life expectancy, greater social mobility and better housing, have to suffer from the fact that the country is saddled with high taxes to pay for all the times in the past that money has been spaffed up the wall by governments buying votes - not least the ponzi scheme that is the old age pension.
Cranberry - we are lower taxed than most comparable countries. Remember we get healthcare for our taxes - most others do not.
We are a low tax low wage economy
Indeed - I should have written "higher taxes" a comparison with what previous generations paid for the benefits that they get/got out of the system against my/the younger generation.
My parents generation were very lucky, the bill for final salary pensions, a state pension for them all from 60/65 and free health care is being paid by people who won't get the same when their time comes.
All successive governments do is tinker with the very edges of the pensions problem then kick it down the road, safe in the knowledge that they will be sat at home with a nice final salary pension when the problems hit the generations working and paying the bill.
TMH 🙂
There are some of us who think Momentum has always had a strong AWL influence. Jill Mountford was adressing / chairing Momentum meetings many months ago.
not least the ponzi scheme that is the old age pension.
Careful @cranbury you'll have TJ telling you to read a dictionary. You are absolutely correct including about how governments just kick the can down the road so it's someone else's problem. NHS is much the same. Neither are topics anyone can have a sensible conversation on.
taxes were higher in previous generations as well - certainly direct taxation
We are a low tax low wage economy
PSA this might not be true
taxes were higher in previous generations as well - certainly direct taxation
They certainly were for some in the one-term, insane Labour governments that were tough on prosperity and tough on the causes of prosperity.
You could IIRC be taxed up to 96% ( income tax of 80% and a surcharge for "unearned" income such as share dividends )
Did it work ?
Look on the bright side, fourth is better than fifth.