Well, no, it’s known as being a Trot

Hide your kids: those dastardly undemocratic reds are coming again! The front page of one Murdoch outlet today carries wild reports of “Moderates forced out by hard left in Labour purge”.

What has actually happened is this: Labour is choosing candidates to stand as councillors in next year’s local elections. In some cases, members have democratically decided that some sitting councillors should face an open contest. This happened automatically until a rule change last year. Calculating that they will lose to a leftwing alternative, some have stood down. Others have lost. This is not a “purge”. This is what is known as “democracy”.

It’s a classic piece of the Trot methods.

Some half a dozen of the committed meet first to decide the agenda for a meeting, decide upon who the candidate is going to be. Only then does the wider interest group get presented with a hoice. In that manner the small group manages to control the process.

18 comments on “Well, no, it’s known as being a Trot

  1. Though the generation of e-Trots seems less effective at it than their forefathers. Lots of Labour moderates seem broadly optimistic about holding them off – they might make a lot of noise on social media but rarely seem to attend actual meetings and actually vote. Even the old trick of taking control of procedure and beating everyone into submission by knowledge of obscure bits of the rule book seems to have passed them by – Corbyn lost some tight committee votes last year in comical faction by not making sure he and his supporters were present for all the votes. (Can’t remember the details but I believe in one case they left the room to celebrate one victory but voting on next item proceeded without them.)

  2. It’s all to the good, if you ask me. Choosing candidates in this manner will inevitably lead to more nutters like that bloke in Sheffield and people who rave about the Jews and their plotting. All making Labour ever-more unelectable.

  3. Reminds me of the website of the communist party of Great Britain. In the FAQ section there was an answer about democracy. Apparently democracy is OK but only in the context of a permanently communist state. In other words you can vote on what kind of communist state you have provided it is communist.

  4. Although there is no point in me crowing about the mentalist pinko version of Labour being unelectable when that means what ends up in government is Continuity New Labour.

  5. TBH I’m totally cool with the wild-eyed trots getting charge of selections. It means there’ll be more wild-eyed, antisemitic Marxoid loonies scaring the horses into voting for the useless Tories.

  6. TBH I’m totally cool with the wild-eyed trots getting charge of selections. It means there’ll be more wild-eyed, antisemitic Marxoid loonies scaring the horses into voting for the useless Tories.

    Sound in theory but doesn’t seem to work in practice. After all, a couple of wild-eyed loonies are all over the national news for months and the public almost put them in Downing Street.

  7. “Sound in theory but doesn’t seem to work in practice. After all, a couple of wild-eyed loonies are all over the national news for months and the public almost put them in Downing Street.”

    … in an election that would have been won in a landslide by some grey NuLab drone.

  8. ‘Democracy’ is when his side wins.

    Leftards use the word, not because they care, but because you do.

  9. “Sound in theory but doesn’t seem to work in practice. After all, a couple of wild-eyed loonies are all over the national news for months and the public almost put them in Downing Street.”

    Quite so. Huge numbers of the lower classes vote Labour for the handouts and ignore the rest of Labour’s programme.

  10. … in an election that would have been won in a landslide by some grey NuLab drone.

    Well, the swivel-eyed nutters polled 12,878,460 votes in the 2017 General Election, which is miles more than any “NuLab” candidate except for Blair in 1997, who got 13,518,167.

    The NuLab drones hovered roughly between 8.5m and 10.5m.

  11. @Salamander

    Apparently democracy is OK but only in the context of a permanently communist state. In other words you can vote on what kind of communist state you have provided it is communist.

    Which reminds me of the old joke,
    “The Kremlin was broken into last night and the results of next years election were stolen”

  12. The Fish Faced Cow is the best friend Corbog has.

    A decent Tory leader would have cleaned Grandpa Death’s clock back in June. The young and stupid vote notwithstanding.

  13. “democratically decided that some sitting councillors should face an open contest”

    That’s the weird bit. When I was a local councillor you had to apply for reselection *every* *time*$. I find it really weird that a/some political parties default to letting you stay there as long as you like, in my party getting elected automatically voided your approval.

    $’cos we had a boundary review that meant I did 4 years, 1 year, 2 years, 4 years, with a bloody general election in the middle as well.

  14. On the other hand, circa 1974 a small gang of Tories decided to jettison the whole system of post-war demand management in this country, whereby wage levels were kept ahead of price rises. They ,principally Keith Joseph, decided to take over from Edward Heath but Joseph’s leadership bid speech at Edgbaston was so fascist and loony “Our human stock is threatened” that he was forced to hand on the baton to Margaret Thatcher who finessed the tricky bit of discouraging the lower orders from breeding, as KJ had proposed, by encouraging the middling orders instead,giving them unearned untaxed capital gains in owner-occupied housing (house price inflation). She ruined the British economy, probably forever, as a result
    Do not prate about democracy in the Labour Party.

  15. @VP
    Glad to oblige:
    The Bank of England made clear in its bulletin “Money creation in the modern economy” that “the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks” i.e, not the government which allows the commercial banks to create money then borrows it off them. Don’t ask me why.You explain it: you think you know more than the B of E.
    Adam Smith established before the French Revolution that if the government brought good order to a country and encouraged its industry, land values would rise (‘land value uplift’ in modern parlance) and the government had first claim on these funds as the primary source of its taxation monies.(As opposed to bird brain who decided that houseowners could keep all windfall capital gains in their house prices because a) it would ensure that homeowners would keep voting “Tory” (post <Macmillan type) despite a fall in wage levels and b) she was very thick but wouldn't be found out till after her death and the collapse of the banking system .

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.